Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 2 April 4 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] April 3

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

The result of the debate was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Students Living A Mission

nn group, less than 500 unique hits Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 00:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable group. Borderline A7. Royboycrashfan 00:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Where (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, also seems like nothing links to their page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deville (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 02:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Their parent organization, GOD International, is probably borderline notable. But not this project. NTK 05:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to GOD International and write an article on that. --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 06:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Chairman S. Talk 06:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn --Icarus 07:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 10:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. SorryGuy 16:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the nomination. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nick Catalano contrib talk 23:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Heilme 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  05:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yehuda Shahaf

Procedural nomination because a user has disputed whether a consensus existed to turn this into a redirect the last time we got into the whole York Region thing. The user has not only violated 3RR over it, but has registered new sockpuppets to keep reverting even after being blocked. Thus I'm asking for a new consensus: is this a keep, a delete, or a merge into Vaughan municipal election, 2006? No vote from me since this is a procedural nom, but I will say that I'm really not too clear on how we can consider unelected municipal council candidates notable enough for WP inclusion, when the very same city's actual incumbent councillors haven't been able to pass the AFD bar. Bearcat 23:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. If he gets elected, it can be recreated. Ardenn 00:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the last round. pm_shef 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A councillor in a small city would hardly qualify as notable enough for an article, imo; a candidate, still less so. After he's elected I suppose we can talk about it, but I will be sceptical. Bucketsofg 00:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet WP:BIO notability requirements; specifically, Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn per above. —GrantNeufeld 02:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Shahaf is notable for his role in the Israeli military. Skycloud 04:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete all Vaughan councillors and councillor wannabes per consensus that was reached in extensive previous discussions. nn past Israeli military officer, no google hits outside of Vaughan. Luigizanasi 19:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --maclean25 01:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Skycloud--Eyeonvaughan 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Shahaf was the head logistics officer of Israel's civil defense, a country that has one of the largest militaries in the world. VaughanWatch 00:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Moe ε 02:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am relisting this on today's AfD page as there is currently no consensus, which does not help resolve the issue. No vote. Thryduulf 00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. Turn to Google. Royboycrashfan 00:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 00:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Fluit 01:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable as candidate and unverifiable as far as Israeli military concerned. Google for "Yehuda Shahaf" gets 23 hits. [1]Capitalistroadster 01:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. pm_shef 02:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • PM shef has already voted above (this is an extension of the existing discussion, not a new one). Thryduulf 02:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoops, very sorry, I thought that it was starting over again! Sorry about that. pm_shef 03:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn bio. youngamerican (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Skycloud. Monicasdude 03:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN for now, it is a current event. Support on recreation if he wins and the article can be cleaned and wikified. T K E 03:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. Non-notable. Perhaps recreate per TKE, if he wins the election. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xm411

Non-notable web forum Naconkantari e|t||c|m 00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Huh? I clicked that link and got 122,000 hits! --Icarus 07:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Results 1 - 10 of about 148,000 for "Xm411", sounds like a Keep to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn website. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nn-Website, per WP:WEB and nom. --lightdarkness (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with XM. --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 06:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Google results were severly misrepresented. Site has 148,000 hits on Google. Also ranked 33,372 on Alexa. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Changing to Delete per Indi. Bizarre goings-on at Google.. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Well, Google hits and Alexa ranks shouldn't be the only judges in a case like this. See WP:GOOG. I just listed my results to clear up the "only 10 hits" statement in the first vote versus the 150,000 hits thing. I prefer checking out distinct hits. But anyway, even without Google or Alexa tests, it doesn't meet WP:WEB. — Indi [ talk ] 12:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Should we also delete Google for being an advertisment for a website? Ztsmart199.201.168.100 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, we have criteria for including website articles in Wikipedia; Google passes these and this website does not. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What criteria are required for an article about a website?

  • Delete. The blue color of the WP:WEB everyone's been citing means you should try clicking on it. Melchoir 20:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Johno000 13:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ReturnPath

Delete per WP:WEB and WP:VSCA. Alexa rank is 35,851. Royboycrashfan 00:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable website --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Gwernol 01:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn website Where (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Icarus 07:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 10:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite Return Path is notable, though the article is currently poorly written. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Swatjester. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Swatjester. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Swatjester. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As written now I can not tell if it should be deleted or just rewritten. If you want to rewrite it later, go ahead. For now, delete Nick Catalano contrib talk 23:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Could someone add verifiable sources that show ReturnPath's notability - preferably to the article? Please don't take this comment to imply critisism. I'd be happy to change my mind on this, I'm just looking for evidence of notability before I switch to keep. Thanks, Gwernol 00:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand There are 135,000 Google hits. That's six figures! Need I say more? --Shultz IV 05:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment do keep in mind that many of those hits don't have anything to do with this website, just because a site uses a common word doesn't make it notable as it turns up many google hits. Boneyard 08:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. nn site. Eusebeus 12:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure advertisement. Johno000 13:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability, advertisement. Imarek 23:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California-Nevada Interstate Maglev

non-notable internet pipe dream, no third party sources other than self-produced press releases 71.212.87.103 02:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Listing orphaned AfD by 71.212.87.103. No vote. Mithent 02:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • delete crystal ballism Bucketsofg 02:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Out-of-date crystal ball. Last update on the project website is two years old. If this was even being talked about and studied, there'd be something, wouldn't there? Fan1967 03:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Not really since it is in the planning phase. I expect to see public hearing on the project in 2008 or 2009. The government does not move quickly on projects like this. Vegaswikian 19:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:Crystal ball --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete But there's hope! T K E 04:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Icarus 07:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 10:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Look here people, this project is for real. Lensovet 11:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • A Livejournal is never a valid source. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:29 (UTC)
      • Jesus, it's a livejournal page that QUOTES A NEWS ARTICLE and has numerous useful LINKS. You have got to be kidding when you leave a response like that, how about actually clicking on the link rather than dismissing it right away. Thank you very much. Lensovet 01:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a soapbox. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:29 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless more is being done to futher this than some guy sitting around saying "gosh, I sure wish there were a maglev across the California-Nevada line!" ♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Searching the Interstate shows some confirmable sources. Multiple .gov sites confirm that money has been given by congress for research on this project. The project also got mention in an LA Times article. If cleaned-up it could be a decent article. SorryGuy 16:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Did you find any news sources since 2004? In a brief search everything I found was at least that old. Fan1967 17:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per SorryGuy. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, might as well be the Tokyo-Montana Express. — Apr. 3, '06 [20:53] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Weak delete I can see SorryGuy's point, but Fan1967 makes a well rounded response. Weak delete per nom Nick Catalano contrib talk 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep Despite the weaknesses of the the stub in its present state, this subject is highly noteworthy. This is one of the most likely maglev train projects in the world, and is being researched seriously, particularly by the German consortium behind the Transrapid, who hope to build it as a demonstrator line in the hope of attracting future business; it would be the first long-distance application of Transrapid technology (the existing Shanghai airpirt line only takes 8 minutes). At the same time, it has a relatively high chance of being built, due to the fact that the air corridor between LA and LV is near-saturated. This is more than a pipe dream, there has been plenty of engineering planning and legal groundwork already. ProhibitOnions 12:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - I've added the above info to the article. FreplySpang (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep per ProhibitOnions. --Shultz IV 16:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fan1967 --Sam67fr 22:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    Request Checkuser - Possible sockpuppetry on the part of Sam67fr. They both have "67" in their names, and you can find more evidence by looking at their contributions, dates accounts created, etc... --Shultz IV 02:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow I've never been accused of having (or being) a sockpuppet before. Funny, I hadn't even noticed this user before. Looks like he and I both posted in 3 other AfDs. Fan1967 13:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello Shultz IV, it's nice to meet you too... Is it a sort of test, or do you always welcome new users like that?--Sam67fr 22:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This, at least the Nevada leg, is the only maglev project in the US that has funding. Given that it is the cheapest of the proposals to build per mile, the only interstate proposal, and the one with the most support from people and government it has a chance to become reality. How can anyone claim that only 3rd party sources are available when over $45 million for the planning phase was included in a bill signed by Bush? This maglev has not been ruled out as the major people mover to the new Las Vegas airport. Vegaswikian 19:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Still reads like a lot of crystal-ballism: "This is one of the most likely maglev train projects in the world", "it has a relatively high chance of being built..." Maybe if it could stick more to established facts: this is the proposal, here's what's happened. Fan1967 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If I'd known FreplySpang was going to add my comments above to the article, I might have phrased them a little differently. However, I stand by everything I said, and it looks like this has led to further improvements to the article; I hope this has made the case for keeping it conclusive. (I don't know why there's a fact tag on the "it would be the first long-distance line" assertion; there's presently only one such line in the world and it runs from an airport to a city center; this would be hundreds of kilometers long.) ProhibitOnions 22:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Another editor has cleaned up the article some more. The quality of a stub is not a reason for deletion. A poorly written article on an encylopedic article should be kept and cleaned up, not deleted because of its quality. The article also has the correct tags and categories for future projects. Vegaswikian 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The project is real, even if it hasn't broken any ground yet. (See here and here for announcements from Congressman of getting funding for the project.) —LrdChaos 20:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and added a reference for the federal funding figure, and removed some of the text from the speculative second paragraph (the "this is the most likely to be built" one). —LrdChaos 20:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, 6 more Keeps to go to tie it. I think your additions made the article look significantly better. Now can you rally other users to vote "Keep" too? I'd appreciate it. --Shultz IV 21:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There has been a major overhaul to the article since the AFD. C-NIM has improved considerably. Feel free to view the full scope of the improvements from since the AFD. --Shultz IV 00:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: After 46 million US$, it counts as a real maglev project (even if it ultimately ends up as a failed one). But the article should focus more on the process that's really happening rather than speculation about the future. Peter Grey 01:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable project. Article should focus on the facts not the speculation U$er
  • Keep and expand It's a real project, more needs to be added about the history of the project. Slambo (Speak) 10:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seems crystal ball to me. Bring it back when it is more than pipe dreaming. Eusebeus 12:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's in terrible shape now, but the article needs cleanup, not killing off. --CComMack 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This proposed Maglev line was reported on BusinessWeek. If something is reported from a major news source, it's generally notable. --Shultz IV 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand Money has been spent or allocated in the US budget. Article should be expanded for sections on topical politics and economics. --Wikimuku 00:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete' ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheiff

Unverifiable neologism. Probably made up. DJ Clayworth 01:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I get zero hits. --BillC 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Stupid delete crap. 71.212.87.103 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ha, nice. T K E 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Delete stupid crap 71.212.87.103 01:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC), further it is obviously vanity from either some underage brat or his friends. It is mis-spelled and there is no way this "word" has any meaning outside of some small town hillbilly school. There, is that enough reason?71.212.87.103 01:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Just make sure to bold the right word. :) The way you worded your vote was rather misleading. Royboycrashfan 01:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WINAD, WP:NEO, WP:NFT, and WP:NOT. Royboycrashfan 01:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete patent nonsense. Bucketsofg 02:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense GfloresTalk 03:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu t/c 03:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sheriff (plausible misspelling.) This is nn. Grandmasterka 03:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 06:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for slang you and your school buddies made up. --Icarus 07:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable neologism, fails WP:NFT. JIP | Talk 08:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 10:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Good god......I'm agreeing with an anon! ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, it's nonsence, not nonsense. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, it's very much nonsense, not nonsence. JIP | Talk 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent nonsence. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I weep for the future. ... discospinster 19:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per obvious reasons.--Wizardman 23:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Icarus Nick Catalano contrib talk 23:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • ???? I don't even understand what the article is trying to say. Delete Heilme 23:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense. ProhibitOnions 14:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sports management worldwide

The company seems to have a degree of notability, with a few hits on google. But this reads like an advertisement, and was in fact written by the company owner's wife: Lizlash (talk · contribs). --BillC 01:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second thought

The anon editor who added this AfD has told me that he/she is unable to complete the process by clicking on the redlink, since this counts as creating a new page, from which anons are barred. So, if possible, I'll take over the reins of this one, and say delete as dictdef per WP:NOT. --BillC 02:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Acorace

Doesn't seem very notable. JW1805 (Talk) 02:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete agreed; 19 google hits, and a quick glance seems to indicate that none of them indicate notability Where (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, though only 14 unique results come up. Royboycrashfan 02:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Montco 02:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no claim of notability. Bucketsofg 02:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with User:Icelandic Hurricane --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 06:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or create a new policy that states that calling someone "notable" in the article makes it so. Personally, I think the former is a better idea. --Icarus 07:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 11:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - A finance director? Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable --Wizardman 23:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete does not pass WP:KIT test.  :( Lonesomedovechocolate 04:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — not notable -- Argon233 T @ C  U ∠  06:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. If you go to the talk page, there is more info. But it needs to be wikified. Can someone wikify it for me? Also Elonka told me that I could make an article on this guy, so I did. So, he must be notable enough, right? Ust to let you know, he has a article in a book titled "New Hampshire Notables-1986". So obviously, he's notable. Icelandic Hurricane #12 11:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vít Zvánovec

Although he is a wikipedian, his wikipedia activities alone do not make him notable. Bige1977 02:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • This article created by User_talk:Ross.Hedvicek has been deleted before, so I put it up for speedy deletion, he already removed my afd tag from the article. Bige1977 02:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy G4. Royboycrashfan 02:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy indeed. This POV essay has been reposted before on Vit Zvanovec, which now has {{deletedpage}} on it. Perhaps {{deletedpage}} should be applied here as well. --TML1988 02:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy and protect per above. Sounds a proper character. Herostratus 03:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy per above. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G4 as recreated material, protect page as well. --Terence Ong 11:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Stop! It's the motha***in repost! ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like it's been deleted, but darned if I know how to "lock" this subsection from being edited. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. Redirects are cheap. :) Mailer Diablo 02:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yaxley (Harry Potter)

Yaxley is a minor character in Harry Potter. He already has his own subsection at Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter#Yaxley. Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 02:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per nom, all information about this Death eater is in the "main" article. --lightdarkness (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. Royboycrashfan 02:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no need to have this redirect here. There is already a disambiguation page at Yaxley, which I shall update to point to Harry Potter instead of this stub. Nobody is going to type in "Yaxley (Harry Potter)." NTK 04:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per NTK (and remember to remove the "main article" tag from the Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter article afterward) --Icarus 07:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This character I can not even renember, only major charcters should have their own page
  • Delete There was someone called Yaxley? This information is just as easily obtained on another page. Michaelritchie200 09:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, minor Harry Potter character. --Terence Ong 11:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Redirects are cheap. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:30 (UTC)
  • Redirect Damned if I've ever heard of him. Redirect per NTK. (by changing the disambig to point to Minor Characters ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect - Per all the "redirect"s above. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. SorryGuy 16:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- fancruft. --Christofurio 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- It doesn't get more minor anymore. This character had exactly *one* mentioning in the whole series so far. -- Neville Longbottom 16:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, as above. Delete. Never heard of this guy either, but since he's listed in the target article, a redirect seems to be in order. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed vote because the redirect is useless, since there's nothing to merge. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Who?. Never heard of him. Does not merit an article. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 22:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect unless the entry gets longer in the redirected article. Olin
  • Delete as per NTC --SmokeyJoe 12:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lou Engle

Non-notable D-list Elmer Gantry wannabe. No actual accomplishments. Believe me, I checked this guy, fixed up the biased and poor language, formatted and wikified, researched publisher info on his vanity-press "publications", tried (and failed) to find citations backing up any claim to any level of notability (besides his website). I'm especially pissed because after all that, I decided not to AfD the article despite his clear non-notability, because, enh, too lazy. Response? Reverts with insulting edit summary, addition of more mendacious and biased material, refusal of editor to respond to polite requests to engage. Giving him a pass on his non-notability a mistake, I guess, so deletey-time. "Lou Engle is an influential leader" is just plain false. He's a nobody. More info on article talk page. Herostratus 02:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Herostratus' comments. Royboycrashfan 03:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ignoring the POV problems, I don't know where you draw the line on notability. I get about 30K GHits for this guy, fewer than 1K for "Justice House of Prayer", and about 650 for "The Cause USA". To compare, I find 167K for Randall Terry, and 400K for his organization, "Operation Rescue". Clearly this guy's no Randall Terry. Where's the cutoff? Fan1967 03:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Note Looks like that 30K is really less than 700 unique hits for his name [2]. Fan1967 03:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Might be a fairly common name. Delete per nom. Notability doesn't seem to be backed up by the facts. Grandmasterka 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being clergy or publishing a book does not notability make. NTK 04:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The notability page establishes several consensus criteria for notability. Engle does not qualify by many of them, but does qualify by the criterion for published authors, and by the 100-year test. To illustrate the latter, I consider Engle to be analogous in his role and activity to Daniel Rowland. Anyone researching turn of the millenium American revivalism would be ill-served by Engle's omission from the history, 100 years from now. I'm sorry if the editor felt personally slighted by my npov smear comment, but the use of self-published appeared prima facie to be an intentional mischaracterization. Whatever the editors intentions were, I still consider the incorrect use of the term to be belittling. The deletion project also appears to be consistent with this agenda-based editorial plan. Please do not attribute to me edits which I did not make. Aminorex 19:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • What Aminorex is talking about is a message I left on his talk page taking him to task for an edit made by someone else, which I did due to a engregiously incorrect misreading of the page history. I apologized on your talk page and I apologize here, Aminorex. Stupid mistake, but why are you bringing it here? (I don't know what you mean by "agenda-driven plan". I'm an inclusionist, and I cleaned up the article and left it even though the guy is clearly non-notable; I only thought better of it when I saw it got messed up again and I saw a long stretch of edit warring, not worth it for a guy who's just not notable.) I don't know exactly how to characterize his publishing; it's a special case. He's certainly not published by normal, commercial publishing houses; They look to be small fundamentalist publishers. Perhaps "specialty publisher" would be the term, or maybe they are a form of vanity press. I used "self-published" and I guess that was a slight mischaracterization, but to leave the impression that he was published in the sense that we use the term for normal published authors would also be misleading. As to the main point, I'll comment below. Herostratus 19:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I mention it here, because you made statments above which were based on that mistaken impression, appeared to contribute to the imputation that I was making edits which were mendacious and biased. I think it is reasonable to make a defense against such an imputation wherever it occurs, and I hope that any impression that I have undertaken mendacity or bias has been mitigated by your subsequent review of the actual edit history. —This unsigned comment was added by Aminorex (talk • contribs) .
        • I didn't mention your name anywhere above. I apologized again on your talk page, and will continue to do so as long as you wish, I guess. Herostratus 23:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
          • No apologies are necessary, I merely wished to provide a refutation. We both understand the facts of the case. I appreciate your graciousness in offering an apology, but that frank mutual understanding is more than enough to gratify me.Aminorex 06:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would dispute that Engle is a "published author" in the sense that the term is commonly meant. Although I think its probable that his publishing houses exist in some sense, I sure couldn't find out much about them. This goes way beyond not having a web site; they don't seem to have a web presence. I think at least one of them is defunct. These are not big players in the publishing world. I don't know where the line between a vanity press and actual publishing house lies. As to the rest... the original article makes as his big claim to fame that he "organized" something called CallDC that got a crowd of "400,000". I couldn't find any mention in the regular press at all - not a clipping, not an 'also in the news' note, nothing. The only other real mention was in another fundamentalist website, where they gave the crowd as "75,000" and characterized Engle's involvement as being "among the speakers" at the event. And that's his friends. 75,000 is probably a great exaggeraterion itself, but who can tell since there is no mainstream press coverage of the event at all. For all I know it was 750. And remember, that's his main claim to notability that the article made. (Since then, more has been added, such as his being "actively involved in the leadership" of a planned future event, along with some frankly bizzare ramblings about theology. Whatever, but I hope any Keep voters also volunteer to re-clean and re-verify the article and keep watch over it (have fun), 'cause I ain't gonna. Herostratus 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Specialty presses are not somehow unreal by virtue of their specialized audience. Examples of specialized publishers which have wide respect are abundant, and many very influential works have been published by specialized or ephemeral presses. I agree that one of the publishers in question has been dissolved or, as seems more likely, absorbed into Destiny Image, and that none of Engles publishers is among the top tier; in fact they represent a subspecialization of Christian theological publishing, however, if there is a mall near your home, I'm sure that you could find many current titles published by Destiny Image, or by Wagner, in the Charismatic or Pentecostal interest section of a Christian book store. I don't think that the unverifiability of the attendance numbers of The Call gatherings is a strong grounds for refuting the notability of the organizers. I do have personal knowledge that Engle was among the organizers at The Call in Kansas City and in San Francisco. If his role in The Call D.C. was inflated by my edits, I hope to correct that error. I understand that the theology espoused is a minority one, but that doesn't impugn the interest of the topic to researchers. The movement represented is very real, has numerous well-known proponents, and certainly several hundreds of thousands of participants in North America alone (millions seems more likely to me, but my sampling is very unscientific, and certainly suffers from selection bias). While there are hundreds or thousands of leaders of local influence, Engle is among a handful with national and international influence of note. Others would include Goll, Joiner, Bickle, Cain (now in disgrace), and Strom (who has dissociated himself, but remains influential and is closely related, if no longer affiliated). The web presence of these people is very small, when compared to practical impact, and I think it is misleading to derive notability from Google statistics for this group. They seem to invest most of their efforts in speaking to sympathetic groups in person, and organizing on a face-to-face basis, and perhaps consciously avoid the web entirely, although I speak here in a hypothetical frame, as I have no actual contact with any of these persons, except as a casual observer of their activity and its consequences. I think the ongoing activity is also of interest, and substantiates the notability of the organizers. Aminorex 21:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've looked into this a bit more. It seems that Lou Engle was in fact one of the principal organizers of The Call D.C., as he was the person to whom the U.S. Park Service issued the permit which secured the Washington Mall for the event. The event is generally attributed to Engle and Che Ahn, in the literature. I personally consider organizing a national event attended by hundreds of thousands of people, involving thousands of local churches, and establishing cooperative links with dozens of national organizations to be a noteworthy accomplishment, whether one considers it favorably or unfavorably. Moreover, every indication is that Engle's activity is expanding and influencing a substantial youth subculture of "Riot Christians", through his involvement with Teen Mania and Rock for Life. "D-list Elmer Gantry" is a profoundly whiggish spin and does not accurately represent this persons role in U.S. culture. He speaks routinely to gatherings of tens of thousands of people. That makes him at least an "A-List Elmer Gantry". I would rather characterise him as a midpoint between Pat Robertson and Martin Luther King, Jr., but with much less media involvement than either of these two figures.—This unsigned comment was added by Aminorex (talk • contribs) .
    • I'm perfectly prepared to change my vote if you have any web sites or other citations you could share with us? I still don't understand why an event attended by "hundreds of thousands of people" would get zero press coverage. Herostratus 23:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Just a note to inform the readership that I am engaged in collecting references in publications outside of the influence of organizations associated with Engle, and gathering verifiable facts to support the notability claim. I anticipate providing my results by April 16, since tax preparations are eating my head right now.Aminorex 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Herostratus' comments. Furthermore, Lou Engle isn't listed as a pastor of Harvest Rock Church... --Sam67fr 22:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Updated the article to reflect his departure from that office.Aminorex 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments about notability; There is no doubt that books were published. But we have no way to know the audience of these books. About Lou Engle himself and the Call dc ... I can't find any real press coverage of that event and/or of Lou Engle involvement in it. I can't find any real press coverage of Lou Engle in any other major event. The only web sites I found that cover the man or the event are mostly self promoting sites.--Sam67fr 08:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this article. Lou Engle is leading one of the most vital christian youth movements in the USA. I have been at the Boston Uprising, I have been there, I have seen it with my onw eyes. Lou Engle is a well know Christian leader with a huge media coverage. Just look at http://www.the700club.org/700club/guests/bios/lou_engle_070804.asp . The nominator's comment does not represent facts. —This unsigned comment was added by 140.247.251.192 (talk contribs) .
Comment In case the 700 Club reference is considered marginal (many non-notable people appear on the 700 Club, certainly), I would observe that he was also covered on ABC's Nightline in December, 2005, in connection with the Justice House of Prayer Project. He is also one of the organizers of Rock for Life, a series of rock concerts, mostly in California and in the U.S. rust belt area. This helps substantiate notability, in my view, since it influences a large audience.Aminorex 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Herostratus. Eusebeus 12:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. -- infinity0 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JIP | Talk 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scotlandshire

Article on a made-up term with no sources of evidence that the term is used, let alone worthy of an encyclopaedia article. All google hits seem to be 'silly use', and not that described in the article. Stringops 03:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:NFT. Royboycrashfan 03:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I can assure you, the term is used. The introduction to this RfD is nonsense. I created this article on request. It is the title of a reasonably famous song, and you can see, google produces nearly 1000 hits. The term even appear on the lighly indexed google book search. [3] - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Englandshire also appears on such a book search with more results. Should we have an article on it simply because it's a jovial neologism too? Stringops 15:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know what Englandshire means, so I can't do any article on that. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Pejorative, sometimes affectionate, term for "Scotland". -AED 08:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Certainly in use - here are a couple of examples from the Letters Page of The Scotsman: [[4]] (needs free registration to actually read the relevant letters). I note that it also frequently pops up on forums, blogs, song lyrics and the like, so it is certainly a word of the populace at large. What I am fascinated to know is how, and why, it is being used in academic circles. --Mais oui! 08:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is nonsense there is no such term 82.36.107.54 08:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - there certainly is such a term. An Siarach
    • Comment - Wikipedia is not a repositaary for every obscure term ever created and used very occasionally. I can't see how this term is notable. Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, such matters are subjective. It was clearly notable enough for you to list it for deletion. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Just out of curiosity, does the term bother you for some reason? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
        • This term doesn't 'bother' me; I simply don't think it's notable enough to merit a seperate article. As well as this, there's not much than can be said about it that can be made into anything other than a glorified dictionary definition. If it isn't deleted, the article will remain a stub. Stringops 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
          • That sounds like a challenge to me! This is one of the great things about Afd - sometimes articles that survive the process go on to become really valuable additions to the project. From all I have read I think that there is a good amount of source material, and Calgacus says that he has some good material in his own library, which unfortunately he does not have access to at present. --Mais oui! 10:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
            • If you and Calgacus think you can make it into a worthwhile article, please go ahead. If you do, I'm happy to eat my words. But I can't really see how a single term and its (perhaps widespread but abscure) usage can ever escape being a glorified dicdef, however many quotations/references you may be able to add. Stringops 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - 8 references found, dating back to 1992, in NewsBank newspaper archive (Times, Daily Record, Glasgow Herald). Example: "Even so we cannot be abolished, and Ramsay, among many others, helps prove it. The last opportunity to abolish Scotland or at least turn it into Scotlandshire, England came in his lifetime" - Portrait of the nation by a couthy son - Allan Ramsay, Sunday Times, The (London, England), August 9, 1992. Tearlach 10:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - so that's 8 references in 14 years. Should wikipedia have articles on every made-up term used at least once by a local newspaper? It's not even a coherent topic - it's just a rare neologism. The OED doesn't even list it. Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, the OED, ignoring its thousands of inaccurate etymological explanations, is not supposed to be as comprehensive as Wikipedia. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Important article which links in with Scottish history. Simply because it can be used tongue in cheek is no reason to delete. If WP can have articles on obscure anime characters that nobody has heard of then it should most definitely have articles on things like this. SFC9394 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - if the term has any genuine and notable relevance to Scottish history, then it should be merged with the History of Scotland article. As it stands, I can't see how a usefully-sized article can be created from it. Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's the strangest argument I've ever heard. Should Scottish king then be merged with History of Scotland. On this logic, there would be no Scotland-related articles except History of Scotland. And as History of England "has ... genuine and notable relevance to Scottish history", should it be "merged" with History of Scotland? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia WP:ISNOT a dictionary. Yes the term is used, yes I use it myself however Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we should not be taking part in original research to build up articles - where are the sources, and "Scotlandshire is a term sometimes used": by who? Where? When? thanks/wangi 12:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - common phrase with history to be expounded beyond a dicdef. Vizjim 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Redirect to a new short section at Shire sounds a workable option. Vizjim 14:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but at least find a couple of respectable quotations to illustrate the term in use (The Sunday Times one would do for a start) otherwise it could only be a dictionary entry. Ming the Merciless 13:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Redirect to a new short section at Shire sounds a workable option. Ming the Merciless 12:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - should wikipedia have articles on every word in the Oxford English Dictionary, if ' a couple of respectable quoations to illustrate them' are provided in each case? This is not a dictionary for neologisms. Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep (with rewrite) As noted, it's met all standards as not being a neologism. If the page is poorly written such as a dicdef, then it needs to be rewritten, but this would definately be useful as an encyclopedia article. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - what are the standards for not being a neologism? It doesn't appear in the latest edition of the OED, it gets fewer than 900 google hits (Englandshire gets 13,200 - so should that be included too? Franceshire gets 7,590, clearly a far more popular non-word; Spainshire gets 3,630!). If merely having a few jovial usages is grounds for inclusion, should we have articles on all of these 'notable terms'? Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The standards for not being a neologism are inclusion in at least a couple news articles back in 1992. How can it be a neologism when written 14 years ago? The usage of it has been shown to not be entirely jovial. Can you show me otherwise for Franceshire, Spainshire, etc? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Very interesting. This is clearly part of a global, or at least European , phenomenon. Perhaps the whole issue of "shire-ification" deserves some Wikipedia coverage. --Mais oui! 15:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable neologism. Maybe add a paragraph in Shire to discuss the usage in things like Chiantishire, but Scotlandshire seems too obscure to rate even a mention there. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The google book search, lightly indexed as it is, shows the term in use in the 1940s. Now, I have no prejudices against neologisms, but even if I did, this one blatantly would not meet any neologism criteria. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Shire and mention the term there along with other joking uses of -shire (much as Ben suggests). ProhibitOnions 12:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • There's no problem with it having its own article. Wikipedia has articles on thousands of subject of little note to anybody, which go for years without content edits; this article, in contrast, is apparently of more note. Dumping it in shire could mean that it could be deleted, and if it were deleted, any vote supporting a redirect would be null and void, and the article could be reverted to its original content. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • There's nothing to stop you or anyone else expanding Shire so as to incorporate the relevant content of this article. Stringops 03:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This term is not notable enough to have an entry here. U$er
  • Delete please. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of amusing terms. NTK 05:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted as nonsense. — TheKMantalk 05:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vpod

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Delete AlistairMcMillan 03:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy A3. Royboycrashfan 03:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete pure unsourced speculation --rogerd 03:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per all above.--Jersey Devil 03:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the person who prodded this, but I can not understand why it was moved to AfD when the prod was not contested? NickelShoe (Talk) 03:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Six words and a picture. Also Wikipedia is no crystal ball, per WP:NOT + A similar article (with a lot more content) was deleted less than a month ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPod True Video.--Blue520 03:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starf*ck (party)

  • Delete nn annual party thrown at Brown University. Does not meet WP:V with no sources either. Jersey Devil 03:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. Royboycrashfan 03:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. dbtfztalk 03:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to be a party special to anyone outside Brown. Perhaps the author can find another article to merge this into as a subsection. NTK 04:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It's notable at Brown, a decent sized university. It's notable as far as parties go. As the argument goes, if each individual road in pokemon games gets it's own article, this should too. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Probably a lot more people are familiar with each individual road in Pokemon as have ever graduated from Brown in the university's history. I'm sure this obscure local quasi-annual party would merit inclusion in WikiBrownU, and encourage editors there to do so. RGTraynor 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not in favour of adding more cruft which swatjester seems to be proposing.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete just too non-notable to be here. --Wingsandsword 08:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SexPowerGod

  • Delete nn and vanity. The article is about an annual party held at Brown University, I don't think that a mention on The O'Reilly Factor makes this one event notable enough to warrant an article. Jersey Devil 03:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Discussion by O'Reilly is a legitimate claim to notability, but not sufficient in itself. Coverage in college newspaper counts for almost nothing. dbtfztalk 03:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The party is fairly well known as college parties go, but that's not good enough. There needs to be a reason why anyone besides Ivy Leaguers and Bill O'Reilly should care about this. NTK 04:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The bill oreilly reference, plus the notability in the size and publicity of the event itself (I go to FSU and I've heard of this event) make it highly notable. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn and it sounds like you could find it in a tabloid magasine. SunbirdInc 16:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep: this sound like one of those stories you here on the radio. B.t.w. did you know that in... It's factual, it appears to be notable for enough for the school... however I would strongly keep if there are third party sources for the information. ie.: a news article... etc. --CyclePat 22:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Oh wait there is... Meuh! keep
  • Keep but it needs to say how long its been going on, and it be good to know that its going to continue going on for some timee. JeffBurdges 22:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep drunkcruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Bill O'Reilly mention is sufficient to warrant keeping this article. That makes it notable. Bibigon 10:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Everything that comes out of that man's mouth is notable? What is he, the conservative pope? This is a pretty well-known party, but the Bill O'Reilly reference doesn't magically make it notable. If a college party is going to be notable, there better be something pretty damn controversial about it. I think Spring Fling at my alma mater is a lot better known that SexPowerGod, but there's no mention of it even at the University's writeup, much less a separate article—which there certainly should not be. (Quick Google test... "Spring Fling"+Penn = 141,000 hits, SexPowerGod = 245 hits, Wikipedia on top, wait, let me change my vote from Weak Delete to Delete). NTK 05:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it's still just a party. Eivindt@c 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please this party is notable Yuckfoo 06:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep article could be good. There are no sources cited. It it can be cleaned up and sources added it would not merit deletion. Keep - for now. : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 04:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the above user made his first edit on April 6, 2006 [5].--Jersey Devil 05:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn party, o'reilly outrage notwithstanding. If WP had to have an article for everything that o'reilly thinks is unacceptable.... Eusebeus 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Bill O'Reilly getting angry at it once isn't enough for real notability. Just another vanity article about a small-time gathering/group so it can look respectable. --Wingsandsword 08:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Sandstein 09:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JIP | Talk 11:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conjugation of auxiliary Catalan verbs

Non-encyclopedic. GfloresTalk 03:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. True, it's not fancruft. I would like to see them all in one article because they are all related. This deals with my previous delete vote, that we're not a bilingual dictionary. A merge is fine with me, but I find separate articles unnecessary. If you're learning a languague, an encyclopedia is not the way to go. This is my first time dealing with such an article, so it's a learning experience for me. T K E 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valuable language info, and well linked to other Catalan language articles. Agree with Smerdis of Tlön and Brian G. Crawford. -- P199 22:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, don't delete. LambiamTalk 04:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with the other Catalan conjugation articles. --moof 04:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - while I would like delete, there is apparently precedent. Wickethewok 06:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Maybe we could take this as an opportunity for us grammar-interested editors to get together somewhere else and discuss what constitutes "morphology cruft" in grammar articles and how to avoid it. I do agree that bare listings of morphological paradigms are not optimal for a grammar article, but it's often done. Ideally, the function of such tables should always be subordinate to prose descriptions of what is characteristic or special about a grammatical system. Lukas (T.|@) 06:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. As the grammar articles get larger, there will be natural breakouts such as grammar of Catalan verbs, and what-not. It is not cruft it is useful, encyclopedic, and judgmentally added. Carlossuarez46 20:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time box

Appears to be non-notable bandcruft. If it is decided to keep it, this article and timebox should at least reference each other, or perhaps a dab page created for them -- RoySmith (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Article admits NN per WP:Music T K E 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Royboycrashfan 04:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BAND and possible WP:VANITY --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Some guy 07:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note It sounds like it's going to be deleted, in which case Time box should redirect to Timebox -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete quickly, before the Time Cube guys get wind of it. --Sneftel 19:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Makemi 04:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TV.com

Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted material -Andrew120 03:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep, not a valid nom., this article has never been deleted, unless it was created under a different name, in which case a link to that article or AfD should be included here. Makemi 03:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Quite notable website, whether it's been deleted before or not. dbtfztalk 03:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep I check this site all the time, and its predecessor, TV Tome, also has an article. Alexa rank is 410. Fan1967 03:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as above. Nominator appears to be affiliated with a less successful rival site. Monicasdude 03:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media iii

Advertisement masquerading as an article. Some guy 03:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Juggernaut Bitch

Is this notable? You be the judge. Gets lots of Google hits.(Has redirects too) DJ Clayworth 03:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep it is a important part of internet culture, something does not need to be clever and artistic to be on wikipedia, there are articles on cumshots, various juvenile sexual acts, and much more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.135.64 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep This is notable. Its probably the most popular internet clip at this time. And its a very well written article. --Pal5017 05:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not the "most popular internet clip at this time," at best it is one of hundreds of currently popular clips. We deleted the Prime Number Shitting Bear as nonnotable, and small chance that the Juggernaut Bitch, clever and artistic as it is, will have the same staying power. Unless this gets picked up somewhere and becomes a true phenomenon, it should go. NTK 05:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone comes up with some sources. ( I really want to keep it, along with a lot of things, but we are trying to be an encyclopedia and that pesky WP:V et al get in the way of things like this. ) Also, I'm not sure I saw the same video that NTK did if he thinks it is clever or artistic. Kotepho 06:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I said, "clever and artistic as it is," however much that is. ;-) It is not a great work of art, it is somewhat offensive and juvenile, but it clearly took either a good bit of work or some very fast-on-the feet improv. Obviously a lot of people find it funny. NTK 06:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I dunno, I must be a little bit crazy, but who the heck are we to judge what is "artistic" and/or "clever"? If you think the humor is lowbrow or juvenile or "offensive" that's your opinion. The humor is largely identical to the types of humor found in Chappelle's Show, for example, and the video is WILDLY popular in the gaming community. I suppose the standup of, say, George Carlin is also not "clever" and "artistic," then? I also don't understand this "we're trying to be an encyclopedia" stuff. Wikipedia is never going to be an encyclopedia along the lines of Britannica, that's just the nature of the beast. And if we feel we need to live up to that standard of stick-in-the-assness, why have we not deleted every ten thousand word otaku article on Final Fantasy tertiary characters or on Warhammer 40,000 races? This is merely and completely a judgment call on the part of people who feel that the subject matter of this article isn't "highbrow" enough for wikipedia. What an irony. The Juggernaut Bitch article is well written (I know because I wrote it), and it accomplishes the rare feat of being complementary to the humor of its own subject matter. I'm so sick of the antiseptic cast that wikipedians seem to feel we need to throw onto every single article. What makes something really an encyclopedia is that the articles are not only informative, but interesting. Anyway, enough tirade. I think this is a keeper, unless we're running out of hard drive space of Wiki servers. RiseAbove 07:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hard drives are cheap. That being said, this article is severly lacking in the verifiability department. Have any reliable sources covered this video? Also FWIW I laughed quite a bit watching the video. Kotepho 08:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your concerns, but what "sources" do we really need? This is a short film, created by fans. You can easily verify everything in the article by simply watching the film, which is linked on the page. Also, I'm still confused as to why this page has been singled out, as opposed to literally thousands of pages on Wikipedia that deal with subject matter much less widespread than The Juggernaut Bitch video (again, how many people really care about the vital statistics and motivations of Sephiroth, the main bad guy from Final Fantasy VII? And yet he has a frickin' saga for his page... Again, I call discrimination here, there seems to be a bias against this article because of the tone and language of the subject matter. RiseAbove 00:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you could source that from any number of game guides that are published. Also, I'm quite sure that FF7 is notable and will be remembered years from now. Kotepho 01:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
And Marvel comics (and their parodies) won't be? And while you tell me where you could find sources (i.e. games manuals) for Warhammer and FF7, you don't explain why this is relevant to this particular article; an article that concerns a subject matter not susceptible to being sourced. It's kind of like accusing a page on a fantasy novel for not having sources because there are no books of commentary written about that novel.RiseAbove 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I've heard of this video before as it was mentioned on some notable sites such as on VG Cats, but I'll have to go find a link first --TBC??? ??? ??? 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Funny? Yes. Encyclopedic? I personally don't think so, at least not until there's a verifiable reference indicating that it has broader appeal than your standard run-of-the-mill internet meme. --Alan Au 08:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 13:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see evidence of non-fleeting notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep all internet memes. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't find any evidence this meme is in any way notable. Funny, but no WP:V coverage that I can see.--Isotope23 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Historians in the 22nd century may be interested in this stuff. Smerdis of Tlön 16:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Be that as it may, wikipedia does not strive to be a primary source. Kotepho 01:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Deli nk 16:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, then track down anyone responsible for this fancruft and delete them too. RGTraynor 16:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm responsible for it, sizzlechest. Got something you'd like to say to me? RiseAbove 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep What kind of wikipedia would this be if you don't have every information. This is by far the best written article describing the video, the humor, and it's viral pop culture. To have this page is an Honor to me for I created the juggernaut bitch. Is it historical? maybe. The page has even been googled alot since posted. It is well written to my suprise and might just get better as time goes by. It's a Keeper. STop tryin to stop my Juggernaut Bitch.

April 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheJuggernaut (talk • contribs)

  • Keep What kind of wikipedia would this be if you don't have every information. This is by far the best written article describing the video, the humor, and it's viral pop culture. To have this page is an Honor to me for I created the juggernaut bitch. Is it historical? maybe. The page has even been googled alot since posted. It is well written to my suprise and might just get better as time goes by. It's a Keeper. STop tryin to stop my Juggernaut Bitch.

April 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheJuggernaut (talk • contribs)

  • Keep What makes Wikipedia cool is NOT the fact that it is a professionally monitored encyclopedia, but rather that you can find things here that other encyclopedias would not even consider. I feel that Wikipedia is the "free thinkers" encyclopedia and I would be disappointed if 'The Juggernaut Bitch' was deleted. This clip is gaining a huge cult following, and I would argue that it's even more American than apple pie! It simply DOES EXIST, so why not catalog it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheJuggernaut (talk • contribs)
I agree one hundred percent. RiseAbove 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. Melchoir 20:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • How is it unverifiable? Non notable perhaps, but unverifiable just doesnt make sense to me. Its a video, and theres a link to it, so doesnt that prove that it exist, and thus prove verifiability?--Pal5017 05:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep With 200k Google hits this easily passes any bar of notability.  Grue  21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 22:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Keep, with a vengeance. What “sources” are required beyond the video itself? Nominating this page for deletion is an unfair and irrational attack. The only motivation I can see for the “debate” here is the video’s trespass upon the humorless and politically correct sensibilities of the self-consciously high-minded. Wikipedia is populated by hundreds of ludicrous pages authored by pathologically obsessed fans of some inane enclave of gaming or popular culture (I think more pages are devoted to Final Fantasy minutiae than are afforded the plays of Shakespeare). These pages seem to survive the cut through pure teflon blandness, but when the subject involves humor of a highly vulgar (though hardly immature) color, out come the censors, knives sharpened, to cleave us all to some imagined standard of lofty gentility. What it comes down to is, Wikipedia functions as a repository of knowledge. This page provides entertaining, yet NPOV, description of an extremely popular internet video that does, in fact, exist. I see no reason this fact should be expunged from the social record, especially since precedents have now established that Wiki has plenty of tolerance for internet memes (and for countless subjects far more asinine than this page.) Wiki articles are not guesses as to what future historians might find of interest; they are written for the benefit of people today. And the fact that the page enjoys Google hits and redirects suggests that people are finding use for it. Spotlessmind
I particularlly like this article and I think it is pretty good. I just think it is better suited for Everything2 than something that is trying to be an encyclopedia. Kotepho 01:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Spotlessmind, and I would like to say further that his argument is not only well reasoned, but also well written. Why indeed, are some things designated "acceptable" for Wikipedia, and others, of seemingly the exact same pedigree, deemed only acceptable for Everything2? Kudos to you, SpotlessMind. RiseAbove 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
That is where our policies such as verifiability and no original research come in. Kotepho 02:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
So... what if I were to write a few articles commenting on the video? If we then cited them in the page, would it suddenly and magically transmogrify into a page worthy of being on wikipedia? This no original research and citing sources stuff seems arbitrary and easily manipulated. And, regardless of the policies of wikipedia, the fact remains that MANY people use it as a "first stop" for information, especially on subjects like this. Are we going to actively destroy an informative article that could be helpful and interesting merely because it does not follow the letter of the law? If we are, that's a waste and a low down dirty shame. RiseAbove 02:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Pretty much, yes, we will. Perhaps instead of numerous impassioned pleas for Wikipedia official policy to be ignored in this case (more or less because, well, you wrote the article and you like the subject matter), you could devote those energies to verification of the video's notability. Many people do use Wikipedia as a first stop for information, and they trust Wikipedia's usefulness for that because there are policies to trim out ephemeral, self-promotional fancruft. RGTraynor 14:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Then you have abandoned common sense in favor of obdurate and irrational adherence to bureaucratic stipulations. I submit the following:
Verifiability- Video is linked at bottom of page. Video exists. Quotes listed on page are reproduced as heard in video. Verification complete.
Notability- 200,000 hits within 2 weeks. Clearly popular. Do you, then, presume to decide what is “notable” for the rest of us, over the actual usage practices of the people whom Wikipedia serves?
I once ran up 5,000 hits in a single hour on my personal website just to see if I could do it. Your own site's counter on how many hits you claim to have isn't in of itself proof.
Considering the page achieved significant hits before this ridiculous controversy broke out, Occam's razor would suggest that the hits were acquired legitimately, rather than being the result of an hour-long coordinated effort by a 40 man team hitting refresh to drive up the hits on a Wiki page for absolutely no reason. Spotlessmind
Also, please provide some evidence of RiseAbove's connection to the video to support your claim of self-promotion. He has never suggested he was involved in the video's production. And further, please provide the address of the company from which you mail ordered your magic crystal ball, so I can verify the ephemeral nature of this video. Spotlessmind
Spotlessmind, you're my hero. Also, for the record, the video has been viewed close to 2 MILLION times on YouTube. That's not counting Google Video, and every other video site on the net. Clearly notable. Clearly verifiable. And, by the way, anybody who "ran up 5,000 hits in a single hour on [his] personal website just to see if [he] could do it" is somebody who's rational judgment should be questioned, to say the least. What did you do, just keep hitting reload 5,000 times in a row? WTF? RiseAbove 19:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously. — ciphergoth 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest providing an argument next time, rather than a meaningless appeal to ridicule. It is just as obvious to those of us who oppose you that it should be kept. Spotlessmind
  • Comment: Speaking of verification, this talk page is obviously Savethejuggernaut's first edit, and Spotlessmind has made four other contributions in a year. RGTraynor 19:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Does that make any of their arguments any more or less true? Again, this comment is further evidence that you and those like you are motivated solely by emotion and bias, and not on logic or empiricism. That ain't the way to run an encyclopedia. Also, I noticed you haven't responded to my previous citations about YouTube or your 5,000 clicks on your own website. Can I assume you're conceding those points? RiseAbove 21:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
"Spotlessmind has made four other contributions in a year." That clears up the issue of whether you can count. But I'm interested to know what relevance this has to your argument. Spotlessmind
  • Keep I don't care for the video, but my opinion of the video's quality does not enter into my decision as to its appropriateness for Wikipedia. This is an extremely popular video, so I don't see how it is not-notable.YellowPigNowNow 21:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. I hadn't even heard of it until seeing it on AfD. --Zybergoat 22:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I guess I didn't know that if Zybergoat hadn't heard of it, it wasn't notable. Except... that lots of people not named Zybergoat have heard of it. RiseAbove 00:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't adding that to say it's the reason for my vote. Not every little thing on the Internet deserves its own page in WP. Far more popular memes haven't netted a notice on WP, and I can't see why this should. But thanks for the borderline personal attack. It's well-appreciated. --Zybergoat 02:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please meme is very notable Yuckfoo 06:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep I know a lot of people looking for information on the origins of this video. It has gotten quite popular. Brokenfrog 21:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If the simple "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" can have its own page, then this masterpiece should as well. Nearing 2 million views on YouTube. Gully Juice 01:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Oh come on. Can we stop these race-to-the-bottom comparisons? WP:POINT. Besides, I note that PBJT has four references on television and another in an immensely popular game. I will bet money that "The Juggernaut Bitch" will never reach that level of notoriety. 2 million hits is nothing. There's hundreds upon hundreds of videos on Google videos and every other waste-of-time site out there with media that gets that many hits and ends up in the dustbins of lame jokes and email forwards. NTK 06:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, many Internet memes are are notable, this is one for example. bbx 22:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Regarding "verifiability", this is referring to verifiability that the subject is notable, not just that the subject exists (which it obviously does). --Alan Au 22:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Well, there goes 9 minutes of my life I'll never be able to get back. 8-) It did, at least, explain some odd spots of vandalism I've been seeing the past few weeks. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn fitp internet meme. Eusebeus 12:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per gullyjuice CASE 14:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gully Juice JimTS 15:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep a very popular video and very notable. Itsgotbigteeth69 10:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was banished to the Phantom Zone. DS 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunstone (comics)

Non-notable. Article states that this is only mentioned once in a comic with no specifics. Some guy 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starchild (libertarian)

I nominate this article for deletion because I fail to see how the subject in question is notable. When using Wikipedia:Notability (people) as a guide, this individual does not hold office, and doesn't seem to get that much press.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn bio. Royboycrashfan 04:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neither running for local office under a third party nor changing ones name is notable. NTK 04:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merged with Sun Certified Professional.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J2EE certification program

Badly named title, no content, if notable at all belongs under a Sun article, but there's nothing left to merge. NTK 04:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn. Royboycrashfan 04:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Sun announced..." good for them. And this belongs in Wikipedia... why, exactly? (Man, I'm getting kinda snarky... Maybe I should lay off the AfDs and go get some sleep, lol!) --Icarus 08:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Sun Certified Professional. Peter Grey 03:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brasilia Tropicalis

Video game in development by a couple of guys for some contest. They don't even have a publisher. And, icing on the cake, zero google hits. Extreme delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. as unverifiable WP:V.--Blue520 04:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V, WP:SOFTWARE, and WP:Crystal ball --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonnotable, ad, etc. NTK 05:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-notable, unverifiable, crystal ball, advertisement, and probably vanity too (how else could the editor know so much about a game that hasn't been released yet?) --Icarus 08:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, lack of verifiabilty. --Alan Au 09:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nn game, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 13:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, although props to the article writer for having the stones to declare a subject with zero Google hits "notable." RGTraynor 16:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, article author here. Can't argue the standards by which a deletion is judged, but some clarification is in order. (1) I am one of the developers. (2) All three of us are industry professionals working full-time on VC-funded games. Googling my screenname 'Darien Kane' will return some articles and past projects by me. (3) JogosBR ('GamesBR' in Portuguese) is an initiative from the brazilian government to award original game proposals, game demos and complete games with robust cash investments (link is provided). I'm not affiliated with the government, but given the novelty of this practice, I believe JogosBR should in fact have an article of its own. (4) The prize encompasses self-publishing (hence the 'TBA' on the 'Publisher' field). (5) Zero Google hits is due to zero advertisement. (6) The notability of this article is not anchored to whether or not the game gets released or wins the contest (i.e. crystal balling); rather, it lies in the PhotoRank feature - which represents a paradigm shift in our industry - and to a lesser extent, in-game pedagogy. These two topics have been sparking debates among our peers, fans, collaborators and overseas partners (hence me posting on en.wikipedia.org instead of pt.wikipedia.org). I'm willing to rewrite the article to reflect that its less of an ad and more of a case study in social computing and e-learning (at least in Brazil). Thiago Aiache 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promo spam. David Hoag 07:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have vigorously revamped the article to focus on the issues surrounding the game. Please review. Thiago Aiache 12:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I just did reread it, and found no external links or references that would establish the notability of the game ... nor, with zero Google hits, am I much surprised. Since Brazilian sites reflect on Google -- I have an ex in Sao Paulo with whom I am in touch -- it seems to me that Occam's Razor applies: plainly this "PhotoRank" is an extremely flawed yardstick by which notability can be gauged. Perhaps you could supply some links pointing out where these debates are actually taking place? RGTraynor 13:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: I can only link to the lecture transcripts from the event where these issues were first debated, in middle March. It was the 'Conferência de Desenvolvedores de Games-Rio', which literally translates to Rio Game Developers Conference. The site is www.cdgrio.com.br. Transcripts (rather lenghty ones) are in Portuguese, but your friend from São Paulo can attest to their legitimacy. If this is still insufficient proof of notability, I can only ask that the article is moved to my User Space, as per one of the editors' suggestion. I kindly request that a redirect is provided, as I have linked the article on the document we submitted to the JogosBR contest. Thiago Aiache 19:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dakkie

Could find no evidence this is a real art technique. Googled 'dakkie contrast', 22 hits, "dakkie" itself yields some 22K hits, but most seem to refer to a proper name. "dakkie cinematography" (with no quotes) yielded 5 hits. Finally, the page does not link anywhere.-- Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; WP:V --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Its one reference is a blog. --BillC 07:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Icarus 08:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, lack of verifiability. --Alan Au 09:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom, unverifiable, unreliable sources and whatsoever. --Terence Ong 13:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galesburg shower

local slang, not in widespread use. Zero google hits. Montco 04:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the wall of a highschool lockerroom. Tombride 05:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Uncited dicdef. NTK 05:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone --Icarus 08:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:NFT. JIP | Talk 08:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NFT, neologism. --Terence Ong 13:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Tango 22:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Galesburg shower

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Yamaguchi Ghost Story

Can find no evidence of notability. Zero hits for "A Yamaguchi Ghost Story", "Concrete Canvas" Static got 123, but none seem to be related to anime. "Shishido Takamitsu", the work's creator, yielded one hit.-- Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Icarus 05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Undecided at the moment. In another article by the same user he lists the author's name as Shishidou Takamitsu. He seems to have decent English ability so I'll try to talk to him. Kotepho 06:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom Heilme 00:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as sabove.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of 21st century fighter aircraft

This article is almost entirely original research, and when viewed against the other articles in Category:Military comparison has no stylistic or content similarities. This is the type of article that should be read in air combat magazines or written by pundits, not the type that belongs in an encyclopedia. ericg ✈ 06:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm ambivalent about this. In its current form I have no problem deleting it. I had been planning on changing it to an article on 4th generation fighters; trimming out most of the comparative aspects but keeping the basics, the comparative costs, and the DERA study. --Mmx1 06:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see that there are parts of the article which need some help with sourcing, NPOVing and general cleanup. On the other hand, in some sections the article actually contains a fair amount of external links which provide sources for the claims. I think that deleting the entire article would be too drastic a measure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete current incarnation as original research, but I would probably keep a retitled, rewritten (npov) version of this article. --Alan Au 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sjakkalle. Encyclopedic subject, but requires major rewriting and page-splitting. Twinxor t 12:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sjakkalle. Needs cleanup and a total rewrite. Current state is definitely unacceptable. --Terence Ong 13:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but needs a very heavy rewrite and serious trimming. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — I find it encyclopedic, but it needs citations. If there were a military/war CotW it could make an interesting project. — RJH 14:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Topic itself invites Original Research. del per ericg ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a technical measure. It seems that this article is going to be renamed 4th and 5th generation fighter aircraft or something similar sometime in the future. The new article should probably incorporate the factual things from the current article. Of course, I only support keeping it in order to provide non-Admins easier access to its factual statements. Otherwise, I fully support deleting it. Ingoolemo talk 16:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, move to User Space in preparation for new article I've had resistance in changing the status quo, deleting would remove a lot of that resistance. Since I proposed the renaming, let me take it, work on it, and move the new content to the 4th gen fighter article, while keeping this deleted to stanch any effort to keep OR. I think we're all agreed that this article in its current form and title invites OR, but has some useful information. I think this is the best way to satisfy both viewpoints. --Mmx1 18:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The section on the DERA study needs to stay, but some other subjective information needs to be removed. --zeroyon 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - it will be difficult to separate OR, but this is not an emotive topic, unlike a comparison of sportspeople or politics.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I beg to differ. Nationalism plays a big role in this topic. People get very defensive about their own nation's aircraft. --Mmx1 11:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up as per Sjakkalle. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as this could be good information for the layperson, but needs to be renamed and cleaned up as above. And yes, experience on other articles suggests there will be nationalists who assert the superiority of their country's planes, so we have to watch out for this. Note that these are fourth-generation jet fighters, as there were plenty of prop fighter generations. ProhibitOnions 19:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The currently popular proposal is "4th and 5th" or just "4th generation fighter jet aircraft" --Mmx1 19:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, decent topic, needs a rewrite as noted above. 156.34.90.110 00:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circle of Death (beer)

This binge-drinking article failed speedy because Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day is not a criterion. Failed {{prod}}. Now at AFD, trifecta complete. Delete. stillnotelf is invisible 05:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, interesting, but not notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Nice photo though.--Blue520 06:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I decided not to speedy this as there was no relevant criteria. Whether there ought to be is another issue. I added a prod notice but it was removed. On its talk page, it is claimed it was invented in 2002 and is popular on Carnegie Mellon. That falls well below our notability criteria. Capitalistroadster 06:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm the one who nominated it for speedy deletion. On further thought I see that Capitalistroadster is correct in saying that it doesn't meet speedy criteria, but one way or another it really ought to be deleted. There are plenty of drinking games, and I'm sure more are invented every day by frat boys hellbent on getting alcohol poisoning. There's nothing at all notable about this particular "game". --Icarus 06:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Other games are listed on the site, and just because some of you have biases or the like does not mean this should be deleted. --67.171.67.94 07:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This article is being considered on its own merits. If you do not believe that another article meets the various policies and guidelines of this site, in particular the ones concerning verifiability by reliable, external, third party sources, then nominate them. Those articles will in turn be considered on their own merits. -- Saberwyn 10:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The other games in this encyclopedia are (or should be), notable and verifiable. --BillC 07:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable --Matt 14:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Whoa whoa whoa whoa! Highly highly played drinking game!!!! This is not something that was just made up in school one day, this is one of the most popular college drinking games out there. (And I say this coming from a past #1 party school) ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • However, it's very different from the Circle of Death that already has an article. That one may be notable, but this one isn't. --Matt 15:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Duly noted. I was thinking of the other article. In that case, I change my vote to Strong Delete. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy McAllister

No evidence or claim of notability. Alai 06:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Probably vanity. Google shows a concert saxophonist of the same, but the man described ain't he. Marskell 07:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Some guy 07:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article gives no indication whatsoever of notability. --Icarus 08:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable --Ed (Edgar181) 13:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Gives no indication of notability ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yawn. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, appears to be WP:POINT. Stifle (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Corn Ceremony

because a German English Administrator is unable to verify the content from Germany (since no Cherokee Live in Germany) and has placed a prod on the page, which means it probably doesn't belong in the Encyclopedia Asgaya Gigagei 06:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • delete - Unverifiable from the Country of Germany. unsigned by Asgaya Gigagei Keep provided inaccruate information from Google is not associated with Cherokee Tribe since the materials placed by Isotope23 refer to the Oneidas, a tribe that lived 1500 miles north of the Cherokee -- and is totally inaccurate of Creek, Cherokee, and Seminole culture. Asgaya Gigagei 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You may or may not have noticed on the Talk page that I requested that subject experts add subsections on each tribe's specific Green Corn ceremony practices since they are so divergent (provided the information can be sourced per WP:V. Right now I've taken it back to a very general stub.--Isotope23 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia articles need to be properly sourced so that the information in them can be verified whatever country you live in. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Keep Isotope23's cleaned up version. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep tag for sourcing, and edit out unsourced material. whether or not Cherokee live in Germany is completely irrelevant. It's verifiable from "the Country of Germany"... with a little website I like to call "Google" [7]. The basic premise of this article can be sourced very easily. Some of the info appears to be WP:OR and simply needs to be removed. In fact this could easily be expanded because other native cultures besides the Cherokee celebrate the Green Corn Ceremony. deletion isn't necessary... cleanup is.--Isotope23 16:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I also googled on the phrase "Green Corn Ceremony" and found any number of hits relating to Native American celebrations. Creeks and Oneidas were also named as having this. Should be more comprehensive and give sources, but what's here seems plausible. Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination by multiply-blocked sockpuppet. Article could use improved sourcing, but is perfectly encyclopedic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. I should also note that when searching for "Green Corn Ceremony", you only get 444 unique hits. Royboycrashfan 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - AfD proposer is the only delete vote, and he's both rescinded his delete vote and been blocked. Jeff was probably trying to bring WP into disrepute by deleting more or less reasonable (though certainly not flawless) articles--Aim Here 09:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim White (role-playing author)

Evidently a vanity article (at least it's an up-front one), no evidence of any actual notability. Alai 06:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffy in the buff

  • Delete - Unencyclopedic list. If content is kept at all, it should be merged to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Wickethewok 06:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Curps 07:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft. --Icarus 08:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. 08:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopædic fancruft.  (aeropagitica)  12:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and don't merge. Eivindt@c 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without merging. Capitalistroadster 21:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic T&Acruft. As for "no one, including the viewer, actually sees Buffy nude"... hm, I never would've guessed. --Kinu t/c 23:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • hm? When did hm become a word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpscholar (talk • contribs)
    • Note that the helpful above comment was made by the creator of the article in question. Wickethewok 01:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Which helpful comment "above"? Hm?
  • Delete -- too controversial for Wickethewok et. al.
    • Why is the article concerning nudity on the Simpsons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_The_Simpsons) considered acceptable by Wikipedia’s self-appointed censors while the “Buffy in the buff” article is characterized as “unencyclopedic”? Hm.
  • Comment, note this edit to Nudity in film trying to incorporate the "Buffy in the buff" material there... and it's not even a film. -- Curps 13:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right, Curps; it's not a film-- that's why it was included under the section of the article that deals with nudity on television shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.65 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Ricky81682.  (aeropagitica)  12:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mungery

Delete - at first glance I thought it was nonsense. I think its an advertisement though... maybe...? Wickethewok 06:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy-deleted as recreated content. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planehugger for the last decision. Rossami (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planehuggers

This article was speedily deleted twice, and was then reposted yet again. I've changed the re-nomination to a AfD because I think that it's worth discussing. I do not know what the original reasons given for the speedy nomination were, but my guess is that it's because it's a neologism. Icarus 06:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into another article about 9/11 conspiracy theorists, as the term gets 499 google hits. Not enough for a separate article, in my opinion, but enough for a brief mention in another article. I'm not familiar enough with what articles exist to suggest which one, beyond the obvious 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Icarus 06:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. I hesitate to say merge first, because the POV shouldn't accompany the term if it migrates somewhere. It is very obviously a neologism. Marskell 07:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect as twice-deleted neologism and conspiracycruft. Feezo (Talk) 08:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's better off at Urban Dictionary. --BillC 10:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete "CSD G4 - copies of previously deleted material", protect, and take some sort of action against RayAntoky. Actually, this is the fourth repost; "Planehugger" was deleted March 24, March 31, and April 3. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planehugger and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Planehugger Esquizombi 13:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Maybe worth mentioning in the context of 9-11 conspiracies, but doesn't merit an article. I wouldn't object to deletion though. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 18:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crust bucket

Delete - definition only. Most likely crude protologism. Wickethewok 07:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 07:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Blue520 07:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy per nom. Some guy 07:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Plus, eww. --Icarus 08:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete is fancruft relevant only to a teen movie. RomaC 09:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (creator request). – Sceptre (Talk) 14:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starsiege Vehicle Configuration

It's sort of weird nominating my own page for deletion. This was the second article I wrote and at the time I was new and not familiar with all the policies. Looking back at it now, it seems to be mostly fancruft. I'm obviously biased, as I wrote it, so I'll let others decide. Some guy 07:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom — and kudos to the author for recognizing it! Feezo (Talk) 08:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As the article's author, I think you can even have it Speedy Deleted if you so choose. (only other edit is a spelling correction) Alternately, you might consider either moving it to your user space, or perhaps merging the content in with another Starsiege article. --Alan Au 08:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge a heavily condensed versio to Starsiege, or if you really insist, delete. JIP | Talk 08:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per JIP ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously per author's request. Eusebeus 12:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Article was Speedy Deleted by User:Elf-friend at 22:28, 3 April 2006. Reason given was "This article provides no meaningful content". I'm just closing off this discussion. -- Saberwyn 11:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The aladdin

Delete - seems like there should be something explicitly saying on WP:NOT that WP is not UrbanDictionary 2. Wickethewok 07:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dont Delete - If 'donkey punch' and 'glass bottom boat' are allowed in the hall of wikipedia i see no reason why The aladdin should not be allowed. It is a common term which is used collqially in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.97.183 (talk • contribs)

  • I call bullshit on the above claim, because I've never heard of it. Seriously, this is a dictdef. The majority of the top google hits when searching ["The aladdin" sex act] refer to either the casino, the fictional character, or the Disney movie; making this an unverifiable dictdef. Donkey punch has this nice "Cultural references" section which contributes to its inclusion by referring to when the term appears in tv shows and other media. Delete unless verifiable by a reliable source. -- Saberwyn 08:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Aladdin, Las Vegas. WP:NOT a slang dictionary, and the only reference is a link to urbandictionary.com. I'm suggesting redirect because with "The" pre-pended, I think of the casino. Alternately, delete. --Alan Au 07:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "dont delete" - Still didnt answer the question of why if there is glass bottom boat and donkey punch, and dirty sanchez (all which are slang) then why can there be no aladdin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.97.183 (talk • contribs)
    • The Donkey Punch and Dirty Sanches phenonema are externally verifiable through the use of reliable sources and references to in several major film and television works. The Alladin isn't -- Saberwyn 08:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Donkey punch has a large section discussing cultural references, which lend notability to the topic. As for Glass bottom boat, I've removed the dictionary defintion from the disambiguation page. The Talk:Dirty Sanchez (sex) page also contains some information about why that article was kept. However, until the article contains more verifiable information about its widespread use, I consider it to be too much of a niche topic. As an additional comment, the article is poorly named (but that's easily fixable later). You may also find the Wikipedia:Importance page useful. --Alan Au 08:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY REDIRECT to La casa de Bernarda alba. JIP | Talk 08:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernarda alba

Delete/Redirect - looks like a playbill from some production of a play.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JIP | Talk 11:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyler Bleszinski

  • Delete - contested prod. Not particularly notable creator of a not particularly notable blog. Wickethewok 07:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - How can somebody be mentioned in Sports Illustrated twice 3/21/2006 and 3/01/2005 (registration required for both), New York Times 4/18/2005 and numerous mentions in several West Coast newspapers be not notable?Dspserpico 08:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - perhaps the article should be on the blog then? Not the blogger? Wickethewok 08:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - but isn't a blog an extension of the blogger? Dspserpico 08:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - if he is only notable for being associated with the blog, having an article about him serves no purpose if there was an article about the blog. Wickethewok 08:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - The problem is this, Bleszinski is one only two bona fide bloggers I know of who has had press credentials who are not also journalists. Is that notoriety associated with a blog, or notoriety associated with a person? Also, recent mentions on Sports Illustrated talk about person's actions as a blogger, not about the blog itself. Dspserpico 08:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Notability marginally established through articles about his blog. That said, there's probably only enough information for one article about the blog/blogger, and I'm not sure which should be the primary article name. Of course, that's a separate discussion. --Alan Au 08:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable journalist. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The law to cut federal state party-funding in Belgium

Delete - probably a newspaper article or something. Not encyclopedic. Wickethewok 08:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep - The text we're hosting is an unpublished compilation/résumé of texts, mainly newspaper articles. The political plot evolved during a period of time in Belgium. The individual articles in Dutch were not important enough to publish in English, but the whole of the story certainly is. This text offers the whole of the information in an encyclopaedic way. --Jvb – April 3, 2006
  • Delete, just a collection of statements and quotes, possibly a copyvio. Even if it is valid, the article needs to be renamed. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:33 (UTC)
What do you think about: The Belgian "dry up" law, see: [8] Could this perhaps be a better name? --Jvb – April 3, 2006
  • Delete per Cuiv...Even rewritten, it'd need to be renamed to the actual name of the law. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Ajdz 17:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete or Rename. As far as I can see, no other Belgian statutes have an entry (which doesn't mean they shouldn't). However, most statutes are listed under a title that is the name of the particular statute, and the article itself is usually under a category for that country's statutes (i.e. "Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act", which is under the category of "Canadian federal legislation"). If it's significant legislation in Belgium, purhaps it should have an entry, but if not, I don't know if we want to see an entry for every single statute from every single legislature. Fluit 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and rename to the proper name of the legislation.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, well, I guess move and rewrite, but thats pretty much a delete... Wickethewok 02:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Completely unsalvagable structureless incomprehensible POV diatribe. LambiamTalk 05:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Kukini 05:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons expressed above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or move or merge to a suitable article; I can't think of any right now, though. -- infinity0 15:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Loo

The content looks like a church brochure promoting the pastor rather than a neutral article. But more importantly, I don't think the biography of the pastor Kevin Loo warrants an article on its own in wikipedia, as currently there is no significant or important detail about the pastor. He is at the moment a senior pastor of a local church in Malaysia, like many other senior pastors around the country. Atticuslai 08:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Neither the pastor nor the church is notable. Feezo (Talk) 08:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Alan Au 08:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This pastor is non-notable at all, despite being part of City Harvest Church. --Terence Ong 13:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and hope Jason gastrich won't find it! ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merged with Sava (mythology).  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'i

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iva (mythology)

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifed, too general, culture of origin lacking. Kahuroa 09:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 13:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified. (Not, e.g., in Craig's Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology) Bucketsofg 14:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Kinda hard to verify a myth. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
comment. It shouldn't be too hard, however, to confirm that it is in fact a real myth, which I haven't been able to do. Bucketsofg 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hine-Kau-Ataata

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - I have found a source and will rewrite and rename have rewritten. Kahuroa 09:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC) edited Kahuroa 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Later comment: suggest rename to Hine-kau-ataata after afd process Kahuroa 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Havoa

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless verified - see Talk:Havoa - this is not a Polynesian story. Kahuroa 09:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified. Bucketsofg 14:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ele'ele

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable. Kahuroa 09:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified. Bucketsofg 14:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Renamed as Hāhau-whenua  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hahau-Whenua

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, rename Hāhau-whenua. Now sourced (by me). Kahuroa 09:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move per Kahuroa. Bucketsofg 14:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Renamed as Auahitūroa.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auahi-Turoa

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, rename Auahitūroa. now sourced and rewritten (by me). Kahuroa 10:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per Kahuroa. Bucketsofg 14:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ilaheva

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - as rewritten and sourced by Bucketsofg. Kahuroa 09:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bucketsofg 14:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aremata-Popoa and Aremata-Rorua

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep as sourced by Bucketsofg. Kahuroa 10:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bucketsofg 14:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atonga

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep as sourced by Bucketsofg. Kahuroa 10:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bucketsofg 14:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, since I added the references relied upon above. Crypticfirefly 04:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avaiki Tautau

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unverifiable, too general, culture of origin lacking, impossible given centuries of separation, and the constraints of geography and oral tradition. Looks like 19th Century manufactured 'tradition'. Kahuroa 10:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kahuroa Bucketsofg 14:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Renamed as Pulotu.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulotu

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, rename Pulotu. as now sourced by Bucketsofg. I say rename because Bulotu is either the Fijian spelling or is archaic - Samoan has p not b. Kahuroa 10:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & rename per Kahuroa Bucketsofg 14:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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's not much to keep but feel free to create a page saying eau is French for water! kingboyk 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eau

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless verified. See Talk:Havoa - not a Polynesian story. Kahuroa 10:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kahuroa Bucketsofg 14:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: if deleted, a redirect to water might be useful. — sjorford (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep as disambiguation page, find sources for the myth information. This page does have some usefull information about the translation of the word water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.57.8.158 (talk • contribs)
  • comment. If we were able to find the sources of this myth, we'd be arguing to keep it. The problem is that there are several Polynesian myth articles that seem to have become so garbled by someone that we can't figure out where it's come from. Bucketsofg 22:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • and this one's not even Polynesian at all - but maybe the reference to eau (water) should be kept as per Sjorford above. Kahuroa 23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahoeitu (second nomination)

Finally...This is the last of the 54 Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep as sourced by Bucketsofg. Kahuroa 10:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bucketsofg 14:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kong Hee

Notability not established. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Loo --Alan Au 08:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Founder and senior pastor of City Harvest Church Singapore. That's notable, considering how "huge" City Harvest is in Singapore[9]. --Dodo bird 09:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, he's the founder and senior pastor (honorary) of CHC in Singapore which is Singapore's largest church. Definitely notable and he's quite a well known pastor overseas. CHC is as notable as Hillsong Church and its senior pastor, Brian Houston. --Terence Ong 14:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Terence Ong. Gwernol 21:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 21:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough Leidiot 12:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Film Stars

Original research, ranking of "great film stars" not based on any published ranking, merely on reasoning set up by editor. Ckessler 08:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Deciding who would be and not be on this list is purely subjective. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. WP:NOR & WP:NPOV. PJM 12:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, criterion "great" is subjective and non-encyclopedic. If this were, for example, a list from Time Magazine, I would let it stay, but it seems to just be someone's opinion. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:39 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork, original research, definitely hard to keep it NPOV. --Terence Ong 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete inherently POV list.--Isotope23 15:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable POV. BryanG 18:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not WP:NPOV. Surprised that Keanu Reeves didn't make this list… Tsk. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, no objective criteria established, a POV disaster waiting to happen. --Kinu t/c 23:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC
  • Delete Ditto. -- Dessydes 11:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 20:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I was almost persuaded by the comment that this was a list based on a Channel 4 poll. But on checking it was clear that it wasn't based on such a list. List, Lies and Video-tape. Delete SilkTork 23:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blog-Rock

Non-notable, unstable neologism. Haakon 09:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Merged into List of minor characters in Saved by the Bell.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maxwell Nerdstrom

Non-notable character. Ckessler 09:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] County flower

This article is being used as a promotional tool for a charity. Outwith Lancashire and Yorkshire there is zero "tradition" (a much abused word) of county flowers in any other part of the UK, and there never can be in Scotland, because the counties which could have adopted them were abolished over 30 years ago. Mais oui! 09:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. First Bwithh deleted all the references to county flowers from relevant articles, citing this AfD, despite the consensus being clearly in favour of the retention of the article. When I replaced the mentions, Mais oui! went through them adding {{fact}}, with the edit summary: "citation needed: at what date adopted? by whom? Plantlife? Liverpool County Council? Noddy?". Given that each article linked to county flower, which has adequate citations and explanation, this was absurd, and I've been removing the templates. I don't know why this has aroused such strong emotion in these editors, but would they please leave articles alone at least until this AfD's over, and prefereably afterwards? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, after moving most of the content to Plantlife (the charity in question). It does appear that some counties in the US and elsewhere also have their own 'official' county flower. --BillC 09:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - at least some local authorities are promoting this, and the BBC also picked up on it. I would actually move most material from Plantlife to county flower rather than the other way. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This was a perfectly legitimate competition open to the public to choose a flower for their county (including counties in Scotland which were not abolished 30 years ago despite what you think). Owain (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, indeed, Scottish counties really do still exist: but only in your very, very fertile imagination. Meanwhile, back in the real world, they were explicitly abolished by statute in 1975.--Mais oui! 14:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: as far as the list of county flowers goes, whatever Owain or Mais oui! think about counties, the ones that were used by Plantlife (the people who compiled the list) are the only ones which are relevant here. --RFBailey 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 14:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. Stringops 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge as suggested by OpenToppedBus. Accurizer 21:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but make sure the article indicates that this listing is not official, in the manner that US state flowers are. --RFBailey 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable/marketing abuse of wikipedia - mentions of the county flower should be deleted from all county pages except for Lancashire and Yorkshire (and any other county which has historic or state or local government designated flower emblem). Bwithh 03:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Mentions of the county flowers have been spammed into the lead sections of UK county and city pages - at most, this may belong , with the disclaimer that this is not an official emblem, in a trivia section or a flora section; nothing more Bwithh 03:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete No such thing exists in Cornwall - I agree with the above comment Biwizz 07:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the first two paragraphs, as it describes what a county flower is without mentioning its contest, but Merge the rest into Plantlife. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 07:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but tidy up and explain context. A contemporary competition is still notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Also needs to be gereralised to include County flower systems outside UK. Lumos3 08:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; in many counties, such as Oxfordshire, the county flower was chosen by the public in a campaign supported by wildlife trusts and the like. I see that Bwithh has been deleting mention of county flowers from articles, citing this AfD, despite the fact that consensus is curetly clearly for keeping the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep County flowers exist for counties in other countries too. I added details of a few to the page. The competition is notable enough for inclusion, assuming proper explanation is given. --David Edgar 10:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Interesting to see the information together on one page. FloNight talk 17:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but needs cleanup and explanation of context. Johnwalton 18:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep in so far as this article is factual information. However, I am sceptical that the edits to individual county pages (and pseudo-counties such as Birmingham which apparently has a county flower despite not being a county!) to record these flowers are appropriate as these flowers have no official recognition or historical validity. Valiantis 18:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: Wikipedia is not here to "make the world right" or the way any particular wikipedian would like it to be. Whether Mais oui! disagree with the concept of county flower is academic. In any case, no harm would be done if the sentence "Following a campaign by Plantlife," precedes mention of county flowers in any county articles. Regards, Asterion 02:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shompet

  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, slang, or idiom guide. --Hetar 09:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete post transwiki. --ΜιĿːtalk 09:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete: If this is not a dictionary, so we shouldn't have anything about "Apple" or "tree" or "carrot" or ... . This is an information guide, about what does something mean and where it is used. Don't try to be effective!! This Article is great and it is common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad3d (talk • contribs)
  • Don't Delete: per above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad3d (talk • contribs) Multiple "vote" from this user stricken per AfD etiquette.
  • Neutral, could be notable, would like to see an actual source before believing notability. Appears to be more than just a dicdef. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:40 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete: Check the Encyclopedia's meaning in Wikipedia. You'll see: "The encyclopedia as we recognize it today developed from the dictionary in the 18th century.... an encyclopedia seeks to discuss each subject in more depth .... Some works titled "dictionaries" are actually more similar to encyclopedias, such as the Dictionary of the Middle Ages, the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, and Black's Law Dictionary ...". So as we see here, an Encyclopedia is an advanced dictionary. How you say "It is not a dictionary"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad3d (talk • contribs) Multiple "vote" from this user stricken per AfD etiquette.
    • Delete. While you defending your own article is understandable, Ahmad, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary is official policy and nothing against which can be argued, however much any of us might not want that to be the case. The Apple article describes what one is, not merely defines it. There's nothing to be described for the Farsi word for "stupid." Delete as dicdef. RGTraynor 16:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep. If you need more examples of "There is something to be done with the farsi word Shompet, I'll give you some: Atom (is a word from Greek), Candy (is a farsi word), and ...
  • Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Esquizombi 13:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete: Ofcourse it is not a dictionary, because it is something more than a dictionary! and dictionary is a subset of Wikipedia.... If it is something different, then Why, apple and Tree and ... can be found in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad3d (talk • contribs) Multiple "vote" from this user stricken per AfD etiquette.
    • Comment If you look at the articles for apple and tree, they are quite obviously encyclopedic entries not dictionary ones. Esquizombi 14:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If you look at the Wikipedia, you'll find out that it is a place that everyone can edit the entry. Why? Because everything need to be completed by everyone on the net. I'm sure apple and tree are not BORN like that, and they are abviousely created by someone and edited by others (exactly the same way that Shompet can be).
  • Delete. There's no potential for this to outgrow being a dicdef. Brian G. Crawford 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary/ dicdef. --Terence Ong 14:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef, and I've not seen any notability ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable, non-notable, 14 g-hits, those in English pertain to a eBay user name. Accurizer 21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and place the famous little tag for sources needed. --72.57.8.158 22:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We can say Wikipedia is not a dictionary because, well, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, translating, slang or otherwise. It's an encyclopedia. Comparison to other articles stated above is irrelevant, as those are not dictionary definitions. This article, meanwhile, has no plausible expandability. If someone can satisfactorily prove this wrong, I'll reconsider. --Kinu t/c 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If you look at the Wikipedia, you'll find out that it is a place that everyone can edit the entry. Why? Because everything need to be completed by everyone on the net. I'm sure apple and tree are not BORN like that, and they are abviousely created by someone and edited by others (exactly the same way that Shompet can be). —This unsigned comment was added by 194.225.24.3 (talk • contribs) .
    • Look, you're nearing the root of the issue. We can complete the article on apple: It's biological properties, its mythological and cultural significance all the way to Isaac Newton and so on. But can we complete "Shompet" to same degree? No. "It means stupid. It was used in a TV program often." Well, write about the TV program. That may be significant, and we can probably discuss how that TV program is relevant, and how it made everyone cry that word. Take a look at Pulttibois, which does have an article: You find that we don't, and bloody hecking well won't, have an article about "apuva." It would never grow beyond "It means 'help'. It was used in a TV comedy show. Everyone in Finland mentally under 12 years of age repeated the hell out of it." Are you starting to see the issue now? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Imarek 00:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of distressed shopping malls

Since the last time this article was nominated for AfD here, we've forked out the malls that are verifiably defunct, and no longer operating as malls or closed outright here. This addressed the concerns brought up in the previous AfD nomination. This article now contains only "distressed" shopping malls still open to the public, which is far harder, if not impossible, to objectively verify than defunctness. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. What exactly does "distressed" mean? In any case, it seems unverifiable and probably unmaintainable. Grandmasterka 10:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since identifying them seems rather difficult.. and as above, 'distressed' is never even explained (I assume it means they are on their way to becoming defunct?). -- Mithent 11:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the criteria for being on this list ("distressed"), is inherently non-encyclopedic. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:35 (UTC)
  • Weak delete It's a potentially interesting subject, but the content seemingly simply mirrors Deadmalls.com without adding anything to it from other sources. The parent article Dead mall really needs to be expanded commenting on the significance of the phenomenon before there are all the subarticles. But perhaps there should be some sort of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion about articles on malls on WP. Esquizombi 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment We did start WikiProject Dead malls to attempt to coordinate efforts regarding these articles about dead malls on Wikipedia. Basically sets up a basic structure for articles and some "talking points" for such malls. Hopefully this will make things a wee bit easier in the future, as this does centralize some of the discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this mirror of blog site deadmalls.com. Labelling a mall as 'distressed' is POV, and changing it from the original would make it original research, as it is up to someone's interpretation whether or not a mall is 'distressed'. And it's a silly name. The only emotion malls feel is anger. Proto||type 14:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I like the list. However, I feel that it is of no use, isn't it listcruft? --Terence Ong 15:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Delete all malls! ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. this could be a categofy, but as an article it is patent listcruft. youngamerican (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. It's interesting, but I don't see how we can label a mall distressed and still be NPOV. BryanG 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom, thanks to whom for straightening this out. -Will Beback 21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. There are reasonably objective criteria for a 'distressed' property most of which are unavailable to the general public. There are a couple of malls that have defaulted on their mortgages. Others have extremely low (less than 60%) occupancy. Most of that information would take so much time to research that I doubt anyone has done it here. I certainly can't fathom what criteria was used for inclusion here. Montco 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: "Distressed" is too vague. Even a specific meaning (say, vacancy rate), might or might not be notable with respect to the local economy. And the one mall on the list that I can really make an informed opinion on is not distressed by any standard. Peter Grey 03:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 20:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd personally have to go with the delete side. I think there's a too-high degree of subjectivity involved, and a too-low degree of verifiability. Plus I just don't think it's that important, and while I may be wrong I don't think WP has ever established a consensus that all shopping malls are legitimately notable. For what it's worth, the only mall on here that I could speak to at all (Whitby Mall in Whitby, Ontario) is one that I don't think would merit an article even if it weren't on some people's subjective lists of "distressed" malls. Bottom line, this just doesn't strike me as being a particularly notable or encyclopedic list. Bearcat 02:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stan Johnson

This one is interesting. The article, as it now stands, is comple vanispamicruftisement. Google reveals 360 hits for "Stan Johnson" and "Prophecy Club". I'm really not sure if the host of a 15-minute show is notable. (I co-host a 15 minute show on KUOM, although that's local, and this appears to be national.) No vote. Grandmasterka 10:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete vanispamicruftisement indeed. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO, however if someone can WP:V source the national radio claim (with something other than his personal website) or provide some 3rd party writeups of the guy from WP:RS sources, I will reconsider.--Isotope23 15:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Most of the article isn't even about the intended subject, but about his radio show. Even that only appears to be on 20-something stations in once-weekly 15 minute installments, which doesn't seem to be truly "nationally syndicated" for me. --Kinu t/c 20:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-pub

I don't believe this term is in terribly widespread use, nor how it could grow beyond a dictionary-style definition. Joyous | Talk 11:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, neologism from Grand Theft Auto --TBC??? ??? ??? 12:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete shoot all neologisms in face. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I think it is in reasonably common usage, given that (until recently) most pubs in the UK closed at 11pm, and recreational drunkards needed something to do as an alternative to nightclubbing. However, the article could still do with some more info and references to prove it can be more than a dicdef. Possibly it could be merged into public house instead, although I'm not sure that it belongs there. — sjorford (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If it isn't a neologism, it's a dicdef. Either way, Delete. RGTraynor 17:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WINAD. I thought this was about post-puberty (Postpubertät in German), but no, of course it's about booze. Sandstein 19:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I don't see to much of a grandiose article comming out of this. However their is a lot of document cultural event that do happen after getting drunk at a pub. With proper sourcing and good critical thinking I actually do think that this could become a good article. ie.: Drinking and driving, sex, pizza, Alcohol poisoning, Police, accidents, statistics, pregnancy reports, date rape, etc... I'm pretty sure there have been much articles in the news about the stupid things that happen after the pub. Ie.: News facts, myths, etc. Also the term post-pub should be properly defined and it's origins stated. It is a term that I am unfamiliar with. b.t.w.: Oh! And I though it meant postpubescent, the opposite of prepubescent! lol. --CyclePat 22:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom, or transwiki to Wiktionary. -- P199 22:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 01:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with a cap in its ass; dicdef or neologism at best. --moof 05:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Not to start a nationalistic war or anything, but I've yet to see any other variations on this based on national differences in the naming conventions for bars/pubs. i.e. Post-bar, Post-club, Post-disco, etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks like im quite out numbered here, but my orignal idea for this artical was that it is a word now used in British Popular Culture, I ref magazines such as Loaded, GQ etc as my sources, it is also a word commonly used by students across the UK, however i will natually accept your decisions to delete this artical. Retro Junkies 17:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was lies, lies, and more lies. DS 19:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Coyne

BS - not a 'billionaire' and NN. James Kendall [talk] 11:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. Wikipedia:Hoaxes. PJM 11:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete', hoax. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:41 (UTC)
  • Delete, no references to be found, hoax Gu 12:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete tell ya what, for a few of those milions, I'll change my vote to keep ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. Bucketsofg 16:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Mischa's been awfully quiet about him… guess it's a long-distance relationship. Him with his soccer and all… --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. I think SWAT is on to something though; the next time a vanity page is nominated, we should certainly offer "keep" votes in exchange for money. Joe 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Everyone loves Magical Trevor, cos' the tricks that he does are ever so clever. Speedy deleted. Esteffect 22:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jaded (definition)

Moved to Wiktionary: Wikt:jaded Dangherous 11:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete (3 or 4 to 1, plus a notable game does not per se make the software house notable). kingboyk 02:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockingham Software

NN games company. For a company that has supposedly been around since 2001, they only get 342 hits. Drat (Talk) 13:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Cricket Manager is notable in the game community (though not as much as Football manager) ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nom. There are many tiny development studios which manage to put out a game or two. But whereas the game might garner some notability, the studio behind might not. It would never pass WP:CORP in a million years. - Hahnchen 19:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In response to Hahnchen: The gaming industry does not work like the music/movie industry. If a game gets notability, the developer (note not the publisher) automatically gains notability. It's different than say a music CD where if an artist makes a hit, the studio he recorded in isn't notable. But with games, the design studio to a large extent is synonymous with the game itself, and hence a game, whether notorious or critically acclaimed, earns it's developers notability. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'm a keen gamer and drop in at WP:CVG from time to time. This is not a notable gaming company, I could rolloff quite a few unknown development studios who only managed to put out 1 or 2 titles, and I don't think they're notable enough. Neither of their games has made an impact on the wider gaming industry, and it's not like they have the greatest output either. There are mod teams more notable than this. As opposed to SwatJ, I'm saying that not every software house is notable. - Hahnchen 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see why WP:CORP shouldn't apply to software studios too, and its criteria are not met here. Sandstein 09:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shiv-Goraksha Babaji

subject is non-notable 999 13:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

People moving comments around on this vote page need to kindly knock it off. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per my nomination, subject is non-notable. Google returns only 63 hits [10] which seem to be contained on less than 20 distinct sites. See also related non-notable page which was up for AfD recently [11] -999 13:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is suspected to be yet another attempt at "sneaky vandalism" per WP:VANDALISM by user:Adityanath as another of his sockpuppets. This article has major significance as a subject two huge fields of spirituality: Kriya Yoga and Nath Sampradaya. This article has probably about two dozen unique references to ancient and modern texts, and to major modern topics that bring up hundreds of thousands of Google search returns for keywords such as "Kriya Yoga", "Mahavatar Babaji", "Gorakshanath", "Yogananda", "Gorakhnath", "Nath Sampradaya", "Shiva", "Trimurti", "Yogiraj Gurunath", etc. Hamsacharya dan 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Dan, you are being paranoid. I had nothing to do with this nomination. To show my good faith, I will abstain from voting. —Adityanath 15:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Too late, you already voted as 999. Hamsacharya dan 18:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. That an article was typed up with many external links or that terms used within it have numerous Google search returns are in of themselves unimpressive. Whether the subject is notable ought to be the question, not whether its inventor claims parallels to other subjects which might be. RGTraynor 17:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - This man was the beginner of a huge hinduism subsect known as Nath. He is like the Jesus or Mohammed or Abraham of this subsect which has hundreds of thousands of followers worldwide. He has written a number of books including Goraksha Samhita, Goraksha Gita, Siddha Siddhanta Paddhati, Yoga Martanada, Yoga Siddhanta Paddhati, Yoga-Bija, Yoga Chintamani, and has started numerous practices such as Laya Yoga, Hatha Yoga, etc...Please see variants of his name Gorakhnath which gives around 32,000 links [12]Gorakh Nath which gives over 9000 links [13] Gorakshanath [14] which brings up 575 on google, with Shiv-goraksha [15] which pulls up 622 pages on google. This article is HIGHLY notable in Indian religion - everybody in India knows who this person is, and there's about 15 major pilgrimage sites associated with him - this figure is well known and has been written about in countless ancient texts (which unfortunately do not have representation of Google yet), and several modern ones, as is evidenced by the content of the article. There is no reason to delete this article. It is only being listed out of spite from an editor that is being investigated for sockpuppeting. Hamsacharya dan 18:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Other variants:
          • Shiv Goraksha Nath
          • Shiva Goraksha Nath
          • Guru Gorakh Nath
          • Guru Gorakshanath
          • Shiva Gorakshanath
          • Gorakh Baba or Babaji
          • Goraksha Babaji or Baba
        • 'Comment - you have to put multi-word subjects in quotes, properly done, "Shiv-goraksha" has 97 hits [16]. —Adityanath 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: Urr ... no. This is a bit of a bait and switch. I read through both articles, and as far as I see, "Shiv-Goraksha Babaji" isn't the historical 11th century religious figure Gorakhnath. It is an alleged spirit that some guru claimed visited him around 1960 and claims is Gorakhnath, only he felt like renaming the spirit. That information from this article might be useful in the Gorakhnath entry I'll leave to others, but claiming Gorakhnath's notability for this article is tantamount to me writing a vanity article about my cat claiming that Jesus is possessing her, and declaring my cat's article notable because Jesus has a whole whopping lot of Google hits. RGTraynor 13:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC) In light of Dan's information I change to Weak keep and redirect to the more notable spelling. I also caution dan to not make accusations about sockpuppetry unless you're prepared to take them to WP:RFCU. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as primary author Hamsacharya dan has changed his vote to delete. ---Baba Louis 03:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Delete per nom. or merge but only to Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath per RGTraynor's insightful analysis. Does not belong in Gorakshanath who was an historical individual.. ---Baba Louis 16:38, 3 April 2006
  • Keep - No issues requiring deletion. unsigned comment by 129.188.33.221 (talk · contribs)
  • Keep What a surreal AfD. Anyway, the article is almost unintelligible to the casual reader and needs cleanup, but Google convinces me that this is a (at least somewhat) notable figure. Sandstein 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gorakshanath. If you read the article, it's apparent that this is just another name for Gorakshanath, among many other variant names and spellings (see 'Other Variants' above). It's even stated in the article: "Shiva-Gorakshanath (Guru Gorakhnath)". ॐ Priyanath 21:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep or Merge with Gorakshanath or Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. This information is much more in depth and well researched than what is on Gorakshanath page. Adityanath created this page when he didn't know anything about the subject - I had to come in and clean it up in addition to what was already there from Hamsa Dan. It should have never been created but immediately been integrated with one of the two pages above. It's ridiculous that it's even on AfD. This is an enormous subject in India. There are probably about 30 books written by or on the subject before 1800. Most of them are in sanskrit and haven't yet been translated. Kalagni Nath 23:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge, as per Priyanth (or Kalagni Nath). --moof 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentDo not consider on any point of serious scholarship to merge this article with the Gorakshanath article. Gorakshanath was an influencial Indian personality who lived between 700-1000 years ago. Gorakshanath is dead. Shiv-Goraksha Babaji is a fictional character, the ultimate meat puppet a few people are attempting to breath life into. We have limited antecdotal reference to Shiv-Goraksha Babaji and no facts whatsoever of "his" objective existence. To say with a straight face that Gorakshanath is the same being as Shiv-Goraksh Baba one must be culpable for supporting the concept of physical immortality. This idea would be laughed off most WP articles in a heart-beat. There is no reason it should be considered here. Chai Walla 22:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 68.127.175.116 18:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 67.36.189.228 19:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Delete per nom. 61.1.113.72 05:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milos sadik

Can't find any evidence of notability. Google search doesn't come up with anything. Was prodded but tag removed by article's author. Spondoolicks 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Dlugoss

Non-notable per WP:BIO, garners a 40 upon googling. Previously {{prod}}ed, removed by User:204.39.88.246. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (11th nomination)

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godstomper

Vanity page for non-notable band. No entry in AMG. —Chowbok 14:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Someone needs to write about the band -- other than the band members themselves -- before they can go in Wiki.--M@rēino 14:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BAND ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --70.29.120.82 22:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above Just zis Guy you know? 16:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy 3. Hoffman

Nonnotable. This person appears to be locally known, but certainly not notable enough. Jogloran 14:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete; doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria.--Isotope23 15:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete if you can find a source for her changing her name to 3, then she deserves at least a merge into the list of people with weird and unsual names ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jennifer 8. Lee is a reporter for the New York Times who has reasons other than attracting attention to herself for using a numeral as her middle name. This woman doesn't. Vanity. Daniel Case 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. Bucketsofg 16:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Daniel Case puts it best. --Kinu t/c 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 me. Pepsidrinka 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Avery

Surely NN? Seems like a regular guy to me, and definitely not a topic of encyclopaedic value. James Kendall [talk] 14:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Who the fuck are you to decide what is of encyclopedic value? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Gaius Baltar (talk • contribs)

  • Wikipidia is an encyclopedia, not a free host for vanity pages. Please read the guidelines for inclusion including autobiography, biography, notability and verifiability. Also please do not remove the deletion header from the page until the formal deletion review is over. Please read the deletion policy linked at the top of this page; wikipedia operates by consensus implementation of guidelines that are also agreed upon by consensus. The answer to your question is all of us. Thatcher131 15:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Thatcher131 15:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria... borderline speedy CSD:A7.--Isotope23 15:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Does not assert notability. "Biographical profile" a link to his yahoo profile? BWAHAHAHAHAH ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established; original research. Bucketsofg 16:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom; even by the standards of vanity pages, this one is overwhelmingly not notable. Any bio that has to include working for two days (?!?) at a hotel once managed by a brother of Tom Selleck in order to supply padding ... that's sad. One wonders whether this fellow's claim to be a "financial analyst" involves being the file clerk at a bank branch. RGTraynor 17:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know how anyone can claim that the subject is non-notable or that the article does not assert notability. The article makes very clear that he threw a touchdown pass in a JV scrimmage game and that he was a pallbearer at his grandfather's funeral. I think the article is clearly intended as humor (if not, one worries), but obviously delete per nom is appropriate. Joe 18:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Tagged speedy... the more I see it, the more I want it BJAODN'd...--Isotope23 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, just silly. Sandstein 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: A7 as tagged, obviously. --Kinu t/c 20:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Somebody's mad 66.129.92.34 (talk · contribs) just copied the AfD template off of Matthew Avery and pasted it onto two more pages, Rafael Galvez and Maurice Postal. All these articles were created at the same time by Folio1701 (talk · contribs) and share some of the same photos. I removed the improper Afd templates and prodded them as nn, but if someone wants to retag them as Speedy then go ahead. I think someone's having a snit fit. Thatcher131 20:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JIP | Talk 11:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Zamos

Delete. Non-notable individual/incident. — WCityMike (T | C) 15:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to just propose that all the articles I've started be deleted I can provide you a list. I think Zamos is notable. It takes a lot of guts to do that. Google returns 10K hits for "David Zamos"; story was picked up by dozens of major outlets in several countries. Mateo LeFou 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Presumably a keep, then. — WCityMike (T | C) 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
With regards to your other claim re: Google, there are only 137 unique results for "David Zamos" and "Microsoft." See Wikipedia:Google test, the subsection "On 'unique' results", for reference. — WCityMike (T | C) 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep notability due to media interest Deli nk 16:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I've added a reference to an article in the Chronicle for Higher Education to the article, which I found in Lexis-Nexis. Ideally, I'd like a few more articles, too, but this one is for me (barely) enough. Bucketsofg 16:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep For reasons alreayd stated above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangman4ever (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Are we setting a precedent here? Are we saying that anyone who decides to sue a big company and gets a news article is notable? Since the suit was settled and the terms are secret, this sets no legal precedent. Unless Mr. Zamos intends to make suing companies a habit, can we assume that the 15 minutes of fame are nearly extinguished?Montco 23:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
If I thought anyone who decides to sue a big company is notable I'd have to start up a few hundred articles a day. But when someone singlehandedly gets one of the richest companies in the world to back down in a legal fight it's pretty notable.Mateo LeFou 13:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Rodrigo y Gabriela.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rodrigo Y Gabriela

My own fault. Article already exists at Rodrigo y Gabriela. But the existing article doesn't show up when searching for 'Rodrigo Y Gabriela' so I started up this one. They're quite similar articles anyway. Modular. (Talk.) 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect Seems logical that people may use a capital "y" when searching. Fan1967 16:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Fan. Bucketsofg 16:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uniting Friends in America

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Avari

Despite good attempt at creating article, clearly fails WP:BAND. Trivia section is going to BJAODN; rest is going nowhere. Daniel Case 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No contest (ok, ok, delete) again per above. Can't argue with WP:BAND, The Avari aren't that big! I'll know better for any other articles I start. --Alastairward 16:08, 4 April 2006 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 18:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Prosser's website

Some websites you don't need to look up their Alexa rating to know they fail WP:WEB. You just don't. Daniel Case 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Siege (game)

Non-notable game mod. Prod removed by same user who removed prods from other gamecruft game mods currently on AFD. Quale 16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Mod for Battlefield 1942. Can't find any critival reviews. Project website has ceased to exist. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod, and an unverifiable claim that the mod was popular. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 21:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: I tried to google this, but the use of the generic word "siege" meant that in the 500-odd pages there were results for Starsiege Tribes, and how to reenact famous modern sieges in the game. -- Saberwyn 21:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Remy B 14:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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: Vanispamcruftisement, CSD A7 . – Sceptre (Talk) 15:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magrudergrind

Vanity page of non-notable band, added by user who is only using Wikipedia to promote his own obscure projects. —Chowbok 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

weak keep - plenty of google hits, but reeks of vanity. Big in albania 11:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - This band does get 20,000 hits, but are still relatively obscure. Maybe a better option is to reduce the article in size / change the tone rather than an outright delete? Big in albania 11:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertisement. Esteffect 12:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Healthy urbanization

Original research, otherwise nothing else that couldn't be merged into new urbanism or its related articles. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 16:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. –Sommers (Talk) 19:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete unfortunatelly the author didn't cite any sources. (head shaking). --CyclePat 22:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southeastern Felt

{{{text}}} (Nominated for deletion by 141.161.112.132)

  • Delete. It's a felt supply company, for one, and also it merits less than 1000 google hits. Modular. (Talk.) 18:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is presented prior to the close of this discussion. --Icarus 19:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I believe the nominator is also the article creator (the nomination history is a little mixed). --BillC 02:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Lodge of Canada

unnecessary redirect page (grand lodge of canada suffices) —This unsigned comment was added by Osgoodelawyer (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep, its a necessary variation for redirect purposes, and we have plenty of server space for redirects.--CastAStone|(talk) 18:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. --Sneftel 19:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep until another Grand Lodge of Canada appears. (Note, any deletion should be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, but I don't think it is necessary in this case.) Accurizer 21:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
My point is that there is an uncapitalized redirect, and if one types in the capitalized phrase, it goes to that page, and redirects from there, making the capitalized redirect page unnecessary. See "grand lodge of ontario" and how it will redirect anyone who enters "Grand Lodge of Ontario" in the same way. Osgoodelawyer 23:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see that that only works in the search box, and not if there is a direct link to Grand Lodge of Ontario. Still, it's unlikely that someone would create a link to the incorrect page, but if you don't mind having multiple redirect pages, I'm cool with that. Osgoodelawyer 23:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect. Ardenn 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not normal process to handle redirects on AFD; there's a separate redirects for deletion area to discuss these matters. I essentially think it's harmless and keepable, but for procedure's sake, would anybody object if I closed this discussion since it's not really an appropriate AFD matter? It can be relisted on RFD if anybody feels strongly about that. Bearcat 02:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was move to wikt is the obvious choice, but it already has a def there. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outwith

The article is still a dicdef. It is already in wiktionary. There's no need for a tiny stub saying exactly the same thing in wikipedia. Stringops 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...though it was nice while it lasted :)Tom 17:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - It should be deleted and links to this Wikipedia article should really be redirected to the Wiktionary article if it is thought necessary. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, please follow procedures for nomination as stated in WP:DP. This is not really the place for transwiki talk. An article with the same title can be found at wiktionary here however it is not the same. Transwiki it and then nominate for deletion don't do the opposite (if that is even possible). I can also foreshawdow, if there was a little research done, some example that are used in common practice. I don't know if these example would be better suited for wikipedia or wiktionary, no matter the case, keep until transwiki process is complete. --CyclePat 22:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I can see no appropriate information that is not, albeit more economically, currently in the wiktionary entry. What exactly is there to transwiki? Stringops 02:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary as per CyclePat. -- P199 23:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - this article has already been moved to wiktionary. Isn't procedure to delete dicdef articles after they have been transwikied? Stringops 15:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid encyclopaedic topic. --Mais oui! 19:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Rosen

Some faint claim of notability (published photographer), but no sources other than personal web sites. Strong suspicion of self-promotion. Alai 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete Needs sources, Google doesn't support the claims (note there are several Adam Rosens), at the very least the article needs serious cleanup ("Adam Rosen also loves to play video games"???) Gwernol 20:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete sounds like a a bad bio. --CyclePat 22:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete there's been some strange goings-on in the history. He (or someone else) is claiming to be an orthopaedic surgeon as well. --BillC 20:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirected to Wayne Dyer.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wayne dwyer

This page was a spelling error for an entry on Wayne Dyer. A Wayne Dyer page already exists and the content was merged. Sandwich Eater 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English Teachers

Prodded and then de-prodded by User: Monicasdude. This documentary has no IMDb entry, leading me to doubt its notability and verifiability. Delete --Hetar 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep nomination bordering on bad faith, since the explanation here is different than the same nominator's prod comments. And would it kill him to do a Google search? [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Obviously notable as award-winning television series. Can we just close this now? Monicasdude 18:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
What? a bad faith nomination because my prod comments were different than my AfD comments? I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy stating that these have to be exactly the same. My original prod comment was, "does not meet notability requirements." Of course, my prod was promptly removed because you said that it did, "not indicate why TV documentary series would be nonnotable." So now, when I explain why I think its nn, you accuse me of a bad faith nomination? --Hetar 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Both of you, deep breaths: assumptions of good faith all round will help everyone. Thanks. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Response. My experience has been that when the AfD nominator names the editor who object to a prod or speedy listing before discussing the reasons for the nomination, it's a personal deal, not related to the appropriateness of the article. And IMDB isn't exactly where one would expect to find info on Canadian TV documentaries. If the nominator had assumed a minimum of good faith to begin with, he'd have done more than a superficial check; nothing about the article indicated hoax or negligibility. Monicasdude 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per sourcing provided and perhaps consider adding those sources to the article to prevent future AfD. No need for speedy unless nom wants to withdraw or it's a very obvious all keep opinion... and per Redvers, looks like some people need a hug.--Isotope23 19:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously the article needs expanding, but notability seems clear. Gwernol 20:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, of course. Samaritan 07:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; leaning to keep. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shri Gurudev Mahendranath

  • DeleteNon-notable. any links that come up come from the same origin, one of few[22]. lack of interest in topic in history Hamsacharya dan 18:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You misspelled "Shri" as "Sri" to get that result. The author who is the subject used "Shri." But thanks for finding a few additional results. —Adityanath 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. (disclosure: I am author of article) Google seach returns nearly 1000 hits for "Gurudev Mahendranath" [23] + another 500 for "Dadaji Mahendranath" [24]. Subject is a published author and poet. —Adityanath 18:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable as an author, and no other support for notability given. "The Scrolls of Mahendranath" turns up only one hit in WorldCat, for the LoC, and indicates that the book has no ISBN. --Sneftel 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Editing for republication is underway and a new edition with ISBN is scheduled for Spring 2007. —Adityanath 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
In which case it would be appropriate to create a new article once that has actually happened. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Sneftel 19:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - You are correct that 'The Scrolls of Mahendranath' has no ISBN but some of the contents are previously published works (magazine). — Nathhere 13:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - This author was also published in numerous periodicals in the 1970s and 1980s, including the British magazine Values, the well-known British magical journal, Sothis Magazine and the NYC-based but seminal Mandragore, and there is a recent article about him in the Ashe Journal of Experimental Spirituality, as well as the other publications mentioned above. He is known as the founder of two different organizations, AMOOKOS, which is the subject of the book Tantra Magick by Michael Magee, and the International Nath Order which is still active. ---Baba Louis 21:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed to speedy keep as I noticed that Adityanath for some reason underreported the number of Google hits. I get over 9,000 for "Gurudev Mahendranath" [25]. I have safe-search OFF, perhaps that makes a difference. ---Baba Louis 22:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nom Kalagni Nath 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I get 9140 hits on Google [26], to be precise :-) -999 02:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - The cited references of Baba Louis for the authors works are valid as are a number of others. The Author appears to be considered for deletion soley due to the lack of an ISBN number. Is it not true that an ISBN number can be applied to any collection of ideas, with the sole requirement that a collection of dollars be applied to the ISBN number? I don't believe the lack of an ISBN number is topical here. We have instead a published author and historical personality who has influenced many people. There is no valid criterion that this article be cited for deletion.216.39.162.241 06:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I found this delete discussion while working on the Gorakshanath and Matsyendranath articles. Both use this author as a reference and link to this page. Checking what links here, it appears that 11 articles of varying degrees of significance link to this page. Ekajati 16:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Idler

Hoax/vanity/non-notable etc, but claims notability. No Google hits.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Jon Idler is an amateur body-builder who has won over 70 competitions. He also has won Two-National Championships for Tiddlywinks. He deserves as much recognition as anyone else on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by user:MoHills (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Google turns up nothing linking a Jon Idler to tiddlywinks or bodybuilding. This article is unverified and almost certainly false. –Sommers (Talk) 19:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense/hoax.--Isotope23 19:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete {{db-bio}} and an obvious hoax. Gwernol 20:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and Speedy Delete as per above. Duh, I won the National Tiddlywinks Championship… Um, not really. Don't take that seriously. A hoax, that's all. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've actually heard of this guy somewhere before...yea I heard about him a few years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.54.219 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and Speedy Delete as per above. Dessydes 10:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lakeshore Catholic High School

Non-notable? Modular. (Talk.) 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, notable is not part of deletion criteria. For great justice. 18:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Willing to reconsider if someone posts an actual article here though.--Isotope23 19:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Add Strong to that delete. "Article" as added is crufty fanmongering, copyvio images, and unencyclopdic content. Reverted to a halfway decent stub a few times, but then quit. Authors are making a strong case for deletion.--Isotope23 20:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Removing opposition; and hopefully someone monitors the article to keep it about the school. CyclePat's version is a good start.--Isotope23 20:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is uninformative, and serves only to praise the school's sports team. Same with Isotope--if someone posts a good article about the school, that would be fine. Opblaaskrokodil 20:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I tried to clean it up... but original author kept reverting me.--Isotope23 20:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

School's webite: [27]

Website with #1 ranking: [28] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mroll (talk • contribs)

  • Strong KeepI am truly disappointed in this nomination. This is a nomination to pick on the newcomer. Really we have school articles (thousands). By deleting this article you are inherently trying to make a precedence to delete 350 some articles that exist on schools (and that's just in Canada. Get real, get a pro-active wikilife! Become a creationist and start adding to article instead of looking to destroy them. Not only that but I as per WP:DP there are no real valid reasons to delete this. I strongly consider this nomination to be wrong. I also believe that as nominator you should retract this afd and furthermore I suggest that you the nominator add {{Category:Canadian school stubs}} to the bottom of the article so next time you'll remember that school do exist!!! It looks like this... (stub categorisation removed to stop afd from looking like a canadian stub article - BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard) --CyclePat 23:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
PS - the templates really {{Canada-school-stub}}. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The article exists as a vanity article for the school's football team only. Isotope tried to improve the article. We both said that you can't dedicate an article to a football team. The person who posted this article continually reverts our edit deleting this line "This entry is dedicated to the 2003/2004 Lakeshore Catholic Gators Sr.football team, the #1 ranked football team in the country!" Opblaaskrokodil 23:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring the notability question for a moment, lets assume this gets kept because those interested in school inclusion are rendering opinions. I simply want to issue a challenge to anyone voting Keep to monitor this article and protect it from it's creator, who basically created it as a vehicle to publicize the Lakeshore Catholic Highschool 2003/2004 football team. I've tried to edit the content so it's at least a real school stub... but I can't sit here and engage in an endless edit war with the creator by myself.--Isotope23 00:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a content dispute, folks - handle the revision war in the normal way. The subject of the article could easily meet WP:SCHOOL with about two minutes work or revision; agreed that it is complete trash in its current incarnation. Kuru talk 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • If I was an administrator I would investigate these aligations of "vandalism" however, that sounds like it may turn out to be something of an edit war or even a violation of 3RR. I would suggest contacting WP:RFI and following those step. Once the edit war is complete then perhaps you may need an advocate (such as myself). Removing content from a page or blanking can be vandalism as per WP:VAN. I wouldn't hesitate to report it if that is what is happening. Such incidents can be reported at your local wiki administrator that is willing to help out or by repporting it to RFI. Good luck soldier. --CyclePat 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
        • As I have next to no interest in school articles, I tagged it for copyedit and removed the images that have no copyright info for the last time... at this point it is up to you school inclusionists to keep it from devolving back into a fansite.--Isotope23 13:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this appears to be real. For great justice. 00:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it is a real and verifiable school, but remove the American football images. Carioca 00:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: I'm highly skeptical of the article satisfying notability, but give it a chance, it's less than 12 hours old! Peter Grey 02:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Answer to the nominators question is no, it isn't nn. We have thousands of high school articles and will have thousands more.CalJW 05:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please give articles a chance Yuckfoo 06:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, school, boilerplate dispute. 22:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

alrite, its more of a encyclopedia post now no?

  • Strong delete as written, article is non notable. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable topic. No reason given for deletion. --Rob 04:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Nomination is malformed and thus should be withdrawn. Also note that out of the past 430 school articles posted for deletion, only 24 were deleted. The ones which were deleted were either non-verifiable, nonsense, or a confirmed hoax. The number of articles deleted about secondary schools which contained verifiable sources? Zero. Silensor 07:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are expandable. Samaritan 07:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halo 2 Skulls

Utterly unencyclopedic nonnotable gamer cruft. A list of secrets and how to find them in Halo2. Wikipedia isn't some GameFAQs rubbish. About as notable as List of secret exits in Super Mario World, or List of GMan sightings in Half-Life. - Hahnchen 18:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a How-to guide. Gwernol 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT Wickethewok 06:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is aimed at Hahnchen for his rude, vulgar description of something that needs nothing more than what Gwernol wrote. I'm interested; why did you search for this page if you didn't want the information held within it? Do you randomly search pages to delete? Do you not have something more constructive to do? Such as write an article? Or donate to charity? Do you know how long it took me to write what is there? Sure; delete it if it's unencyclopædic (you spelt it wrong by the way), but after reading how you assert yourself I can't help thinking how little (if any) value to mankind you'll be. I don't want to be a part of something designed to share knowledge if it causes those who think they know best to adopt a discourteous derogatory façade simply because they don't approve. This page is publicly viewable so I can't show as much impoliteness as I would like. Good day to you Sir Специајіист горизонтајіьній создатејіь 01:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mario-All Stars 128

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 09:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haterhouse

Delete. Non-notable venue. Only 24 Ghits for "Haterhouse" (and 117 for "Hater House") discospinster 18:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User "Discopinster" is clearly not the sole objective force in deciding whether or not this venue is "notable." This venue has meant a great deal to very many people in michigan, and the subjective nature of a claim such as the one made should be reviewed. The entry "Haterhouse" has recently been edited, sources cross referenced and many internal links added (all of which obviously qualify to have their own wikipedia entries.) reconsider this, please.

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!
Sceptre (Talk) 15:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not appearing to have any impact whatsoever on anything or anyone outside of Kalamazoo MI, I fail to see how this is notable. Also, simply linking to photos doesn't add any more substance to the article. 70.60.152.14 15:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Just a residential house where local garage bands play. Bige1977 16:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Nothing notable here. FloNight talk 17:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't look like another 924 Gilman. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 10:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rupam

  • Something that belongs in a user namespace that was moved into the article namespace. Please delete from the article namespace. Georgia guy 18:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, Delete. Please try to move it into the user page. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political landscaping and urban design in Ireland

This article is equal parts POV and complete rubbish. It previously survived an AfD, the result of which was No Consensus. Stu ’Bout ye! 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't tell if it's a joke or OR, but in any event it's not encyclopedic. --Craig Stuntz 19:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not worth the merge effort; nonsense title and unsourced (if mildly interesting) content. Sandstein 19:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- half joke, half POV, entirely non-encyclopaedic. BrendanH 20:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- can't see a salvageable article here. Demiurge 20:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing substanial. Djegan 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Very funny but otherwise useless --KaptKos 20:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, this is interesting! Ireland may have pioneered a whole new term (which can be applied to certain places in the Middle East...) Sadly, though, this should be deleted as original research and (I think) a neologism. Grandmasterka 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no useful info. Heilme 23:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN so it has a chance of catching as a neologism. Very dark humor. Daniel Case 02:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dark humor indeed. Blackcap (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Uncyclopedia. theKeith 18:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Thomas Schmidt

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

Numerous users have expressed their concerns about the notability of this person, as evident in the edit history. Apart from having been a TV production assistant, he does not seem to be notable in any way (says Google). The assertions in the article are rather vague and unsourced; he probably also doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Sandstein 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I looked into the Bryan Thomas Schmidt article myself two or so days ago. Everything but the 3rd and 4th paragraphs could simply be considered irrelevant and removed. Now regarding those two paragraphs, they do assert his notability, and he does have an IMDB entry, but however I think the claims made are unverifiable or unimportant, and I don't think that the IMDB entry is a reliable source since it appears that it was written by Bryan Thomas Schmidt himself.[29] — TheKMantalk 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per TheKMan. Folajimi 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Not gonna get into the mess that led to this AFD, but nobody wants this deleted now, so kept it shall be. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Haldane

Non notable. The only notability criteria provided is that the subject is sister of someone and daughter of someone. --Ragib 19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In light of the information establishing her notability, I withdraw the nomination. However, I'd like to point out that a request for notability is not subject to constant, unexplained reverts and reason for launching personal attacks against the nominator, and also a vaguely worded link which doesn't provide any info doesn't establish the notability of a person. Thanks. --Ragib 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: as nominator. --Ragib 19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Vanity page!!! (oh yeah, she's been dead 70 years). Oh and she has an entry in Britannica?. Sorry, not good enough for round here then. Someone needs whacking with a cluestick. — Dunc|☺ 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I tagged it requesting the original author Duncharris (talk · contribs) to provide reasons of notability. Rather, the user reverted the tag 3 times, and replied sarcastically to the request on his talk page. The author is not willing to provide any justification of notability at the time of nomination, rather than ad hominem comments. --Ragib 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment you put this on here despite being shown the above link to Britannica. That's vandalism in my book. (originally I applied Hanlon's Razor, but I think someone has a grudge). So speedy keep it is then, and make that a big cluestick. — Dunc|☺ 19:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - bad faith nom resulting from a disagreement over article tagging. The article was nominated for deletion after a third party pointed out that she has an EB article [30]. Guettarda 19:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep bad faith nomination. Also, she is notable for among other reasons being the first female justice of the peace in Scotland. JoshuaZ 20:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I'm not compeltely that this was bad faith, so I am just going to invoke WP:AGF. JoshuaZ 20:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine, if she is the first female justice, add that link. I nominated the article based on this version, and I fully stand by my nomination. WP:V fully states that (WP:V#Burden_of_evidence) The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. Also, Any unsourced material may be challenged. I challenged it, and wasn't satisfied with notability, and hence nominated it here. If you add further verifiable references to the notability, my position is subject to change. Thanks. --Ragib 20:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You nominated the article after the link to the EB article was provided. You nominated this article for deletion despite having this information - it was with that information that you asserted non-notability. If you made the nomination in good faith, you are asserting that this fails to meet the standard of notability. Since you had this information when the nomination was made, either she is still non-notable with this additional information, or the nomination was made in bad faith. Guettarda 01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
What exactly does the link in question show?
The younger sister of the statesman Richard Burdon Haldane and the physiologist John Scott Haldane, she was educated privately. For much of her adult life she served on various advisory and regulatory boards for nursing. Influenced by the English housing reformer Octavia Hill,.
What notability or additional information does it show? I read this and was not convinced of any additional notability issue, and hence made the AfD nomination. How does having the link make my nomination "bad faith"? I agree that with the information (first women J.P.) later added by JoshuaZ (talk · contribs) establishes notability, and on that point, I'm happy to remove the AfD nomination, but in now way does the EB link establish her notability. Thanks. --Ragib 01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep interesting, and some verifiable. For great justice. 00:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. First female JP in Scotland and reformer [31] seems notable enough.--Dakota ~ ° 01:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Week Keep There’s probably thousands of these turn of the century society type biographies. A lot of them come from Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; 3:2 to keep. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EForward

Non-notable?

  • No Delete: I'm listing this here to debate. I wrote the article, and feel it is notable. It is about a speicalized protocol that isn't used much outside of one industry, but the protocol is a registered protocol and is used. As the original author, I'd rather debate than remove the delete markers myself. -- DStaal 19:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it seems like technical information not an ad. Maybe someone else convince me otherwise.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, and the article provides neither any technical information itself (save for the IANA-registered port) nor links to such. If it had an RFC, that's one thing, but it doesn't. To mine eyes, it looks like an ad for the author's company, more or less. --moof 05:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above. Wickethewok 06:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - all it needs is more info, the concept itself seems worth writing about. Maury 12:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus goes to merge, but all four band members have pages, and I'd hate to discriminate. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonny Moore

I believe this was a nnbio at some point, it's been vandalized dozen of times, and I can't make sense of it now. I still believe it's a nnbio, but I'd like to have feedback-- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - This is a toughy, he is in a band that is signed to a major record label, even though he's only 17/18. However, the information provided in the article can clearly be mentioned in a small blurb in the main band's article. Abstain for now, gonna dig more on google. --lightdarkness (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep a member of notable band.  Grue  21:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to the band page, as he's not notable for anything else. exolon 23:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Possibly redirect. For great justice. 00:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect per exolon. Accurizer 00:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Grue.
  • Merge and Redirect per exolon. AHMYBRAIN 20:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect per exolon. Nova Prime 06:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Grue. 19:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All systems go 21:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as bad faith nomination by unsigned user. Capitalistroadster 22:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wedgie

It encourages other's to copy this prank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunger (talk • contribs)

  • It's still very informative. I just read the word 'wedgie' in a dilbert strip and I had no idea what it means (I'm not an native English speaker), so I looked it up on wikipedia. This article was very useful to me. We could delete any articles about something bad with the exact same argumentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.54.253 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, looks like WP:NFT but is well sourced (even in Merriam-Webster!). Slightly haphazard nomination by a new contributor. Sandstein 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. "Enabling bullying" is not a criterion for deletion. Would be a keep otherwise, as this is probably one of the oldest pranks in the book, even cites pop culture references (which it probably does not need to verify its existence anyway), and the criteria at WP:NFT do not refer to things that have entered the mainstream (see the section entitled "The right way for things made up in school one day to get into Wikipedia"). --Kinu t/c 20:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable prank. Cultural references abound (here's my favorite). —Chowbok 20:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as per above, a useful reference to a cultural staple. Gwernol 20:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as per above as well. This is a very famous prank, almost a classic. It doesn't even relate to, on any level, WP:NFT. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revolutionary minded Italians of the inter-war period

This is at best a list and ought to be moved from its ridiculous namespace. However, since there is no criteria for inclusion, other than being "revolutionary minded", it's hard for me to see how this could be transformed into an article of encyclopedic value. There's no context, and no solid or useful criteria for inclusion or expansion. —thames 19:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Gwernol 21:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Revolutionary minded"? "inter-war"? what wars? This list could be about any Italian that lived inbetween any two wars. Eivindt@c 21:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.. however do we tell which Italians were thinking of revolution? Even if we knew, would it be encyclopaedic? -- Mithent 21:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 20:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrientelatina

Advertising. Doesn't seem notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and thus what the site "will become" doesn't interest us.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as ad. Accurizer 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, smells of spamvertising. Even if it "will become the premier site" someday, right now its Alexa is 1,251,548 (it seems to be going up, but that might be due to some shenanigans). Regardless, suggest WP:CHILLing until it meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 23:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think that it is SPAM! thus I think that it should go. Fuck ads. --AFA 05:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go Lin

Unverifiable, person's name and none of the listed films google. Accurizer 20:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Unverifiable, non-notable. Google searchs for "Movie name" + "Go Lin" provide 0 results. Movies are nn-anyways. --lightdarkness (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, CSD A7

[edit] 3 horsemen

One use neologism for 3 members of a highschool team. Delete per WP:NEO.--Isotope23 21:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. See also the football-centric edit wars at Lakeshore catholic highschool.--M@rēino 21:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as {{db-bio}} Gwernol 21:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - nn-club/nn-group. WP:NOT something made up in school one day. --lightdarkness (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: A7 as tagged. Would be a delete regardless. --Kinu t/c 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muriel McCormick Hubbard

No assertion of notability except being granddaughter of someone famous. This alone doesn't deserve an article.  Grue  21:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete barring the inclusion any REAL assertion of notability.Montco 22:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathilde McCormick Oser

No assertion of notability except for being granddaughter of someone famous. That alone doesn't deserve an article.  Grue  21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete barring the inclusion any REAL assertion of notability. and perhaps we should also nominate Anita Oser Pauling who is Mathilde's daughter and equally unremarkable.Montco 22:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Week Keep Some people are interested in society biographies like this. If it has to be deleted you may as well delete her parents Harold Fowler McCormick and Edith Rockefeller McCormick. Seano1 02:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Imarek 00:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yu-gi-oh! strata

A little bit of nonsense (is this some Mary Sue fanfic?), and a little bit of duplicated content from Yu-Gi-Oh! and Yu-Gi-Oh! GX. kelvSYC 21:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Redirect/Withdrawl --lightdarkness (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ice age 3

Crystalballism, per WP:NOT. I added a PROD tag, but creator then placed {{vfd}} on the page. I've fixed the tag, and brought it here. lightdarkness (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - As Nominator. --lightdarkness (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Speedy not a crystal ball. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • ha i want in -—This unsigned comment was added by Crowny1111 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 3 April 2006.
  • Delete -- Curps 21:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Crystal ball.--Alabamaboy 21:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Your aura is pulsing my dear… which is odd since there ain't no crystal ball here. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 22:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: I remember reading about the movie Resident Evil or Resident Evil 4 (film) a soon to be made movie. [32]. Unlike Ice age 3 the resident evil movie was properly sourced and made it through the afd. So the issue here is not on Cristaballism it is more on reliable sources. As is, the Ice age 3 article does not have enough substance (verifiable information). So as per the nomination of cristallism I shun the idea and even suggest it be renominated for deletion for lack of WP:V. (lack of verifiable information.) You might be wondering why I did not vote delete. That is because I highly frown upon bad deletion nomination and I believe the process should be restarted --CyclePat 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Redirect to already existing article Ice Age: The Meltdown. I've already done the redirect.--Isotope23 02:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amorea (band)

Non-notable band, most probably a vanity page. Chairman S. Talk 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HYMPS

The original article was a neologistic acronym for Harvard, Yale, MIT, Princeton, and Stanford universities. HYMPS + Yale gets 3 Google hits (though a different permutation of the letters, HYPSM + Yale, at least gets 375). After a failed prod, the article was rewritten about a group of primates and appears to be a complete hoax; their discoverer, "Richard Kopolovski", for example, gets zero hits. Delete. ×Meegs 21:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: HYP is a well-established acronym for the Big Three (universities). ×Meegs 21:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not knowing what this is is not a good reason to delete it. For great justice. 00:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    Sure it is. See WP:V, specifically Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. ×Meegs 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable. Accurizer 00:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a generally accepted acronym for an elite group of universities. Dont delete —This unsigned comment was added by 24.80.28.138 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete per Accurizer. --Khoikhoi 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Accurizer. Thatcher131 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. this article is obvious nonsense. To the extent that any such acronym exists, it is HYPMS. It also is unencyclopedic and uninformative... this is not Wiki-acronym-finder. --Wilanthule 17:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Wikipedian06 05:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. HYMPS does not appear to be widely used acronym. Any relevant information should be posted in the individual articles of the universities or possibly in the article college admissions in the United States. Moldybagel 05:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Executive Services Catering and Transportation

Advertisement, non-notable company. SCHZMO ✍ 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 01:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buu is hatched

A Dragon Ball Z episode. However, none of the Dragon Ball Z episodes have their own pages - they are all summarised on their Saga page, Majin Buu Saga in this case. Hence Delete. -- Mithent 22:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, redirect. For great justice. 00:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 02:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nessuno834 03:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sandstein 09:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep - nomination withdrawn. Mindmatrix 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canoe (disambiguation)

Pointless DAB. Only one real article with this term. Precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distant Early Warning (disambiguation) — P199 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my submission for deletion after Mindmatrix re-org and additions on April 6. -- P199 17:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep I beg to dif. I think that if there are two terms it should be used. Canoe is a web site and Canoe is a boat. So keep the disambiguation page. --CyclePat 23:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per CyclePat. "Canoe" (the website) meets the criteria of WP:WEB. Fluit 23:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Keep - needed. For great justice. 00:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are two articles in the disambig. Fetofs Hello! 00:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there are only two articles to disambiguate, usually the articles should simply reference each other at the top. We don't need this. Grandmasterka 00:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Strong keep, someone close this withdrawn nomination please. Grandmasterka 08:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In this kind of situation, it would be more appropriate to simply use one of the inline disambiguation templates. This really isn't necessary. Delete and just slap an inline dab on canoe. Bearcat 01:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Grandmasterka. --Khoikhoi 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fluit. --Ardenn 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Normally in this situation I would vote for keep, but since there's only two of them, I'm going with Bearcat. Just put an inline disambig at the top of the articles. pm_shef 02:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Since there are only two meanings, Grandmasterka is correct. --Bduke 07:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bearcat and others. As a matter of fact, I'm going to be bold and inline the disambig links (if they aren't already). Mangojuice 18:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having that few entries definitely does not warrant a disambig page. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 09:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Am changing my vote to strong keep after seeing Mindmatrix's edits. :) --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 17:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've updated the list with more information. Mindmatrix 15:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now. Samaritan 07:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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■ 01:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Whitfield (conductor)

This page was written by the person it's about(he even signed it at the bottom), and he doesn't seem to be notable. Foxmulder 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, while I was putting it on the AfD page someone has done a lot of wikifying (it was on the "wikify" project page), but if you go back to the original version it's obvious that it was written by the person it's about. Foxmulder 23:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Non-notable bio, doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. --lightdarkness (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Request clarification Endymion Ensemble has several CDs, appears notable. Is his role as conductor just related to Endymion, or has he conducted larger ensembles or notable orchestras? Does Whitfield have any CDs as a bassoonist? Also, Amazon has a John Whitfield who appears to be a cellist. Probably a notable classical musician pending a bit more WP:V. Thatcher131 00:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep per cleanup. Thatcher131 03:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this article only needs a little WP:V and seeing as most people don't follow WP:DP I will assume this nomination is frivilous. The step that should have been taken is underline in WP:DP and that would be to add {{cleanup-verify}} to the article. --CyclePat 00:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, you're probably right. Sorry, I did read WP:DP before I did this, but I don't have any experience with AfD and I guess I missed that. Yeah, that is what I should have done. I guess I overreacted when I first saw the old version of the page. I mean, the guy has the nerve to write an article about himself, and he doesn't even format it properly, you know what I mean? Anyway, sorry about that...hope this doesn't end up wasting too much of anyone's time. Foxmulder 02:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Monicasdude 02:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep; absolutely notable as founder of Endymion Ensemble; has done a lot of notable recording, including a fine reading of Benjamin Britten's Les Illuminations on EMI, for example; he's well-known as an exponent of some of the 20th century British composers that don't get recorded every day (i.e. not Britten). While autobiographies on Wikipedia almost always rub me the wrong way, this guy's actually notable. Antandrus (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirected to 2003 Invasion of Iraq.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Iraqi Freedom

delete. One does not need a separate artricle for American propaganda buzzword. There already is Iraq War. Mukadderat 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Iraq War2003 Invasion of Iraq. This page doesn't serve much of a purpose, it's basically a dicdef of the real article. Grandmasterka 00:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Soft redirect here does the trick, as it points users to the war and the initial invasion. Would prefer hard redirect over a delete, though. Redirect per below. youngamerican (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand -- there are over 200 articles linking to this. It is the given name of a specific military operation, not just a "buzzword". —ERcheck @ 01:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Redirect to 2003 invasion of Iraq: Based on Kirill Lokshin comments on naming conventions for military operations (below), I change my vote to "Redirect" —ERcheck @ 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to wherever the actual article is. This is standard for operational codenames; see, for example, Operation Overlord and Battle of Normandy. Kirill Lokshin 01:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Kirill.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blnguyen (talk • contribs) @02:21, April 4, 2006
  • Redirect and add reference to operation name to main article. Monicasdude 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 2003 Invasion of Iraq. BryanG 02:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect There's no such thing as a “soft redirect”. The propaganda like name used by the Whitehouse should be discussed, but this article dose not discus it in a meaningful way. BTW Operation Cobra II was the pentagon code name for the 2003 invasion [33]. Seano1 02:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I've come to agree with your logic on the fate of this article, but soft redirects do exist sometimes, see Wikipedia:Soft redirect. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment:  CENTCOM uses the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom". —ERcheck @ 02:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per kirill, although I personally believe that since it's the undisputable name of the operation, it deserves it's own page. But delete? Not a chance. American propaganda buzzword? How about official name of the military operation. I think the nominator needs to review his own biases. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment BTW: Seano1: you're incorrect. Operation Iraqi Freedom was the official name of the invasion. I'm acutely aware of this: sitting above my monitor is a certificate of service from the commander of the US 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade thanking me for service in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Furthermore my DD214 and all of my pay stubs are coded Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Noble Eagle. Though you do provide a link, your reasoning is faulty. OIF was the name of the invasion operation. Cobra II was, according to Naylor, a "codeword" for the act of deposing Saddam from his regime. There is a difference between the operational invasion, and the goal of regime change: they were two different things, though closely related. Just thought I'd clarify this. This last part is not directed at anyone here, but I'm really getting sick of ignorant people claiming the name OIF is propaganda, to justify their own biases against the war. Whether you think it's right or wrong, the name is factually and undisputedly official: thus it's part of history. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Bla-bla Noble American Eagle liberated Vietnam, Afghanistan with the help of Osama bin Laden, Haiti (or was it Taiti?) the whole world loves you. When you will liberate Cuba, your real pain in the ass? Mukadderat 01:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Your personal attacks are weak. If you are going to violate the WP:NPA at least make it worthwhile and say something clever.--Looper5920 01:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Strike last comment. I read that wrong. You were refering to cuba as the pain in the ass. That being said, take your personal politics somewhere else. They do not belong here.--Looper5920 01:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Why didn't you tell this a day ago to Noble Eagle SWATJester who is "really getting sick" of people who don't like American propaganda? Mukadderat 04:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Kirill and others. The "officialness" of the name shouldn't force us to privilege it. Combatants in a war don't get to dictate to the international community how a war is going to be named by posterity. A redirect and appropriate mentioning in the main article serves it just fine. Lukas (T.|@) 11:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Also, I'd like to comment that some activists started this entire article just to support their own political agenda, or at least that's why some are getting involved. [34] 72.66.30.75 19:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Kirill and others. The fact that this is being voted on is a joke in itself.--Looper5920 22:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Carlossuarez46 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 2003 Invasion of Iraq. MartinMcCann 16:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 2003 Invasion of Iraq Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 01:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paolo Tornaghi

A goalkeeper for Internazionale Milano F.C.'s youth squad who has never played a first team match. Absolutely non-notable, IMHO. See also players' notability. Angelo 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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