Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 7

< April 6	April 8 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Discussion on the current notability guidelines Use of global rights on English Wikipedia Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 03:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trigun yaoi

This is by far some of the most blatant speculative fan(fiction)cruft I've ever seen. Not only is the entire article Original research, its also entirely speculative. As nominator (yeah thats my IP and yes it did take me 4 trys to get the deltion right, please dont make fun of me, its been a long week) I vote Strong Delete -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 00:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Note the result of the last VfD was merge, but it seems that has not happened, I looked and didn't see a good way to merge, maybe someone else can take it. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 00:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge at the very least. & have Trigun decide what to keep Bridesmill 00:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak merge to Trigun. Article is crufty, but could use some work. Royboy crashfan 00:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge as per Royboy. -- Con Dem^Talk 01:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR. --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 03:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Apparently the editors at the Trigun article don't want this to be merged. It's original research and probably unverifiable. Brian G. Crawford 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
If not possible to merge to Trigun, merge to yaoi, as exemplar case. -- Simon Cursitor 07:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, original research unless verifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 07:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete original research. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-07 11:53Z
Merge per Royboy. Bucketsofg 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Royboy. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, don't merge; burn, stomp the ashes, strew to the winds. Pure personal fantasy. John Reid 20:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Even I could write something better than that. Tell the author to move this to his userpage. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 20:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. -- P199 22:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete with impunity per John Reid. StarryEyes 23:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete quickly, reasons self-evident Danny Lilithborne 07:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 01:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
SMerge Just a passing mention is all that is needed. Kotepho 13:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Reid: Fanon. Nifboy 02:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
'Delete as per nom ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per "original research unless verifiable". If verification inserted, then merge. MikeBriggs 16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Characters of 6teen

Wikipedia is not a fan site -- Scientizzle 00:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, encyclopedic at the least. Royboy crashfan 01:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep There are many pages with lists of minor characters. According to WP:FICT, minor characters should be kept in a list in the actual series article, or (if it is too long) it is "good practice" to keep them in their own article. As this is a long list, it seems fair that the article should be kept. -- Con Dem^Talk 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 03:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as fancruft. Brian G. Crawford 03:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Never heard of it, but it seems like a notable animated series. Merging minor characters to a list is common practice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. WTF is fancruft. Seem verifiable to me. For great justice. 04:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Fancruft.--Isotope23 16:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, this is encyclopedic, we have List of minor characters in Harry Potter. --Ter e nc e Ong 07:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge back to 6teen where this ridiculously crufty list can be culled and pruned. Failt that, Delete. We do not need this. Eusebeus 09:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per ConDem James Kendall [talk] 11:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep by [[User: @samisami@ | If we have lists of other minor characters, how come we can't have this extra article?
Keep per condem. Bucketsofg 12:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per all. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep Originally was going to say merge to 6teen but article is at freaking 35 kb already... this article is pretty crufty and could probably use a good hard edit, but I suspect anyone who would edit it is too old to have the vaguest idea where to begin.--Isotope23 16:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. We have fancruft from all over the place. At least this is not a one-line article. But it needs a lot of cleanup. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 21:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, far better than each one having its own article. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - this article is in accordance with standard practice even though I've not heard of 6teen. Metamagician3000 04:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all minor characters lists. nn. Carlossuarez46 05:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
KeepWe will need to refer on this character page if we needed to know others. Anyways, Wikipedia needs a refering article of a popular show.
Merge per Eusebeus. MikeBriggs 16:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus, especially due to article clean-up. SushiGeek 03:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GoToMyPC

spam Bachrach44 00:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete. Pure advertising. Their television commercials are bad enough without this. Fluit 01:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. Royboy crashfan 01:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. -- Scientizzle 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Fluit. -- Con Dem^Talk 01:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete - Although the software is used by many, the article definitely isn't NPOV, and as other users have said, it reads like advertising copy, and may also be a copyvio. =P

Alyssa3467 01:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Gotomypc into it and Clean Up the end result.

Alyssa3467 22:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete — notable software, but violates WP:SPAM. Articles should not be written from blatant advertisements. Feezo (Talk) 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SOFTWARE and WP:SPAM --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 03:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Spam. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep If someone can find the source, as I'm leaving right now, I know I've seen this advertised on TV and the internet. There is notability. T K E 06:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete SPAM. Can be given a mention at Citrix and does not require a redirect or merge. Eusebeus 09:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, spam, no ciatation of sources. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete spam etc. James Kendall [talk] 11:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete until someone feels like writing a proper article. Lhlhlh 11:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as spamadvertisement. Bucketsofg 12:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep per T K E Computerjoe 's talk 15:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, millions of ghits. Computerjoe 's talk 15:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per T K E. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge content to Citrix Systems.--Isotope23 16:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No one disagrees with the notion that the software is notable. However, this is not the article for it. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertisement Imarek 20:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per feezo, Kinu, and Imarek. --He:ah? 20:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep cleaned up a bit, this is notable and important software. Needs mroe cleanup, though. Just zis Guy you know? 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertisement. -- P199 22:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep but clean up, add a screen shot, etc. If you deleted this then why not delete all of the programs on the Anti-virus software page? --laurap414 23:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, the way in which the article is written is spamtastic. Vulcanstar6 23:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but needs heavy clean up. The software exists and is quite popular; it's a popular remote desktop program. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, many, many media mentions. Monicasdude 02:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep but cleanup. — TKD::Talk 04:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as notable (with various media mentions) - in present form, not bad enough to be deleted simply due to content being a mess. --Fuzzie (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable enough. If it is WP:VSCA {{sofixit}}. Kotepho 13:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: As Rod Serling would say, submitted for your consideration is the fact that there is a separate entry for Gotomypc, which is written in a much less commercial manner and with a bit more of a NPOV. If GoToMyPC ends up being deleted, purhaps Gotomypc can be flagged with a clean-up tag.
Merge' with Gotomypc and propose renaming to correct capitalization on the talk page. A google news search turns up hits talking about the software on ZDNet and PCWorld magazines. Not liking the service is not enough to propose deletion of an article, although I don't object to deletion in general. Merge may well mean keeping most of Gotomypc and less of the other, but a feature list is relevant as you can tell by many other software pages. -- cmh 01:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep due to latest clean-up work. MikeBriggs 16:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 03:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GoToMeeting

Someone removed the prod so I'm listing it here. When I look at this article I see nothing but spam, thereofore I feel it should be deleted. Bachrach44 00:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SPAM. Royboy crashfan 01:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. -- Scientizzle 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete. Pure advertising. Their television commercials are bad enough without this. At most, it's likely enough that this and the preceding product are both listed on the Citrix Systems entry. Are we now awaiting the spam for a new GoToAssist entry? Fluit 01:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. -- Con Dem^Talk 01:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 03:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Spam. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as spam. —ERcheck @ 03:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete I was the one who listed for prod (as Spam isnt a CSD which it was originaly listed as.) A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, spam. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per GoToMyPC's AfD. James Kendall [talk] 11:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Spam advertisement. Bucketsofg 12:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge with GoToMyPC Computerjoe 's talk 15:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as spam. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete!--He:ah? 20:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete spam for a minor product Just zis Guy you know? 22:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. -- P199 22:56, 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 wasSpeedy delete--Adam ^(talk) 00:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oligonucleótido

Incomplete nomination by Banana! (talk · contribs). No opinion -- hell, it looks like it's in Spanish, so I don't even understand it -- but just completing the process. Calton | Talk 02:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've put {{notenglish}} on top, and added to pages needing translation. Who knows if it should be deleted? Well, people who speak Spanish, presumably. But it seems to be about DNA or something, so it's not an obvious case. Con Dem^Talk 02:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Looks like Portuguese, actually. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Translate and merge It is actually Portuguese. Merge to Oligonucleotide. Joelito 03:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Having translated the article it has the same content as the English article. Joelito 14:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Translate, article would have to be on WP:PNT for two weeks. Royboy crashfan 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete There is nothing to merge; based on what I can decipher through what looks like loan words, it contains the same content as the introductory paragraph of Oligonucleotide. I assume there is no reason to keep a foreign language word as a redirect on the English language wiki. Thatcher131 05:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete looks like a translation of the English lang article, nothing to merge. Eivind ^t ^@^c 07:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Eivind and Thatcher. Bucketsofg 12:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete but it's not Spanish but Portuguese. --Francisco Valverde 15:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If it's the same then that's the only plausible option. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above. I've reverted the article to have an AfD tag and no notenglish tag. Lambiam ^Talk 00:37, 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. SushiGeek 02:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pokémon abilities

Moved to Transwiki:List of Pokémon abilities, not needed in Wikipedia.--Zxcvbnm 02:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Totally irrelevant. Who reads this stuff? Brian G. Crawford 03:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, transwikied to Wikibooks. Royboy crashfan 03:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Con Dem^Talk 04:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, moved it to the pokemon wikia -- Astrokey44|talk 06:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki per nom. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as it has been transwikied James Kendall [talk] 11:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete because Wikipedia is not Bulbapedia. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Embarassing, ugly, and wholly unneeded on Wikipedia. A relic from before the current Pokémon Wikiproject was founded. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miller Time

"The Miller Time is a fabricated hand to hand combat move that would most assuredly be blocked by the geneva conventions if it were not so obscure." Sometimes, these noms just write themselves. Calton | Talk 02:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not for things "created by a sophmore at Nipmuc Regional High School in the fall of 2000" (Sometimes the votes write themselves, too) Fan1967 02:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, duh... -- Con Dem^Talk 02:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NFT and WP:V apply. Optionally recreate as redirect to Miller Brewing as their slogan, or Reggie Miller as associated with him. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Miller Time is a fabricated... Peter Grey 02:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 02:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, "fabricated hand to hand combat move." Royboy crashfan 03:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. And wouldn't it be the Hague Conventions? Kirill Lokshin 03:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Bucketsofg 03:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above comments. Nothing there to judge but nothing there. : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 04:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete I've seen commercials that tell me Miller Time is something different. And I trust commercials. _sarcasmT K E 06:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC) T K E 06:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete punch, pull, stretch, destroy. James Kendall [talk] 11:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per sarcasm... "Television! Teacher, mother, secret lover."--Isotope23 15:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Miller Brewing. Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per fan1967 and TKE. i too trust the commercials. (and make it a redirect as per Smerdis.) --He:ah? 20:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Currently, this move is non-existent. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 21:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
BJAODN Heh... lol. love it. Roodog2k 22:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 22:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Miller Brewing. StarryEyes 23:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Miller Brewing. -AED 07:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 03:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack's Broken Heart

Fails WP:MUSIC. Local San Diego band, released two independent EPs, no album. Notability stated in article relies on MP3.com "charts" and a local San Diego award. (If you remember the MP3.com charts, you'll remember that they didn't reflect mainstream popularity.) While the article is arguably informative, the subject does not meet ANY of Wikipedia's guidelines for notability of bands. -- ChrisB 02:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete It does fail WP:MUSIC, but this is only a guideline, and they had over 100,000 downloads of a track of their's. Also, a lack of mainstream popularity is not reason for deletion. However, overall, I'd probably still say delete. -- Con Dem^Talk 02:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry, kind of bungled what I was getting at with the "mainstream popularity" thing. The MP3.com charts didn't really reflect actual popularity, as bands often found ways to bump their standings (especially given that there was a chart for every conceiveable subgenre). Honestly, that's probably minimal compared to the fact that the MP3.com charts no longer exist and are impossible to verify now (unlike, say, Billboard) and the source of the 100,000 downloads statement is the band's own bio from their website. -- ChrisB 03:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep, the band has released an album, gone on a tour, and they also have an allmusic profile [1]--TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Not to bog this down, but an AMG entry does not designate notability. My friend's band has an AMG entry (and they'll freely admit that they're not notable), as do countless no-name bands. Not to mention the fact that this band's entry has no releases on it. Additionally, it appears the band may not have actually undertaken said US tour - the statement in the Wiki article is verbatim from the band's bio on their website. (A short pull through Google finds record of only southern California tour dates.) -- ChrisB 03:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep per TBC. Royboy crashfan 03:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - looks good to me. For great justice. 04:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete neither EP is available on Amazon, virtually zero results on google thus failing google test, no sources are identified outside of 1 city award. Just doesn't seem to qualify as meeting any tests of notability. : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 04:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Notability just doesn't seem to meet any tests of being deletion policy! For great justice. 04:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete that's why we got guidelines :) Eivind ^t ^@^c 07:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I know that's a catchphrase of yours, FGJ, but a whopping lot of us are pretty comfy with notability being the primus inter pares of AfD justice, whether or not Wikipedia's yet chiselled the criteria in granite, and you're probably not going to convince any of us to cease AfDing anything solely because it hasn't yet been. Speaking of which, this is a pretty non-notable band. RGTraynor 14:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm not insisting that you follow policy, I simply feel that it's my duty to note it when it's being blatently abused. Of course, if enough people think that every page beginning with 'r' should be deleted, that would be concensus, and the deletions would happen. I would still feel justified in protesting. For great justice. 16:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Good; please do let us know when we blatantly abuse policy. In keeping with that, I look forward to the link you're going to send us saying why following the Wikipedia guideline explicitly stating "This page gives some rough guidelines which we might use to decide if a musical topic is notable" constitutes a blatant abuse of Wikipedia policy. RGTraynor 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. Eusebeus 09:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete their Myspace has few track plays and only 4 today. Hardly a well known band, if all the scene kiddies don't flock to the myspace page. James Kendall [talk] 11:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete for failing WP:MUSIC. Also, the band is defunct and the article is full of name-drops, suggesting that the band isn't notable. Brian G. Crawford 18:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per TBC. WP:MUSIC is a guideline, not a inflexible commandment. It is nigh impossible to be listed in the All Music Guide without achieving some degree of notability. Yes, Wikipedia has far too many articles about "post-hardcore/emo" groups with names like "Jack's Broken Heart" or "Cathy's Last Hairstyle" or "My Afternoon Diary", but this one is at least more notable than most. StarryEyes 23:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (PS "jack's broken heart" emo -wikipedia garners an impressive 14,700 Google results.)
- of which 129 are unique. -- Saberwyn 22:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  - It's not "uniqueness" necessarily, it's a matter of being on the same domain. Google only shows the first two results on any domain. So if you have a few thousand results on, say, MySpace, it will only show up as two at first. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 23:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per TBC. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 23:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. A city award may be enough, as may be 100 000 downloads. We have space, this isn't a high-school basement bad. -- cmh 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per StarryEyes FloNight ^talk 16:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep per TBC and StarryEyes (odd that Metacrawler.com only returns 67 results). MikeBriggs 17:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Royboy crashfan 03:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guide 2 Games Forums

non notable webforum. Alexa rank over 4.6 million [2] ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 02:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 02:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Funnybunny 03:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, WP:VSCA, fails WP:WEB. Royboy crashfan 03:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete as per above, and also the current content is Internet Drama. Lhlhlh 07:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per alexa. Eivind ^t ^@^c 07:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom James Kendall [talk] 11:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 22:39, 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 speedy keep as a nomination resulting from vandalism. Please check the edit history for vandalism before nominating for AfD, speedy deletions, prodding.... or before even editing an article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Besides, talk page and article style suggest a user test. Chodorkovskiy 13:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per CSD G2, A1. Con Dem^Talk 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy redirect to Hello. Weregerbil 16:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Revert -- check the history: this was a disambiguation page for "HI"[3] -- Scientizzle 17:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy comment looks like we are in agreement something has to be done quickly. ;-) Weregerbil 17:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep. It's all that was left, plus someone [4] seems to have reverted. --Plutor 18:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep acceptable. Just a bad edit day, it seems. --Chodorkovskiy 18:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep Dab page for "HI". JonMoore 18:15, 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. Royboy crashfan 03:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moments in Grace

Fails WP:MUSIC. The article itself consists of one sentence, followed by a list of band members and a tracklisting. Band fails all notability guidelines. Claim of notability relies on having released a single major label album. -- ChrisB 02:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BAND and possibly WP:VANITY Keep per below --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 02:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep Although the article needs a lot of work and updating, they seem to have quite a large internet following, have a lot of online press reviews, and their lyrics pop up a lot on google. I don't know the precedents on this kind of band, however. You might want to look at their website. -- ConDem^Talk 03:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, you're right, I've just looked at their allmusic profile [5], and they seem to be notable --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 03:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep, they seem to barely pass WP:MUSIC. Royboy crashfan 03:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - per WP:MUSIC: "the article itself must document notability" Where does this article document notability? Wikipedia is not here to document every band that released an album and a video. -- ChrisB 03:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I said barely. Royboy crashfan

03:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep - looks good to me. For great justice. 04:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep seem notable enough -- Astrokey44|talk 06:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - COULD SOMEBODY EXPLAIN HOW THEY'RE "NOTABLE ENOUGH"? Do I just not understand WP:MUSIC? They broke up a year ago, and nobody noticed. As I've already noted, the article says NOTHING other than that they're a band. I'll stop now, I'm just completely baffled by these responses. Are people looking at a different article than I am? -- ChrisB 06:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They seem to have a large web presence and fanbase. Although, obviously, the article needs expanding and updating as it is extremely bare, I'd prefer just to stick a stub tag on... Con Dem^Talk 06:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Very weak keep Has performed music for a work of media that is notable Eivind ^t ^@^c 07:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep per ConDem James Kendall [talk] 11:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep, looks notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless cleaned up and expanded. Stifle 11:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Urr? Excuse me, releasing a major label album IS notable. RGTraynor 14:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep There are just adequately notable, though the article somewhat fails to explain this properly. --Rob 18:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is a useless article with no assertion of notability. A web presence these days is standard marketing, not at all an indication of notability. Brian G. Crawford 18:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep - I think if they got reviewed allmusic.com, its worth a keep here. That's the industry standard. Jonas Silk 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per ConDem. YellowPigNowNow 21:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Just to clarify what the claims are here:

1) Releasing a major label album is notable. Seriously? You guys better sharpen up your article writing skills, cause that means Wiki is lacking about 15,000 bands that released major label albums.

2) Being reviewed on AllMusic is notable. Really? Again, better sharpen up your article writing skils, cause AllMusic is chock full of reviews of non-notable bands. My friend's band has both an AMG profile and a review - and they'll freely admit that they're not notable enough to have a Wiki article. (It just happened that an AMG reviewer liked their album and wrote a review. And any new album that gets a review gets a profile.) And I feel like letting AMG be the determiner is like letting IMDB be the determiner for actors and films.

3) What exactly defines a "web presence and fanbase"? This band has 30,000 hits on spam lyrics sites. The only fansite is dead. 21 mentions on USENET.

4) Articles that have no content are notable. This is the one that's getting me. There's nothing here. The band is defunct, there will never be anything else here.

I genuinely have nothing against this band - I had never heard of them before AfD'ing the article. I just thought the standard was more obvious than this, especially with an article that has one sentence and an album tracklisting. -- ChrisB 23:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: 1), I think you have that backwards - the notability criteria don't say what we must have, it says what we mustn't have. The notability criteria don't say "you must write article about every notable band", it just says "this band is not notable enough for inclusion." There's a not-so-subtle distinction.

Also, the notability criteria is fuzzy for a reason. Last I checked there weren't any exact numbers anywhere to go by. Having exact numbers and exact criteria kind of leads to wikilawyering and gaming the system, while AfD is all about reasoning and debate whether or not the criteria are satisfied in that particular case's specific requirements. It's good to have some footing, but bad to have footing that everyone knows how to yank from under you. Ultimately, WP's notability criteria are based on well-founded gut feelings. And as surprising as it may seem, it works.

I agree the article is not really that good. But regarding 4), I disagree that the article can't be expanded - even a little bit. I predict it won't get much better if kept though, as there's not that much history to document, but it can be done... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Album release and Allmusic.com review makes them notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Very weak keep as per Capitalistroadster's reasoning. Very, very, very marginally notable. Won't be too mad if this goes boom though, as there's not much stuff to document though. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, empty/author-requested —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-04-07 05:05Z

[edit] Airline alliiances

Completing Cliffb's incomplete AfD process. Con Dem^Talk 03:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment The author put the AfD tag on this empty page, as (I assume) it was a mistake. I put a speedy tag on it, since the article was empty and the author had requested its deletion here, and he was the only user to edit it. I completed the AfD process that the author had left unfinished, as I didn't know if I should just remove the AfD tag or not once I had added the speedy one. Con Dem^Talk 03:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, please tell me if I should have done this differently! Con Dem^Talk 03:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Looking at the history, Cliffb created this article as a redirect, blanked it, and then nominated it for AfD. Either way, such a spelling is implausible. Royboy crashfan 03:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per above : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 04:21, 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 redirect to fibre channel. Royboy crashfan 03:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWNN

What the Hell is this? Only one sentence, and no real information. The Republican 02:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I don't see anything wrong with it. Looks like it's just a stub to me. (However, it's probably a better idea to move it to the full, expanded name and have the initialization be a redirect...) --Typobox43 02:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

After taking a look at the Fibre Channel article, I see that we already have a World Wide Name article. Therefore, I say that we Redirect this to that article rather than to Fibre Channel. --Typobox43 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary I can finally say that some article can be moved to Wiktionary! :) This does define some abbreviation, so I really, strongly think that this should be moved to Wiktionary.Redirect per TBC. Funnybunny 21:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a merge and redirect to Fibre Channel? --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge per TBC. Royboy crashfan 03:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
keep no good reason for deletion given. For great justice. 04:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect keep it in fibre channel T K E 06:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Fibre Channel. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As it stands, this isn't an "article," it's a dicdef. RGTraynor 14:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Fibre Channel. I also agree. --Francisco Valverde 15:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Move to wiktionary. This page is relating to a fibre channel SAN, not to fibre channel which is a networking protocol. I am no expert on fibre channel, but this term (AFAIK) is not related to fibre channel, but to something else which can be implemented using fibre channel. -- cmh 01:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
merge and redirect to Fibre Channel, or delete, not notable enough for it's own page. Radagast83 19:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 03:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A property of PI

The title is not informative. The property in the article is

$\frac{1}{1^2} + \frac{1}{3^2} + \frac{1}{5^2} + \frac{1}{7^2} + \cdots = \frac\pi8,$

which is a trivial consequence of the result in Basel problem:

$\frac{1}{1^2} + \frac{1}{2^2} + \frac{1}{3^2} + \frac{1}{4^2} + \cdots = \frac\pi6.$

Indeed,

$\frac{1}{1^2} + \frac{1}{3^2} + \frac{1}{5^2} + \frac{1}{7^2} + \cdots$

$= \left( \frac{1}{1^2} + \frac{1}{2^2} + \frac{1}{3^2} + \frac{1}{4^2} + \cdots \right) - \left( \frac{1}{2^2} + \frac{1}{4^2} + \frac{1}{6^2} + \frac{1}{8^2} + \cdots \right)$

$= \left( \frac{1}{1^2} + \frac{1}{2^2} + \frac{1}{3^2} + \frac{1}{4^2} + \cdots \right) - \frac14 \left( \frac{1}{1^2} + \frac{1}{2^2} + \frac{1}{3^2} + \frac{1}{4^2} + \cdots \right) = \frac34 \frac\pi6 = \frac\pi8.$

I see no reason why we should have articles on every series which sums to π or some expression involving π. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See also Talk:Pi#Formula by 64.59.233.88. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Pi and see what they want to do with it there. If it's notable, then it'll stay. Certainly doesn't seem to deserve its own article. Con Dem^Talk 03:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Delete per Jitse's comment. Con Dem^Talk 06:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Condem. Royboycrashfan 03:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. In fact, this was put in pi first and the discussion on Talk:Pi#Formula by 64.59.233.88 shows that two editors and myself think that it should be removed. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete The purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain. Articles should make their readers more intelligent. Now, math is not my strong suit, so this article makes absolutely no sense to me. If it were better explained, I would say merge it to Pi, but since its not, Im going to vote delete.--Pal5017 06:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 09:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
D. by making me think 'wtf' this article fails to explain itself. James Kendall [talk] 11:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
delete An infinite number of similar variations on the Basle problem could be posted, each one less helpful than the last. Kevin McE 11:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 13:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Imarek 20:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The nominator has proved his case. —Encephalon 22:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Lambiam^Talk 01:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. This can now be found in List of formulae involving Pi. Lambiam ^Talk 10:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --ManiF 17:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as trivial. Stifle (talk) 23:11, 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 keep per no consensus. Royboy crashfan 03:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voice_Male

This singing group is self-promoting itself via Wikipedia. It is also a duplicate of VoiceMale Jmanning 03:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)—Jmanning is an account that was created on April 6. This nomination was their third edit. Primetime 21:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete. 372 Google hits for "Voice Male" "a cappella". WP:BAND goes either way. Royboy crashfan 04:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

*I hit an edit conflict when you added to your nomination. Redirect to VoiceMale or Brandeis University. Royboy crashfan 04:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect per Royboy Delete per below --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 04:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm pretty sure they're actually different groups, one based at Brandeis, in Massachusetts and one based in Utah, so watch out for false readings on google searches. ConDem^Talk 04:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- That must have passed my notice. Restoring my old comment. If this is kept, we should disambiguate the title. Royboy crashfan 04:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN, Vanity. Con Dem^Talk 04:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. nn, vanity. James Kendall [talk] 11:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn, vanity, self promotion. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep: 8 albums is enough for me. This is not a duplicate of the copyvio, and I removed the one sentence that was turning this into an ad. --Hetar 19:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep: An article is considered notable if, at least, it "has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)" (see WP:MUSIC). Voice Male has been featured in both the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune. They aren't well known outside of Utah but they definitely are here. Above all, the singing group is not promoting itself! I'm not a member, and I started the article. Keppa 20:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't realize there was also a Voice Male at Brandeis. The name should be disambiguated. Keppa 20:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep. They've released eight albums, have their own website, and have been together 12 years. Very notable.--Primetime 20:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Sufficiently "notable". YellowPigNowNow 22:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. A websearch turned up runner-up status from CASA [6]. CASA is real and their award should make this group notable. Combine with Keppa's assertion of news postings and I think that makes this group notable enough. -- cmh 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I've listed a few borderliners under the music guidelines before, but this one appears to scrape through. Robdurbar 21:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 01:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soiling

Content should be moved to Encopresis or Fecal incontinence -- AfD nomination partially added by User:Laurap414, completed by Con Dem^Talk 05:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Encopresis. Needs a lot of cleanup. (The article, that is, not "soiling" itself...) Con Dem^Talk 05:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. Royboy crashfan 05:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment

Mostly Soiling and Encopresis are used synonymosly. Some experts however distinguish Soiling from encopresis: Soiling is due to constipation and stool withholding with psychological and behavioral consequences, encopresis is associated with oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder and less common. fecal incontinence being the most generalised term.

If it has to be merged, than strictly encopresis and fecal incontinence would need to me merged too. The 3 all mean pretty much the same with minor differences mainly depending on the context.

This article is purely about soiling due to constipation with concrete guidelines on management.

Aberpete 05:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article on Encopresis, you'll see it talks about involuntary soiling, due to both constipation and psychological reasons. Either way, though, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and so perhaps these concrete guidelines don't belong here... Con Dem^Talk 05:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep I'm torn, but per cleanup there can be a percieved difference...and I love that picture. T K E 06:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Having reread the article on soiling, I notice it also mentions psychological factors. Are we sure there's a difference here? Con Dem^Talk 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep although it needs work. James Kendall [talk] 11:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to encopresis. -- Kjkolb 12:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
This content should probably be on the Encopresis page. Encopresis and Soiling are essentially the same. Seems like this page was written by a medical provider so it's pretty specific. The pictures are very good. This is a very difficult issue and parents will benefit from having any/all information on the site. [ac] --155.41.112.1 13:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I would like to do a "cleanup", meaning I could translate the article in lay-terms that are easier to understand and adding references and evidence. But I will only do it once the threat that the article will disappear shortly is being lifted, because I don't want to do the work just for somebody else to delete it. I think I have a very good article on this subject valuable for all who are affected by this problem, and I understand it needs cleanup. But I also understand Mr.Condem who thins that a Guide on Management doesn't belong to an Encyclopedia. Please make up your mind whether I should carry on with cleaning or not. I would not be happy to alter the Encopresis- or Fecal soiling- pages, because these articles are both very good as they are, and I don't want to mess them up. Aberpete 19:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Encopresis. Avalon 19:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Chairboy as a very short article without context (a1). Hetar 07:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anaki

Neologism.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NEO --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Royboy crashfan 04:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Con Dem^Talk 05:07, 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, no consensus. SushiGeek 03:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colors (band)

Delete - non-notable band. Con Dem^Talk 04:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:MUSIC. This is just another inspiration explanation. Royboy crashfan 04:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete although their albums are available on Yahoo. James Kendall [talk] 11:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn band, fails WP:MUSIC. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. They sold more than 500 copies of their first album, were together several years, and have their own website. Very notable.--Primetime 20:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. "The failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted" (WP:MUSIC). Obviously it's not logical to search for "colors" but try "+colors +'russ dixon'" (Russ Dixon being a member of the band) and you'll get plenty of results. They're mentioned on many music websites. Their CDs are available from Amazon.com and have been positively reviewed multiple times by customers. They at least merit some notability. Keppa 03:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep: 5 albums is enough for me, plus they have preformed in a number of different states. --Hetar 22:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, looked them up on Allmusic. Oh, so notable. bbx 05:27, 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 redirect. SushiGeek 03:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansivity

Since this page has no real content, and there is already a page titled Thermal Expansion, this page should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simsea (talk • contribs)

Completed unfinished AfD and listed on AfD page. For an explanation of the above reasoning see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absorption isotherm. Sandstein 04:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 04:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to thermal expansion. Con Dem^Talk 05:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per ConDem James Kendall [talk] 11:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Thermal expansion. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Thermal expansion, per above. —LrdChaos 20:03, 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. SushiGeek 03:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camadosa S.A.

Basicly is an ad; 900 google hits A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 05:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I only get 13, but yes, this is basically an advertisement. Royboy crashfan 05:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete — fails WP:CORP. Feezo (Talk) 05:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Con Dem^Talk 06:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom James Kendall [talk] 11:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, ad, nn company. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:16, 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 delete. SushiGeek 03:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santy.A

Do we need to have an article for every worm out there on the web? A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 05:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 05:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Con Dem^Talk 06:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep seems notable, and was "currently causing an epidemic" in 2004. James Kendall [talk] 12:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I read over the link, and still see nothing notable. Fifty of these hit the Net every day. RGTraynor 14:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn bug per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Imarek 21:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:16, 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 delete. SushiGeek 03:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British fried chicken outlets

Article whose sole point seems to be that there are fried chicken restaurants in the UK, some of whom have names similar to American fried chicken chains. Delete as unencyclopedic. MCB 05:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The very unexpectedness of this phenomenon (Muslim-sanctioned American-commercial fast-food establishments in the heart of the old empire) is notable in itself. Bacchiad 06:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I really don't think that the fact that Muslims like fast food as well is notable. Con Dem^Talk 06:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's like reading a bad local newspaper on a slow news day. per nom. Eivind ^t ^@^c 07:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Much as I enjoy http://badgas.co.uk/, this article seems to have been written in order to provide a link to the Bad Gas feature and really isn't encyclopedic IMO. CLW 08:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. 193.122.31.188 09:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: this vote may be from an anonmyous editor, but please see the editor's contribution history - all seems to be useful, sensible and constructive. CLW 09:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 10:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- obviously not yet a complete article, but seems to be about a notable phenomenon (see all of the restaurants of this ilk mentioned on the reference). Also just really interesting for reasons given by Bacchiad. Interestingstuffadder 14:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Calling growth of fried chicken stands in the UK a "notable phenomenon" stretches the term dramatically; it is neither. This is non-encyclopedic trivia that you'd see in a copy of the daily Metro and forget before you were halfway through your first cup of coffee. RGTraynor 14:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, unencyclopedic. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Fried chicken restaurants in the UK which is a much better article -- Astrokey44|talk 15:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I didn't see that article before nominating this one, but frankly, I don't see the encyclopedic value of that one, either. Perhaps someone can better explain why the existence of fried chicken stands in the UK is a "notable phenomemon". It seems utterly trivial and commonplace to me. MCB 17:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  - comment I would have to agree that that article should be deleted as well. More original research. Though I feel like I ab being a dick saying this...Roodog2k 22:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —LrdChaos 20:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom as useless Imarek 21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
delete as original research. Roodog2k 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- comment unless this was renamed and redone as a List of British Fried Chicken Outlets... MAYBE... Roodog2k 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete hencruft Just zis Guy you know? 22:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Properly expanded, this article is a heck of a lot more useful than List of defunct United States military academies or List of ERP vendors, and a whole lot less Original Research than List of songs that have been considered among the greatest ever or Education in Macau. Wikipedia is not paper. wikipediatrix 04:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Fried chicken restaurants in the UK and try to improve combined article - What the article asserts is true enough, but what it doesn't say is how relatively popular fried chicken is in the UK compared to anywhere else, how long it has been that way, how many are there, who runs them, and whether fried chicken is simply the easiest thing to turn a former fish and chip shop into in light of changing tastes, etc. There's possibly an interesting story there, but it needs a little more in the way of facts, and since we have two similar articles, we ought to combine them and bring them up to Wikipedia standards. ProhibitOnions 09:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there is nothing in this article which is based on verifiable citations from reliable sources. At least Fried chicken restaurants in the UK makes some attempt to be neutral (well, OK, it had one paragraph which was reasonably neutral). Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't a magazine article or a fluff piece on TV, it's an encyclopedia entry, and coming up with a fun and fascinating story isn't quite the aim here. RGTraynor 13:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep as encyclopedic topic, but shorten to a few sentences removing all the crap about names and "poor people" and leave Delete as I'm typing the above I'm realizing that there's no verification of the fact about "growing number of chicken restaurants". The whole article is POV without that. We don't need analysis about chicken places, even though the Halal thing is an interesting factoid. Just delete. -- cmh 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Prohibit Onions Robdurbar 21:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 05:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the unconscious is structured like a language

Reason why the page should be deleted Personally, I don't want this article deleted - I think it could serve an important purpose of discussing a difficult and disputed school of psychoanalytic theory in a NPOV way. But User:Kelly Martin has already unilaterally deleted it twice, so I'd like to see it put to a vote. Bacchiad 05:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

All the material in this page was merged into Jacques Lacan some time ago; there is nothing in this article which is not redundant with the Lacan article. This phrase is not sufficiently interesting as to merit its own article, and there is no point in having a redirect. Delete. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per Kelly.--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete: unsearchable, redundant, unverified, plus no indication of what 'structured like a language' is supposed to mean. Peter Grey 05:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This concept serves an analogous role in Lacanian theory to the collective unconscious in Jungian theory. If we have collective unconscious (and we do) we should keep this. I can understand a demand for re-naming, since the title is admittedly awkward, but then again we do have cogito ergo sum and Just Say No. The unconscious is structured like a language is simply the operative buzz-phrase in Lacanian theory. As for the material reduplicating what is already in Jacques Lacan, this is largely a result of Ms. Martin's two previous merge-and-deletes. Bacchiad 05:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kelly. While cogito ergo sum and Just Say No have articles, these phrases are known worldwide to a cross-section of society. Operative buzz-phrases in Lacanian theory do not deserve their own encyclopedia entries. Con Dem^Talk 06:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Should we also remove collective unconscious? Or synchronicity? Relatively obscure psychoanalytic concepts already have their own articles. If this is purely a naming problem, we could simply move the article to unconscious (Lacan) or Lacanian unconscious. Bacchiad 06:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe we should. I know very little about psychoanalytical theory, and have never studied it, but I've heard the phrases "collective unconscious" and "synchronicity" before, and I think they're notable topics. Also, collective unconscious and synchronicity have material that is not in Carl Jung. Con Dem^Talk 06:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Bacchiad's suggestion might work. I personally don't know enough psychology to assess the actual theory, but I do know enough linguistics to know that 'the unconscious is structured like a language' is unlikely to ever make any kind of sense. Peter Grey 06:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, but move to a place like Unconscious_(Lacan). The actual phrase is not famous enough for an article, but this Lacanian idea has been quite influential: I get 554 google scholar hits for "unconscious" + "structured like a language". David Sneek 08:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kelly. The material should be rightly covered at Lacan. Eusebeus 09:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kelly. --Arnzy (Talk) 10:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Move to more appropriate title, or check the merge anew - I have the impression that, contrary to what Kelly says, not everything in the article is currently represented in the Jacques Lacan one (e.g. relation to earlier and later linguistic theory, structuralism etc.) This still seems decent material that should be saved. Except for the title it actually is a pretty good article. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Bacchiad's most recent recreation includes material that was not included in the version I originally merged. The new content should probably also be reviewed for potential merge before the article is deleted. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Kelly states the case precisely. —Encephalon 13:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kelly. Beyond that, I'm unsure how nom thinks this article will promulgate discussion of the theory; it isn't as if Wikipedia is a psych bulletin board or blog. RGTraynor 14:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kelly. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kelly Martin. —LrdChaos 19:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kelly. Just zis Guy you know? 11:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per, well, you get the drift now. Sandstein 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 01:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collingwood Magpies 2006 Season

I seem to recall a season article on an individual club being deleted before. Does there really need to be an article for each club for each year, especially as the competition has just started and theres nothing particularly notable about Collingwood 2006? Note this and Sydney Swans 2006 Season are the only AFL club-season articles in Category:Australian Football League seasons. These should be deleted or merged to 2006 Australian Football League season (p.s sorry eddie) -- Astrokey44|talk 06:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Also the content has now been transferred to AFL wikia so it would not be lost if deleted -- Astrokey44|talk 07:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Other articles exsist for American and English Football clubs, keep per Australians are wikipedians too :) That and a merge with either article would make the resulting article very long. T K E 06:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarify I do realize that this is for one season of the club. T K E 17:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course the football club Collingwood Magpies should have its own article, but an article for one club's individual season? I dont think even the Dallas Cowboys or Manchester United has that -- Astrokey44|talk 06:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- not that different from the many Cricket related articles of this type. I find the information interesting and worthy of inclusion - and I care little for football. - Longhair 06:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You realise how many articles there would be for each season which duplicates 2006 Australian Football League season - just for 2006 there would be: Adelaide Crows 2006 Season, Brisbane Lions 2006 Season, Carlton 2006 Season, Essendon 2006 Season, Fremantle 2006 Season, Geelong 2006 Season, Hawthorn 2006 Season, Kangaroos 2006 Season, Melbourne 2006 Season, Port Adelaide 2006 Season, Richmond 2006 Season, St. Kilda 2006 Season, West Coast Eagles 2006 Season, Western Bulldogs 2006 Season.. and then every club for every sport for every season would want its own article - this would be something of a precedent if it is kept -- Astrokey44|talk 06:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

We already have a precedent - consider January 22 in baseball, 2005_Texas_Longhorn_football_team, all the other articles on NFL (lots of articles about NFL playoffs) or soccer or cricket or whatever for various permutations of clubs, days or years -- Synapse 13:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The 2005 Longhorn is clearly an out of the ordinary season - "The 2005 Longhorns have been calculated statistically to be the greatest college football team of all time" whereas Collingwood here have just started and last year came 15th out of 16 teams. -- Astrokey44|talk 14:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment My decision was a personal one, based on Wikipedia is not paper, so there is room for leeway, and these are the major professional clubs in Australia. I would not vote to keep anything less than Premier League for England or the major sport networks of America for this kind of article. As professional sports articles are a major draw to Wikipedia on search engines, I'm all fer it. T K E 17:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep per TKE. But how anyone could find this interesting if they care little for football is beyond me! Con Dem^Talk 06:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Delete, after actually understanding that there was another Collingwood Magpies article! Con Dem^Talk 07:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Collingwood Football Club which already has its own history section or 2006 Australian Football League season which appears to be setup for this purpose. See also Sydney Swans 2006 Season for similar treatment as it's of the same setup and format as the nominated article. ClarkBHM 07:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. Eusebeus 09:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. --Arnzy (Talk) 10:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge both this and Sydney Swans 2006 Season Kevin McE 11:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Clarke. Transwikiing to AFL wikia was a good move too. go Pies! pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Completely legitimate and too large for merging to be sensible. Let's see these for all major clubs. Chicheley 12:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep An entirely welcome precedent. Wikipedia is only just getting started so it is unfair to point out that not all AFL teams have season articles yet. ReeseM 12:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and let Wikipedia built the world's best encyclopedia of sport. Calsicol 13:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, encyclopaedic. By the time the 2006 footy season is over it would be large enough to warrant it's own article, even if it's on the small side now. - Synapse 13:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Precedent's are allowed to be set. Merging into a general 2006 article will cause the merged article to be way to large and unmanageable. Is the content unique? I say yes! Will it be referenced in the future, 1 year? 10 years? 50 years?... yes yes yes. Anubis1975 13:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that each upcoming weekend to update the football scores on wikipedia you have to update seventeen different articles? - just for one sport! (also note that the article was not updated with last weekends 77-111 loss to Adelaide) -- Astrokey44|talk 14:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge or Delete. This is sure a precedent I don't want to see; the sports sections are cluttered enough without this encroachment. What's next, a demand to have articles for individual games? RGTraynor 14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am hesitant to use the word precendent in most any RfD. I have my own personal ones, but few general ones. There are articles for individual cricket matches, which are complex and merit an article. I can find no real reason to delete other than "why have it?", which isn't good enough for me. There's no demand, it's just something an editor put some time into that is trivial, but not NN nor spam. T K E 18:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, encyclopaedic information. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Collingwood Magpies per above. Much to my surprise, I find I wouldn't be aghast at this being kept, but I'd still rather see it happily edited down and merged. Lord Bob 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Valid content. Would distort any article it was merged into. Hawkestone 18:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Merge. While much of the information present would indeed distort anything it's merged into, by trimming a lot of the stuff out (like the information for each player, which I feel is better on a page for that individual), you're left mostly with a list of players and the team's schedule/scores, which shouldn't be a distortion of a page like 2006 Australian Football League season if similar info for other teams was added. Each season for each team doesn't need its own page; only particularly noteworthy seasons do. —LrdChaos 19:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Merge as above. The rot has to stop somewhere. We can't have an article for hundreds of teams every year. Imarek 21:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I think this is progress not "rot". Golfcam 00:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge with the 2006 AFL article. We may also want to let the creator know about the AFL wiki so that he or she can edit it as they have put in a lot of work. Individual team seasons aren't generally notable unless they achieve something noteworthy such as winning the premiership. There would be a case for the Collingwood Magpies 1990 Season article as they were the first AFL premiers in that year. Capitalistroadster 04:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge to the Collingwood article and a holistic 2006 AFL season article. Do the same for the Swannies. -- Saberwyn 22:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - this would be a very bad precedent to set. Clubs may be notable, but an article for each season?! No. Stifle (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete this is an extremely bad precedent to set. This goes beyond the realm of an encyclopædia.--cj | talk 06:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment The precedent has already been set (at least, for other sports). - Synapse 08:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the articles you linked to are articles on the whole season. A comparable example would be having a separate article for each side of the cricket teams involved in the season - for instance: West Indies A season at the West Indies A cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2005 and Sri Lanka at the West Indies A cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2005 -- Astrokey44|talk 00:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge to 2006 Australian Football League season, definitely not Collingwood Football Club. JPD (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge to 2006 Australian Football League season. Moe ε 17:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denkou Choujin Gridman

A stub that doesn't appear to ever be referenced, and hasn't been improved in the year it's been on wikipedia. Dstanfor 07:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Japanese tv-series that was successful enough to be copied in the west. David Sneek 09:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per David. --Arnzy (Talk) 10:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, definitely notable since it got copied in the west. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. We don't delete stubs just because they're old. -- cmh 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Moe ε 17:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orneo

It is a misspelling of Omeo - not really worthy of a Wiki article. Black-Velvet 08:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Term unlikely to be searched on, so redirect would probably not be useful. (aeropagitica) 08:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Black-Velvet as the original author you may want to try requesting speedy deletion (general 7), as the only other edits have been quite minor.--blue520 09:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Omeo (may be nothing to do there) and replace with a redirect. No reason to delete edit history, but no reason to keep content either. Obviously mis-speled often if there's an article about it. -- cmh 01:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Proto as an attack page, redirect to Broker by Proto. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Money broker

As it stands this article is no more than an attack on brokers. Forex brokers are covered elsewhere in wikipedia, other areas may be too David Underdown 09:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as attack page: "Page intended primarily to disparage its subject". Tonywalton | Talk 09:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy as attack. I tagged it. 193.122.31.188 09:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Missed that as a criteria when i read through the policies. First time at putting something up for deletion. Thanks guys. David Underdown 09:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete A6 --Ter e nc e Ong 15:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete in retrospect after it already has been and then re-created as a redirect to broker. MLA 17:49, 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. Mailer Diablo 19:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Mugshots

User:193.122.31.188 posted the following on the talk page

"Despite claiming to have invented a genre, this band appears to be non-notable. Only a handful of hits for 'The Mugshots' and 'undead rock' in google. Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Delete. 193.122.31.188 09:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)"

and then placed the talk page on the Log page as substitute for deletion discussion page. Hopefully I have completed the listing properly. blue520 10:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - A note should be posted on the "How to" that non logged in users can not put a page up for AfD as they can not create the discussion page required.--blue520 10:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I only discovered this after adding the afd tag to the article. On a related note, there should be a method which allows anons to nominate articles for AfD. 193.122.31.188
  - In which case we'd get AfDspammed from the high school shared IPs; no thanks! I'm quite comfy with saving it for regusers. That aside, after going over the article and info, this looks NN to me. Delete. RGTraynor 14:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    - Anons can still raise AfDs, they just can't finalise them because they can't start new articles so it requires a registered user to step in - it's something I've done on a number of occasions now and it's no big deal compared to the official ruling on anons and new articles MLA 17:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
      - Anons can also register for an account. It doesn't hurt :) Stifle (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, full of potential but short on notability MLA 17:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Hetar 19:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 06:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] League Freak

ATTENTION!

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

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

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Dont delete it! League Freak Owns Me! - Toronto Giant

Dont Delete - this is a superb biography of an internet legend.

Dont Delete - the guy is an absolute legend and deserves his own wikipedia page

Delete - Delete this pricks Wiki page.

Dont Delete - he's awesome & very famous in the RL world. So f*ck off you nobbish "delete" people.

Dont Delete A well known personality. It all seems up to date. Think its probably personal problems iwth the person rather than a real Wikipedia problem thats driving this push to get this page deleted.

It shouldn't be deleted... If you wish to verify the information in the article then visit various Rugby League forums.

Delete- He is non-notable, has a very vain page, and is not, unlike the page states, dead. This was a childish April Fool's day joke he played on his website. Thus I feel this page qualifies for deletion James Bowes 09:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn-bio. MLA 10:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete: By definition, an anonymous character can have no piece of information about him verified, and there is no way of knowing whether any opinion purporting to come from LF (other than on their own website) is from the original character or an imitator. Kevin McE 10:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Clearly is not notable. Why do people keep doing this? 82.36.107.54 13:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete could not find any sources for any of the "news" or claims on the page. : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 17:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn bio of an unknown person Imarek 21:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete read this and see what you think: http://www.getphpbb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=553&mforum=leaguefreak

Don't Delete all true entertaining guy: Youane

Delete per WP:V. Stifle (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Very vain page which if you read the RLFans website you will know if full of errors. BalearicCrazy 08:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete possibly speedy as nn-bio Computerjoe 's talk 11:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as there's no reasonable defence so far and poating on a rugby league forum is not notable as there are thousands of people that do likewise

Don't delete. I can honestly say he's one of the very few Leaguies worth reading. Of course its vain inglorious nonsense, but so what. Enjoy it for what it is. The man's a freak.

Delete The guy is an ill informed tool - Mixmasterreece

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 20:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Essenes

I may possibly be wrong, considering all the wacky religious groups that are out there, but I believe this is a hoax. The article claims to be about a modern group, the "Christian Essenes", but all references are works on the ancient Jewish Essenes. Requests for better references have been ignored. u p p l a n d 09:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This article has had an {{unreferenced}} tag since January 23, and the author was asked for specific references supporting the content on January 24, but has not responded. If this is kept, I suggest removing the stuff on the ancient Essenes, as that belongs elsewhere, and blanking the rest of the article, as there seems to be no verification for anything about the specific group the page claims to be about. If somebody wants to actually find useful references and write about various Christian fringe groups believing themselves to be Essenes, that's fine with me. But without that I don't see how keeping the page as it is is in keeping with the verifiability policy. u p p l a n d 18:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There does seem to be a small group who describe their faith as membership of "The Essene Church of Christ" [www.essene.org], and so Christian Essenes do exist, and are not a hoax. So I think this will have to be a Keep Kevin McE 10:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Your link is dead, so still no verification? --Doc ^ask? 13:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete The group referenced by Kevin McE appears to bear little resemblance to the people described in the article, beyond the name. It looks like there are a number of groups out there using the name "Essene", but I can't find any indication that any of them are notable, or even much commonality among them. If someone can produce some citations about this particular group to establish some notability, I could be convinced to change my mind, but from what I can find, they're awfully fringy. Fan1967 14:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. I've heard of modern-day "Essene" groups myself; whether this is one of them, though, I'm unsure. I'm certainly willing to change my vote if evidence crops up. RGTraynor 15:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment That's the problem. I can't find anything that seems to match the group as described here (affiliated with the Independent Catholic Churches) except in Wiki and mirrors. May be a hoax, may be a tiny group that's totally off the radar. Fan1967 15:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. The basic problem here is that it doesn't really answer the obvious questions about the contemporary origins of any groups of Christian Essenes. Label it for expansion or question its accuracy; this doesn't look like deletion-worthy material in itself, though. Smerdis of Tlön 15:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep per Smerdis. Also, one advantage of the page's existence is as a place to shunt info about these new religious movements who claim descent from the historical Essenes, who would otherwise clutter up the Essenes page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete unless WP:V now means nothing. All the references here relate to the ancient Jewish Essenes, on which we already have an article. There is no evidnce that there even exists a group of self-identifying Christian Essenes, much less that this information on them is accurate. All the info here about anceint Essenes would be unrecognisable by any Schollar of ancient Judaism - it is POV at best, and just wrong at worst. 'I think I've heard of this' isn't verification. 'Shunt information here', but we have no verifiable infomation to shunt. Sure it is possible that something will be verified later, well then at that point we can consider undeleting - but it has had months with no verification, so delete it for now. --Doc ^ask? 12:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Looks sketchy at best, and the website referenced above doesn't exist...I don't claim to know all of Christian theology, but I've not run across them, and I'd like to think I'd at least have heard of them if they were notable. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 13:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete per User:Doc glasgow. The external links on the page, as well as the link mentioned by another user above do not work. No verifiability. --Andy123(talk) 13:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, implausible at best. Google hasn't heard of them, either, if you discount Wikipedia mirrors. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable (and probably as non-notable even if it were verifiable). --G Rutter 14:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete for lack of WP:RS. Sandstein 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucent Dossier Vaudeville Cirque

Article about unnotable group, or at least doesn't state why group is notable. It is exceptionally poorly written, seeded with "coming soon" tags, and I for one am still confused as to whether they are a musical group or a performing arts group (not cleared up by the article's "Vaudeville Cirque with vaudeville elements". Should IMO be deleted. HarryCane 10:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per HarryCane. -- Kjkolb 12:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Imarek 21:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted as band vanity/spam. - Mike Rosoft 11:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The RadKicks

Delete. Non notable band. Googling gives 4 hits. As per the article (which does not cite sources), the band's recordings are only available on blog sites (and not via some record label, which makes them fail the wikipedia test for notability). Soumyasch 10:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - no assertion of notabilty. Tagged as such. 193.122.31.188 11:00, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 19:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallibroome High School

~~Non notable school, info seems to be irrelevant James Kendall [talk] 11:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)~~
Retracted per consensus that all secondary schools should be included. James Kendall [talk] 23:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Could you please point me to the page where consensus regarding this has been reached? Not convention or precedent, but actual consensus. Elf-friend 09:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

keep No i disagree. The information is relevant, pupils past and present will find it interesting informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.32.42 (talk • contribs)
~~Delete~~ - I'd PROD'd it before, but somebody cleaned up all of the school-cruft and made it into a facts-only stub. Unfortunately it looks like the cruft will keep coming back, and nobody seems that inclined to actually improve it, so I'm game to remove it completely. --Maelwys 11:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep - I'm willing to accept any high school might be considered notable enough to warrant it's own article, but only if there's a chance of it growing in productive content again, and not as a recepticle for inside jokes and commentary about non-notable students and staff. --Maelwys 19:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject, thus delete. Elf-friend 11:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Once you cut out the non-encyclopedic opinions on teachers and the "notable pupils" section full of attacks, you're left with one line which states the age range and a box with the address. Wikipedia is not a phonebook or the yellow pages. This article doesn't present significance of the subject either. All reasons from WP:NOT and WP:CSD to delete it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I've deleted the staff trivia. In other respects it is a legitimate article. It states that it is a school, which makes it significant. Honbicot 12:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep All schools are notable. ReeseM 12:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As per what Wikipedia guideline or policy? Elf-friend 12:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete In its actual state, the article give non significant informations about a non notable school. Unless relevant and notable informations can be provided, there's no need to keep it! --Sam67fr 12:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I'm vaguely familiar with this school, and it's as notable as any other British school articles. I'll see waht I can do to improve it over the next few weeks. A q uilina 13:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Highscool. Someone needs to protect it from the IP user adding spurious information.--Isotope23 15:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, all high schools are notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Keep - but label as a stub and give them time to fix it. If nothing is added in due time than can resubmit for deletion. : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 17:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I never agreed that all high schools are notable. Most of them, including this one, aren't. Brian G. Crawford 17:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep based on well established overwhelming precedent for schools, especially high schools. No guideline or policy could be used to justify deletion. Somebody wishing a merge, could discuss the matter on the talk page of the article, which is more productive than an AFD (who's result is as inevitable as an AFD on a township). --Rob 18:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I am disgusted at the prospect of this entry even being considered for deletion. It is a fair, first hand account of the thoughts of many students at the school. If this entry did not exist, we would have no direct voice to the outside world. Its information is reletive to the people who want to look back and remember the good old days. --~~Will~~ 20:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.237.223 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment You make great arguments for why you should be setting up a private webpage for alumnae of the school. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider, so you should go find some other site to store your memories. --Maelwys 19:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Expand. All high schools are notable. However, this one needs to be expanded massively in an encyclopaedic manner, as in the history, sport teams, and so on. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 19:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
A very reluctant Keep. It does seem that the listing of high schools has become the accepted convention. Unfortunate, in my opinion. Jonas Silk 19:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment By keeping this, do we then set the precedent for any school to have an article? Either it's only notable (famous) schools or all schools, imo. James Kendall [talk] 19:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment I think the precedent to keep high schools is more or less established; Middle and lower schools must have some claim to fame to be included, which is why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Hills Elementary School was made. (Alas, it's going to fail because of the lumping in of the entire district, since Faria Academic Plus School and Miller Middle School are notable schools in the district.) But per this, I think precedent has more or less been established. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 21:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment - makes sense. So if I add my old school as an article (it's a secondary school) it is encyclopaedic? Or would it be classed as NN? I'm kind of turning this into a debate about what makes a school worthy of inclusion which is silly in some respects, but important in others. Should every secondary school be in Wikipedia? James Kendall [talk] 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
      - Theoretically, we are going down the road where every secondary school is going to be in Wikipedia; if you do indeed add your school, it most likely won't be chastised as nn, and won't be deleted unless it's an attack on the school. Even if it is taken to AFD, the result would be similar to this one, and a prod would likely be taken off. At least, that's my understanding. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 22:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
        
        In that case I retract my nomination. James Kendall [talk] 23:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Schools have a place on Wikipedia. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 21:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Elf-friend Imarek 21:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep per precedent for keeping schools. YellowPigNowNow 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep High school. Hawkestone 21:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I am a current student of the aquestioned high school and I no that this entry in wikipedia is important to the school. *You are all fools to doubt it. Without this topic there is no way for us to tell people what the school is truly like. You shouldn't be banishing this information, you should be praising the fact we are speaking about our school lives and informing people what teachers don't even know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.237.223 (talk • contribs)
- No, useful info is necessary, not rubbish about a teacher being an 'ex-marine', or someone having 'manly beard growing talents'. I know 2 like that at my college and they are not encyclopaedic topics. They are regular guys. James Kendall [talk] 23:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep WP:SCH. Kotepho 13:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep almost all schools. bbx 05:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Moe ε 17:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as {{nn-club}}. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey Milisha

Delete. No notability or referances mentioned. Nor any importance or achievements of the group mentioned. Google fails to get relevant hits. Article seems like self-promotion. Soumyasch 11:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete No references. : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 17:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:16, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ape-Ball

Delete: Non-notable computer game. Almost completely unverifiable with no apparent Google hits. Even the secondary references appear to be unverifiable. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete: The official website is someone's AOL My First Homepage. Lhlhlh 11:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. ×Meegs 11:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alicia Roberts

Delete. Non-notable. Unencyclopaediac. Perhaps POV. No refernces cited. Soumyasch 11:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - clearly an attack page. Tagged as such. 193.122.31.188 11:13, 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. SushiGeek 02:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Europeantenders resource

Delete. The article is an advertisement for a non-notable site. Soumyasch 11:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - clearly using WP to advertise. 193.122.31.188 11:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete advert MLA 17:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:17, 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, no consensus. SushiGeek 05:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-02

Delete. Gamecruft. Lhlhlh 11:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Ace Combat 04. Since it's not that long, it could be merged into one of the original game articles. Con Dem^Talk 11:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. A merge would be out of place..it would be like, a big section about New York City in the United States article. About it being gamecruft, there are more serious offenders than this....though this article could use some improvements.deadkid_dk 11:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

keep Why must we delete this article. The creators of this article are not doing anything offensive by having this page on the website come on let us practice our freedom of speech. Guys there are much better things we can be debating about.- DBoy 417

Send the more serious offenders to me and I'll send them to AfD. --Mmx1 16:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Neglects to disclose he/she is a contributor to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhlhlh (talk • contribs)

I added nothing to the article except a category and some grammar, I don't think I need to disclose that. Stop nitpicking. deadkid_dk 12:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's considered good form. 156.34.89.249 13:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

*Comment: c'mon, creators/contributors chip in on AfD all the time, and few disclose jack. It's to be expected. RGTraynor 15:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as gamecruft. Wiki is not GameFAQs. --Mmx1 16:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as gamecruft and how-to. Brian G. Crawford 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no content except fictional description of the craft and gameplay tips, neither of which are encyclopedic. We deleted a shitton of Orbiter articles on the same reason. Night Gyr 21:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have rewritten the article to include some real world references, though I'm not sure if that can save it from the Hells of Deletion. deadkid_dk 11:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge we should merge this into a big list of AC Fictional Aircraft, with the Falken, morgan, Hresvelgr, and all the rest. User:Stuka2 19:36, 10 April 2006.
Merge. per Stuka2. If necessary just move the article to List of AC Fictional Aircraft and let it be the first one. -- cmh 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with a merge, but how would all the information fit? deadkid_dk 02:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete anything similar to "The X-02 is regarded as the overall best airplane" as speculation and OR

Delete anything similar to "The X in the name hints that it could be an experimental aircraft." as idle speculation on fictional matters.

Delete "Development and Operational History" as a rehash of the game plots"

Delete in-game specs of the plane. (even the Starcraft pages don't detail the HPS or damage of the units)

Delete trivia as rumor (we don't cite forums).

And get rid of the references (Ace Combat walkthrough?)

Looks good to me--Mmx1 02:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done most of those except removing the history and trivia section, the reason being:

The 'plot' mentioned is a minor subplot, not a rehash of the games' actual plots.
The trivia section is included not because of the rumour from the forum, but because the production team actually responded on it.

deadkid_dk 03:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is a denied rumor significant? --Mmx1 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Like the Aeris resurrection rumor from Final Fantasy 7. deadkid_dk 03:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why remove the in-game specs? Please do not confuse a Real-Time-Strategy game which relies on the overall effectiveness of specialized units and a flying/simulation game where individual plane statistics alter the very nature of how to approach flying that plane successfully in a mission. While individual HPS and damages of each of the little units in say, StarCraft, matter little in the overall strategies of playing the game, a difference of what loudouts a plane has or how maneuverable it is within the game's architecture are incredibly important to the simulation aspect of the game. Had Ace Combat been a RTS utilyzing aircraft, then I could possibly see not having a description regarding their statistics, but this is clearly not the case. The statistics of each aircraft in this type of game specifically control what can be done with that aircraft and how it will perform against a set of enemies. I would consider this an omission of published, verifiable information. IdoAlphaOmega 05:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"furrowed brow" So the HPS of unit doesn't approach how i use it in an RTS? When it comes down to it, wiki is not a place to expound on game mechanics. Please, take a page from the Trek geeks, who've moved all their tech specs off to their independent wiki. Somebody should start a wiki rival to gamefaqs. --Mmx1 05:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the HP an integral part of your RTS that sets apart one unit from another? Is there a grunt in StarCraft with 10HP more than the regular grunt? If it is, please argue so and have it included where it is necessary. No game mechanics are being expounded upon here, merely statistics - similar to the statistics or real aircraft by the way - which even many Star Trek spacecraft have. There's even a Star Trek Template Project to unify how tech specs regarding the various vessels are presented. Sorry, but the GameFAQs analgy is only an attempt to attach negative connotation to the article in question, and I will not tolerate it. Wikipedia's own FAQs states that GameFAQs articles are often instead rather detailed descriptions of gameplay, including tips, secrets, and beginning-to-end guidance, and, thus far, nobody has shown how the X-02 article has been any of those things. IdoAlphaOmega 06:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, if real aircrafts can list their specs in their respective articles, I don't see why not for fictional planes. deadkid_dk 06:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Expand. Although a fictional aircraft, there are quite a few articles on Wikipedia regarding fictional characters, places, events, which span barely three lines. The X-02 spans three different games, is a unique creation with published, certifiable statistics (games are published too, you know as well as information in several published player's guides), and appears as both flyable and enemy-controlled aircraft. Granted, it does need some work, but the majority revolves around updating the article and adding information and statistics from Ace Combat 5 and Ace Combat Zero. It should be noted that the originator of this AFD has targetted several Ace Combat articles for deletion - many with detailed, succinct, and varied information all while giving the reason "Gamecruft" and no further explanation. IdoAlphaOmega 03:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nom has not nominated any other Ace Combat articles AFAIK. Your accusation is baseless. --Mmx1 04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Upon review, it appears that I was incorrect in making such an accusation. I retract my statement and apologize. However, my statements regarding the X-02 article still stand, and there was an attempt to AFD the ADF-01, ADFX-01, Ustio, Belka, and Yuktobania articles related to Ace Combat 5 by the same person which led me such an erroneous conclusion. Just as an addition, the article differs from GameFAQ articles in a few significant ways A) it does not provide step-by-step (aka a guide) information on obatining the craft B) it does not give advice on how or when to use the craft, and C) does not comment about the plane's abilities except to mention that it, as many of the fictional super-fighters in previous AC games were, is a marginally and/or significantly better than its real-world digital counterparts. IdoAlphaOmega 04:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I do not see how anything on the X-02 page can be related to gamefaq... During several years, Namco has created a whole universe with the ace combat series. That universe fly far away the ace combat games, as the background is deeply described in official sites (who keep being updated even after the releases of the games) and game books. So I think there is enought facts about X-02 to keep his page, as any Star wars fighter... Hirose 11:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep or Expand "Gamecruft?" Honestly, if one starts to get irritated on topics such as this, the Wiki better go after everything. I know from doing a whole report on it that there is enough specs on it to make a convincing arguement that it could fly (simulations in X-Plane--yes, I know its a sim, and still only a game--have shown that it really could fly). Not only that, but unless similar articles on other games are put up for deletion, I find this unessecarry to even consider this. It's not cluttering anything as the only way to find it is when one researches Ace Combat, and if that's the case, why not keep it for those people actually searching for it? Kinda a no-brainer to me. (AceCombatSkies.com Admin "F22_Fan" posted 10:08 AM, 11 April 2006 GMT)

Keep Why remove it? It may be a fictional aircraft, yes, but in that case everything fictional should be deleted from Wikipedia. The article itself is not bad. Keep, or at least make a big article about Ace Combat fictional aircraft. YF-23 17:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Although the article needs improvment, that is no reason to delete it. Concerning the X-02 being fictional: If that is a reason to delete the article, then why do the articles for such fictional craft as the F-302, X-Wing, F/A-37, and Starfury remain unchallenged? Tempest2

Comment Note the user who put this up for deletion: his account is now inactive, and what the heck kind of name is Lhlhlh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.239.31 (talk • contribs)

Does that matter? No personal attacks please. deadkid_dk 00:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 01:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panelaben

This article is not properly sourced and I find no evidence that this band satisfies WP:NMG. [7] PJM 11:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BAND. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have blanked the article as copyvio _→AzaToth 16:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin McHugh

Delete. Non notable. No relevant google hits. Could not verify the facts in the article. No references provided.Soumyasch 11:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. McHugh is one of the leading all-time goalscorers still playing in the Football League of Ireland.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4583644.stm http://www.derrycityfc.net/displaystory.php?storyid=349 http://finnharps.openhosts.com/News/05Oct24McQ_100goals.htm Niallc99 14:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. There are many less significant players at this or lower levels of their sport who have entries. Kevin McE 14:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. WP:BIO is pretty plain about the notability of a player for a professional sports team, and someone who's scored a hundred goals in pro soccer? That's huge. A directed Google search (including "football" and "Ireland") comes up with 680 hits and they look pretty damn relevant to me, and a very cursory search turned up that he was 4th in scoring in the Irish Premier Division last year, led Division 1 the previous year, and was 3rd the year before that. I recommend that the nom either refine his research skills or restrict his AfD nominations to areas in which he is knowledgeable. RGTraynor 15:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep enough of a public figure. Jonas Silk 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This AFD was improperly closed early by NTK. I have reopened it. Please allow it to continue for the full five days. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. As per RGTraynor. -- cmh 02:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Moe ε 17:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 01:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MotoModders

Doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:WEB Elf-friend 11:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn Imarek 22:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep As a Motorola user I have used this site a fair amount already, and AFAIK it's the biggest unofficial Motorola-related site. I'll look for some links to satisfy WP:WEB; there should be some out there. ProhibitOnions 00:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Avalon 19:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 01:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bayit international

Non-notable. There is nothing in the article, in a google search, or on the apartment complex's website to suggest that this apartment complex is any more relevant than any other.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 11:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SPAM. {{prod}} would probably have been sufficient here. Stifle (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've never used {{prod}} so I was unsure.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 15:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable ad. -- cmh 02:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Tommy Ingebrigtsen. SushiGeek 01:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Ingebrigtsen

Deleted before, but this time with new content. Asserts notability, but as usual everything is complete WP:BALLS. For proof see this Google search. Punkmorten 12:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

~~Strong Delete~~ Following is the total content of his company's website [8]: "brunsame clothing© - available soon" - Fan1967 13:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect per Eivind. Wouldn't have occurred to me to check for a notable individual with the same name. Fan1967 00:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom and Tommy isn't the same name in Norway. But maybe a redirect could prevent recreation. Punkmorten 20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Only if the redirect is protected. (An English speaker might well look for the ski jumper as "Tom" since in English the names are generally considered equivalent.) Fan1967 21:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Confused He's a Norwegian fashion designed born in India, who rose to prominence by dressing the Norwegian Gigolo of 2002. But the author is a long-time wikipedian and admin. Have posted a request for clarification. Thatcher131 15:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I really was confused, I was looking at the wrong history. Delete; also check out Gunnarmoen (talk · contribs) other edits. Thatcher131 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Tommy Ingebrigtsen. Eivind ^t ^@^c 23:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Eivind. Stifle (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect Per above. Moe ε 17:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ne'er-do-well

Been moved to Wiktionary. Can never be more than a dicdef. Dangherous 12:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom MLA 13:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete dicdef. NTK 20:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Dictionary Kylet 23:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noreasterner

Never more than a dicdef. Maybe redirect to North East USA or sth similar Dangherous 12:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete it's not even a dialect dicdef of the north easterly wind direction as I would have expected it to have been MLA 12:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per MLA. Thatcher131 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and recreate as Redirect to Nor'easter. Dsmdgold 00:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not even a correct definition. NTK 20:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Or what

I've no idea why this page should need to exist. But, as User:Stevertigo created it, I can't be certain. Wiktionary will have trouble accepting this Dangherous 12:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete non-nessary disambiguation page.--blue520 13:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Man, should this be Deleted or what?! PJM 13:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete I can't think of a notable reason for this article, Wotsits advertising campaigns are about as much as I can come up with MLA 17:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per above. --ManiF 17:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete post haste. NTK 20:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Blue520. Stifle (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not useful. Metamagician3000 08:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia:Disambiguation is for pages with the same title. Not lists of pages with similar titles. -- cmh 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. SushiGeek 01:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Occasional table

Borderline AFD. Not really a dicdef, but a discussion about it is worth having still Dangherous 12:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki to wiktionary -- Astrokey44|talk 15:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Stifle (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki Moe ε 17:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. SushiGeek 01:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] open links

Seemingly obscure term in www. Any takers? Dangherous 12:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, or move to Wiktionary - it's just a 1-line definition. GRuban 19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Stifle (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki Moe ε 17:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Post

There's probably a case for redirect here. Not really dicdef either Dangherous 12:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete doesn't appear to be notable - there's nothing notable about posting first in a thread. Also delete it out of the op dab page MLA 17:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No context for article. -- cmh 02:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 01:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gâteaux

Vanity page, and a joke as well The biography of Gateaux (which is hardly readable) is one big joke. This has also disrupted the Leisele page (which I'll edit). Fram 12:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect surely there has to be a Gateaux page somewhere in wikipedia, I just can't find it - possibly cake is the option if a gateaux page doesn't present itself. MLA 13:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless verified. Optionally recreate as a redirect afterwards. Stifle (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 01:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Huntunes

This article is not properly sourced and I don't see any evidence that the band satisfies WP:NMG. [9] PJM 12:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless verified. Stifle (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Widmore

Non notable, unverified information and speculation Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Lostcruft. Fan1967 13:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable cruft. If the company becomes notable later and is indeed affilitated with Hanso, then it can have a small section on the Hanso page. --Maelwys 14:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete at this point — nothing to say about this subject. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge with one of the other Lost pages (such as Dharma). Every excuse the nom gave for this articles deletion is highly incorrect. According to a verifiable source (lost podcast) Carlton said himself that this is notable. He also said that widmore would appear in Fire+Water. Also, the name DOES appear on the pregnancy test, it was in plain sight (no freeze frame or speculation required, unless you consider looking with our eyes 'original research'). I support its merge simply because there isn't that much on the subject, it has two or three lines of fact, and it doesnt look like its going to play a major role anytime soon. ArgentiumOutlaw 11:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete whatever Carlton said, according to me this article is just one paragraph long! The respective references could be written in the episode recaps, but that is not the same as merging. Arru 20:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment, unfortunately you just basically said 'ignore citable references, what i'm saying is....etc'. Although I do agree about it being a good idea to write the references in the episode recaps, but I thought that was a merge? moving the data elsewhere. If i'm wrong, then what's the difference between a Merge and Merging the data? and how would I vote for the latter? ArgentiumOutlaw 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Inconsequential, speculative. -- PKtm 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.—Leflyman^Talk 17:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not relevant (as of now), not encyclopedic. Do not merge with Hanso or Dharma, as any link between the two is speculative. Danflave 16:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable fancruft. Rillian 21:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 01:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CANcaseXL log

This page is not notable and links only to itself. Johno000 13:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm also nominating two redirect pages that redirect here, but that cannot be reached from elsewhere:

XL Log Config
CANcaseXL

Johno000 13:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, can't determine what this is about. I'm open to change if the article is cleaned up and explained. Stifle (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks for pointing out the redirect pages, but just to let you know that you don't really need to mention them on AFD. If an article is deleted, just put {{db-redirnone}} on all the redirect pages afterwards. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. SushiGeek 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Murdock

Originally speedily deleted on January 8, 2006 [10]. Appealed on deletion review. There was a consensus that an AFD discussion should precede any deletion. I am listing for your consideration. —Encephalon 13:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep Although I find this sort of guy's message offensive and borderline blasphemous (basically:"Send me money and God will make you rich.") he appears to be moderately notable. Fan1967 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. Claims notability, but doens't provide any evidence... and the claims appear fairly ridiculous (115 books and 5000 songs? When does this guy sleep???) Willing to reconsider if someone sources

this.--Isotope23 16:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] [[19]] [[20]]

IMO, none of those sources meet WP:RS other than Amazon since the majority of the links there are for his own website or groups he is affiliated with. No evidence that the audience is greater than 5000.--Isotope23 05:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Mike Murdock began full-time evangelism at the age of 19, in which he has continued for 35 years. He has traveled and spoken to more than 13,000 audiences in 36 countries, including East Africa, the Orient, and Europe and receives hundreds of invitations each year to speak in

churches, colleges, and business corporations. ww2.daystar.com Masssiveego 06:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And again, I point you to WP:RS... Regardless, if this is kept it needs a big time cleanup.--Isotope23 16:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Famous, and gets flown around the country in the ministries cooperate jet. Audience in songs, books, television shows, churches.. over 5000. --Masssiveego 01:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Extremely reluctant keep. As loathe as I am to give this guy more publicity, the sheer number of published works and appearances on TV are sufficient for notability. Powers 15:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per LtPowers. I would also note that people who are quite notable in this guy's kind of circle is likely to be completely unknown to the typical WP editor. So it may be tough to research and write up these kinds of articles, or find editors who will do so, but this guy looks like he's probably more than notable enough. We can at least have a proper stub. NTK 20:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Powers. Metamagician3000 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
keep please a famous evalnglist Yuckfoo 08:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Isotope23. So he's a preacher. The woods are full of them. Tex 13:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Moe ε 17:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chooo

Neologism. Prod'ed, article blanked by anonymous user. In the event this constitutes an objection I am listing this on AfD for wider discussion. Accurizer 13:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete From the article: "Made up by the squad CCC" therefore WP:NFT gwernol 15:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Deli nk 15:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Also, it's stupid. SchrödingersRoot 16:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. SCHZMO ✍ 18:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Haham hanuka 08:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 17:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Luciferase. SushiGeek 01:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luciferene

Fictional enzyme mentioned on X-Files. May have been a mistake for Luciferase. Not appropriate for redirect; delete as Scullycruft. Thatcher131 14:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete non-notable fictional enzyme. Possibly worth a redirect to Luciferase but I can't see how anyone who was looking for Luciferase would have searched that inaccurately. MLA 17:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
REDIRECT to luciferase and make a note. 132.205.45.110 18:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect, whatever happens. Gazpacho 08:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect Moe ε 17:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. SushiGeek 01:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide (song)

I love The Offspring, and especially this song, but I don't think that it is at all notable. It wasn't a single from Smash, and generally wasn't famous. brabblebrex 14:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Deli nk 15:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Smash (album) at least. --Francisco Valverde 15:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Smash (album). Punkmorten 19:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge and delete per above. NTK 20:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge Moe ε 17:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus, regretfully. SushiGeek 01:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doorknob (game)

Article was speedily deleted thrice, by three different administrators, over Mar 31-Apr 1, holding it to be a joke article. Appealed at Wikipedia:Deletion review which overturned the deletion. Listing for your consideration. Regards —Encephalon 14:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay - if you review this history of this article, you can see that it started out as a generic and short description of the game, which I consider to be acceptible among other articles about "informal" games such as tag, etc. I added considerably to it to make it an April Fool's page, and tagged it as such. Then it disappeared before I had a chance to fix it after April 1st. Then it reappeared, and someone chopped it down to one badly-written sentence. The article is useless right now, I but I would be willing to restore it to a good list of the game's rules, written in a formal tone. However, I don't want to waste my time if it's just going to get deleted. Aguerriero 14:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Another update - I just restored the article and edited it to be formal and encyclopedic. Please review the current version before voting. Aguerriero 14:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete This is a pretty good example of something real (and probably verifiable), but still simply not an encyclopedic topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I encourage everyone to support this article remaining intact, because it documents a legitimate game that many of us played or still play. Aguerriero 14:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Yeah, it's real, but pretty amorphous as well. I agree that it is not encyclopedic. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per the VFU. I knew this game well about 8-10 years ago as a Boy Scout. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 15:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice. Ephemeral garbage, no references supporting assertion of widespread play, not in the least degree encyclopedic. WP: Not for things made up in school one day RGTraynor 15:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 15:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I added a published reference to the article. I disagree that this constitutes "something made up in school one day". While it probably was at one point, you can find people all over the world who played this game. It is written about in books. I consider it on par with other playground games that have articles, as well as phenomina like Calling shotgun. Aguerriero 16:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I just don't see a reason why not too keep it, especially now that there's a published reference about it posted. I feel like some people here may be mistaking the absurdity of the game for absurdity of the article. There's a lot of references to it not being encyclopaedic, but I'm not really sure what that means? If it's simply a matter of language or style, that can easily be fixed, and shouldn't be a reason to delete. B.Mearns ^*, KSC 16:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Something like this has been around for at least 50 years, although I don't remember anything about doorknobs, and I don't remember it from Boy Scouts. Calling 'safeties' was something junior high boys did while standing around shooting the breeze. I wouldn't have called it a game then, and I won't now. And I don't believe it belongs in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment As much as it pains me to say it, this is a widespread 'game' that has existed in some form (and at least some places) for decades. My father and his brothers used to play when they were young. SchrödingersRoot 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete wikipedia is not for things that are quite this stupid MLA 17:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment as mentioned in several of the comments here, no one here made up the game, in school or otherwise. B.Mearns ^*, KSC 02:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This definitely fits into not for things, the only reference listed on the page isn't a study or report on childhood games as the example on the NFTs page (freak dancing) is. I think wikipedia policy is pretty clear on this issue hence the three times over speedy deletion. J.reed 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The NFT argument is absurd because it fails every test on the NFT. This is not just a dictionary article; it explains the entire game. This is not for "someone's own purpose"; it is to document a well-known and much-played game. This is verifiable, both by the reference cited and by the number of people from all over the country who have commented here who recognize the game. And finally, this definitely isn't original research. So, do tell: on what ground do you claim the NFT argument, other than that its your personal opinion? The fact that you or others consider the game "childish" or "sophmoric" doesn't mean anything, nor is it a reason to remove something from Wikipedia. There are people out there who would want to read the article either to learn about the game or as a nostalgic reference. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 19:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete so its a game that existed. I don't think Wikipedia needs articles on all of the verifiable and yet still insignificant childs games that exist. --Hetar 19:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. It's real, and there's ample evidence of that, but I don't believe it deserves to be in an encyclopedia. —LrdChaos 19:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not for things (see comment above) J.reed 01:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, the game is sophomoric, but it's also quite common. Appropriate reference is there. There's no reason to delete it. YellowPigNowNow 05:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Legitimate game, appropriately described. Crypticfirefly 07:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Silly, pointless game, but Wikipedia is not paper, and it has a verifiable published reference. Powers 15:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Dlete as unencyclopaedic. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep We now have a reference for this activity; its relative lack of sophistication is not exceptional among children's games; and, children's games are often a worthy encyclopedic topic. This vote is weak because only one source is given. Xoloz 15:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
keep please game is legitimate and referenced too Yuckfoo 07:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete ridiculously trivial potty humour. Just zis Guy you know? 22:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Silly, but necessary reference is there -- No reason to delete. Jinx has an article and how is this game much different? Doorknob (game) needs its own page because "Jinx" has more than one meaning, and the fact that many of us remember this game from differing parts of the world supports its widespread use at very least. CelticWonder 06:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC) - The preceding comment was made by 68.70.226.128 (talk · contribs), who may have been CelticWonder, but not signed in. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I see no reason to delete this article, and all it needs is a small bit of rewording.Freddie 01:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Moe ε 17:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I was just talking about this game with a friend today, and decided without knowing about the AfD to check out the article. It certainly could be better. Maxamegalon2000 00:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete assuming that the information contained in the article appears in the source listed, it's verifiable and should be kept. However, an Amazon search of the book's contents reveals only one reference to the word 'doorknob', and it's not about this game. Therefore, delete unless this or another reference can be verified. Ziggurat 01:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mind Pirate

not a lot going for this page. Dangherous 14:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not for things you made up in school one day. gwernol 15:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Argh... 'tis a neologism ya mangy sea-dogs!--Isotope23 15:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nonsense, not even a neologism. (aeropagitica) 16:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nonsense MLA 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not useful, notable, or encyclopedic. ChemGardener 21:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mutterbumser

Obscure German insult. Eh? Not encylopediac Dangherous 14:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as likely hoax. Unless verifiable sources can be found quickly. gwernol 15:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Deli nk 15:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy as hoax - was created by an anon and seems highly unlikely to have been a Great War phrase MLA 17:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. One of 2750 insults listed in a German Schimpfwörterlexikon[21]. This one literally means "motherfucker". The etymology given on the talk page is clearly bogus. Lambiam ^Talk 02:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above. NTK 20:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, soapbox, or dumping ground for made-up WWI-isms. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A1. Stifle (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MRBS

Gives no context wahtsoever, no references, and a quick www search doesn't help much with its being kept. Delete Dangherous 14:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as an empty article. Deli nk 15:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. There's no there there. RGTraynor 15:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete empty MLA 17:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment real acronym, see M240 and M242. It's like a MTBF for automatic firearms, how many rounds on average before the gun jams. Is there somewhere we can redirect this to? NTK 20:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete empty Computerjoe 's talk 20:53, 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. Mailer Diablo 19:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olivier Schetrit

Personal publicity. "Olivier Schetrit" claims to be a french actor but he is completely unknown in France and on the french websites. Only 200 results on google ([22]). The french article about him (writen by himself) will be deleted, commons images (uploaded by himself) too. Udo01 14:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Complete vanity article about NN actor. What's up with that self-referential gallery? RGTraynor 19:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity, delete the pics too. NTK 20:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 01:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enfo's Team Survival

The article is an extensive explanation of and guide to a Warcraft III custom map. Wikipedia is not the place for a gaming guide nor a repository for original research. Habap 14:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Deli nk 15:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. —LrdChaos 19:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. There are many game mod articles on Wikipedia; my objections are to ones that don't cross the bar of relative notability. This one does. Original research it certainly is not -- not with 23 editors working on it, to date. RGTraynor 19:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. While this is of borderline relevance, it certainly isn't a game guide, nor original research. - Discombobulator ^talk 20:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment It claims to only be an article about a custom map and not a mod. That 20-some mostly anonymous editors made changes does not prevent it from being OR. Is this information published anywhere else? Or did these 23 editors add the information simply from their first-hand knowledge of the game? If it hasn't been published somewhere reputable, then it's original research. If it is notable (and nothing in the article makes a claim to notability for this custom map), then the information will need to be verified. --Habap 20:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Errrr ... were you unaware that custom maps in Warcraft III are what other games call "mods?" RGTraynor 20:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Sadly, I've never played a custom map on WCIII. I liked the first two, but never got into WCIII - played for a few days and lost interest. I assumed that since they didn't call them mods, there were no changes to the game mechanics for most of these maps. Having read the information on DotA and DotA:Allstars, I got the impression that some custom maps were just different maps, but others incomparated far different game play (the DotA's and such). There are dozens of custom maps listed and most of them have terrible articles and don't seem any different from the original game. Additionally, the problem of original research comes up. Also, what is this mods claim to notability? How many people play it? Is there something unique about it that we'd want it in an encyclopedia instead of a Warcraft III wiki? --Habap 21:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete: belongs in a Warcraft III wiki - not here. --Hetar 22:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about non-notable game derivative works. Stifle (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Stifle Sandstein 18:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as author Paul P has requested. (aeropagitica) 16:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablising selection

I wondered why there wasn't a page on stabilising selection, so I created on. Then I realised I had been spelling the word stabilising wrongly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul P (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defence Housing Society Islamabad

Non-notable. 20 ghits. Computerjoe 's talk 15:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Insh'allah! RGTraynor 19:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was "Speedily deleted as vandalism, attack page, and patent nonsense." Smerdis of Tlön 16:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outpost 31

It's a bunch of blabbering about poop. JimTS 15:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete: I'm sure it must qualify as speedy delete, I just can't find the criterion I need. Peter Grey 15:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Other - Speedy redirect if there is such a thing, to The Thing. If you want a speedy deletion catagory CSD G3 vandalism works for me.--blue520 15:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete: could call this "vandalism", or "attack page", or "patent nonsense." Smerdis of Tlön 15:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete reason: Nonsense. Would have been better! --Francisco Valverde 15:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Smerdis of Tlön 15:59, 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. Mailer Diablo 19:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jordanhell Productions

Local filmmaking group of limited impact; few Google results. FreplySpang (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete. It seems not very notable. No sources listed. Few Google results. --Francisco Valverde 15:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - for being a huge article on a not very notable group. Wickethewok 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - NN. - Mwanner | Talk 12:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 01:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nabi and Rasul

There is nothing in the article that specify what Nabi and Rasul is, the content seems to be generic islamic _→AzaToth 15:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Nabi and Rasul have their own articles. I do not see why they should be joined here. If anything merge. --Francisco Valverde 16:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Prophets of Islam (though I don't think there is useful content to merge. Nabi and Rasul really don't have their own articles: Rasul is already a redirect to Prophets of Islam, and Nabi is a dab. So just redirect. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Not keep. I'm not particularly pushed on whether it's merged, deleted, or redirected, but it definitely shouldn't continue to exist. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Lambeau Field. SushiGeek 01:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lambeau Leap

NN, most of this information is in Green Bay Packers Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 17:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - while notable, I don't really think it needs its own article. Wickethewok 17:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Lambeau Field. I can't seem to find a mention of the Leap in the Green Bay Packers article, but there is a small mention in the Lambeau Field article that could be expanded upon. BryanG 17:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep there's no mention in the Green Bay Packers article and it shouldn't be merged to further bloat that article. A Lambeau Field merge and redirect would be OK. (edit conflicts grr) MLA 17:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Lambeau Field.--Isotope23 18:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Green Bay Packers, since this most-notable-in-sports act of celebration is associated specifically with the Packers' home games (and, as far as I know, not with a college playoff between branches of the University of Wisconsin system that happens to be at Lambeau Field). The Packers page doesn't have even a "See also" to Lambeau Leap, let alone any content. By comparison, the Leap is already in the "Traditions" section of the Lambeau Field page. Barno 22:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Green Bay Packers, keep as redirect (likely search term). Thatcher131 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - it is definatly notable and deserves its own article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zzz345zzz (talk • contribs) 03:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC).
Merge with Green Bay Packers. I don't think you could even expand the information regarding the celebration. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 05:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect without merge to Green Bay Packers. Doesn't need its own article. --Arnzy (Talk) 07:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Green Bay Packers. Unless there is a page out there on touchdown celebrations. It ridiculous that this would stand on its own yet the Packers page is woefully short on it.Montco 18:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge Moe ε 18:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleteeee. Mailer Diablo 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funnyyyy.com

Non-notable website (only 28 Google hits) and appears to be link spam. Also has some copyright concerns about the content. Since the article's editor asked for my help on the article, I said I would not speedy delete the article and would instead put it up for a deletion vote. If the consensus is to keep, I will help the editor address the copyright issues. I am refraining from voting because of my offer to the editor. Alabamaboy 17:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but I'd say delete. Right now it's non-notable, although that may change.Bjones 17:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete not-notable.--blue520 21:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Deleteeee per Blue520. StarryEyes 23:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Spam. --Arnzy (Talk) 07:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable and spam. --Thorpe | talk 19:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Haham hanuka 08:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete from legitimate users. SushiGeek 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OnRPG Forum

Keep - This is one of the most popular source of free mmorpgs ever. It was even mentioned in an issue of PC Gamer. Why would you even conidier deleting it? The staff are almost active, the star/honourary members are much respected. This fourm is worthy of a page on Wikipedia. Witchunter.

Keep - People are not trying to delete this for any bad reason, most of them are from Onrpg, they just want a more informative wiki page. I think the page was fine but the staff here at wiki decided to be as immature about the situation as the members at the place and this is very dissapointing. I thought the origonal information was fine and could have made better but that's an easy edit. Now it makes the site look bad and it truely isn't, it decides to attack Moderators that are actually quite responsive to forum problems but we feel our members have freedom to a point and we should not lock them up in to specific topics or yelling at them when they do one simple thing.

Keep - A large community resides in OnRPG, numbers of visitors that range from 400 to 1500 visit OnRPG everyday. Being the one of the best free mmorpg directory on internet, no doubt it's going to be 'notable' in the near future. As a web database for all information, why don't, you Wikipedia people, keep this article and propell OnRPG to a even more greater fame? I also like to emphasize this, in my opinion, the forum is 'notable' but the site itself is even more 'notable'. It has also several sites under its name specialising in CG, Anime and more. Contents that concerned the development of free MMORPGs and major incoming MMORPGs are added into OnRPG frequently, no doubt it's a paradise for gamers.

Delete - I don't see any real assertion of notability. Wickethewok 17:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Keep- OnRPG is real helpfull to a lot of people, I don't think it needs to be deleated—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.183.203 (talk • contribs)

Keep- OnRPG has a great community and is very helpful, there is no reason to delete this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.144.152 (talk • contribs)

Keep- Onrpg is a great site, and there's a ton of information; it's a must for anyone who considers themselves gamers! Plenty of helpful people there too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.79.170 (talk • contribs)

Keep- OnRPG is a great MMOG community, as well as my favorite. Within it lies great/fun members, staff members who know waht they're doing, and an excellent variety of forums.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.33.162 (talk • contribs)

Delete: fails WP:WEB. --Hetar 19:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I see the forum claims over 130K registered users and 600K posts, but it also claims to have 187 users online ... and only eleven of them are registered. It's a pretty startling dichotomy, which I hope the spammer newbies coming on to support it will care to set aside their rote claims of greatness to address. Delete until they do. RGTraynor 19:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. —LrdChaos 19:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Vanity article, non notable. Jonas Silk 19:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment While the forum itself might not be notable the whole site in general might be. It's in the top 20,000 according to Alexa. If the article could be expanded to talk about the entire website as well as its notability and not just the forum then it might be worth keeping. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment OnRPG isn't just forums, it just has forums, the point of it is to share the RPG games of the world to the people,let them know which ones are available, and reveiws them.It doesn't just revolve around Web Content.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.144.152 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Site seems "notable" enough. YellowPigNowNow 22:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Site is unobtable and does not adhere to Wikipedia standards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.252.157 (talk • contribs)
Delete as non-notable webcruft vanity and ignore the IP Squad in the final vote count. JDoorj a m Talk 22:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep.:OnRPG is a directory of MMOG's. The forums are also dedicated in finding and providing support for them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.87.131.225 (talk • contribs) .
Keep. This sight is probably the biggest most famous page for talk and info about MMO's. The forums are just one of the great things here. Keep OnRPG here in Wikipedia to spread the fun of online gaming.
Keep. Because it is notable --DragonWR12LB 04:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. OnRPG is one of the best MMORPG websites that lists them and discusses them, I think its important to keep it on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.138.117.230 (talk • contribs) .
Delete nn and vanity. The sockpuppets aren't helping its case either. --Arnzy (Talk) 07:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep- I have been a member of OnRPG for more than 2 years and i find OnRPG one of the best MMORPG websites and Forums, therefore i think it deserves a article on Wikipedia. Raiyne 20:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL wtf is a sock puppet? Anyway, I say keep. OnRPG's huge community and its ever-expanding directory is notable in and of itself. That, and all the other stuff the site provides, like unopinionated reviews, game development help, etc., make this a Strong Keep. (PowerGamer6 15:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

Comment A sock puppet usually means a user who creates multiple login names in order to pretend to be multiple people. It's not really relevant here. What we have in this discussion is a large number of people who are newcomers to Wikipedia expressing their opinions, presumably led here by a posting in the OnRPG forum. Not the same thing. Fan1967 16:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Sockpuppetry is subverting the process. Non-notable. Do not reward the vain. NTK 20:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Granted the forums may not be worth noting, the site on the whole should be. Cloud13 23:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Cloud13 is an OnRPG moderator whose only WP edit is this page. NTK 16:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable forum, see WP:WEB. Flood of socks. Stifle (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I'm sure theres a big thread on this site about keeping this article here. I hope all votes for keep made by users with no previous edits are disregarded. Wickethewok 23:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete And yes, they do have a forum thread about this. -156.34.75.213 03:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Decently notable website (not particularly the forums.. but a move and slight rewrite fixes that). If it turns out it hasn't been mentioned in gaming mags delete. Kotepho 13:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment The OnRPG website currently doesn't have a page, and it sounds like the site may be notable enough, though not the site's forums on their own. Would moving anything that could be salvaged from the OnRPG Forum page we're considering for deletion here to a new OnRPG page, preferably with some article cleanup and love, be a possibility? Kiti 03:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

keep What the hell,Why do you guys want one of the best game fourms to be removed?!Are you suffering from ADD?or is you just slow?If you posted Delete,your a Brain Dead Kerr. The Site should be on Wiki,I read some idoit wants it to be Deleted Because of its not certified of Being in the wiki?what are u some kinda dumbass? do you literally read Wiki?Get a life you poor losers and get with thefacts u dipsticks,onrpg is staying on here.(Corasked-from Onrpg) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.245.227.31 (talk • contribs) .

Comment; well, what a charmer. BTW, according to their own figures, OnRPG is the 247th most popular roleplaying gaming forum on the Web. That is not precisely the argument I would myself prefer to use to defend my site's notability. RGTraynor 21:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per RG. --Khoikhoi 22:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment It appears that the staff here is getting frustrated with the members of our forum and we do apologize for the way our members are acting. Seriously, guys, what the hell. It makes OnRPG look bad. Again, on behalf of most of OnRPG, I apologize for the way our members have been acting. They should better. (PowerGamer6 23:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

Keep - OnRPG has been mentioned in magizenes such as PC Gamer, and has a great community. But it's sole purpose is to provide information on all the MMOs out there, and it succedes,being one of the most informative on the web. The forums are just in place for general coversation and (mainly) for people with questions on a praticular game.The moderators are frequently active and people will generally get a reply within a few minutes.
The entry itself is named 'OnRPG forums',which is wrong and should just be called OnRPG or OnRPG-online MMO directory. The entry just needs some work really, and it does not need to be deleted.Give it time.
Please ignore the idiots who posted here with dumb responces and flames. This has been posted in our forums to make people aware of it and they are just trying to defend our website. They do not represent us as a whole. (ReapЭr 23:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

This user's only edit is to OnRPG Forum. NTK 16:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that matters, cause all he's done is asked people to ignore the idiots who have dumb responses and flame. (PowerGamer6 18:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

Delete. The article at presents does not meet WP:WEB because: The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. The article does not do this therefore it should be deleted unless amended. -- cmh 02:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment. FYI, I've looked over that thread on their forum, and the locals are by and large furious about the flamers and the sockpuppets. My vote doesn't change, but I thought people should know. RGTraynor 18:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. Sandstein 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 MS Caribbean Princess. Rob 18:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caribbean Princess

This page already existed as MS Caribbean Princess. It should be deleted as the other one contained more info. Splamo 17:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy redirect (like this) #REDIRECT [[MS Caribbean Princess]] as nom has already removed the info that was in the article on the basis that it's a duplicate of a superior and more accurately titled page. MLA 17:19, 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. SushiGeek 01:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

FUCK YOU

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, only counting legitimate users. SushiGeek 01:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PS3Forums

Not notable enough; probably there to help promote it Thorpe | talk 17:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read through the forum thread to show that my reasons below state that votes to keep this are coming from members of PS3 Forums. --Thorpe | talk 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

KeepPS3 forums is a mature, unbiased gaming community. Although we mainly talk about the ps3, there is also a section for x360 and revo, and we respect everybody's opinion and choices. Unfortunately, immature fanboys who are giving power, are trying to ruin it. Keep one of the fastest growing gaming communitites.Trinity
Delete, per nom, and that the site is not official. Sounds more like a fan-made site to me, which can be POV in some aspects. Also, it's a borderline fail for WP:WEB Darknut Slayer 21:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete: nn forums that fail WP:WEB. --Hetar 09:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep try going to the site and take a look around, there are different than others.WP:WEB. --Gamerman 2:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep go to the site. This website is far more professional then any other website on the internet.WB:WEB. --Keesie 9:13, 9 April 2006 (GMT +1)
Keep This is an informative page and the site is used by tens of thousands of gamers. --Morphzilla 12:13 GMT, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep A fast-growing gaming community worthy of inclusion. --Kieran 13:21 GMT, 9 April 2006 (UTC) (voted under 86.17.63.244)
Delete, its just an endeavor by a webmaster to promote his/her fanmade website. This unofficial site does not offer any redeeming content whatsoever that is useful for anyone, and the credibility of its content is easily disputed considering that the site is dedicated to the proliferation of fanboyism over a particular product.
Comment I would just like to make note that the following users who voted in this nomination ave very few edits or only contribute to the PS3Forums article:
- Gamerman (only contributed to PS3Forums and the deletion page) (tried to vote multiple times)
- Keesie (only contributed to the deletion page)
- Morphzilla (contributes only to PS3Portal, PS3Forums and the deletion page)
- 86.17.63.244 (IP address, one edit to PS3Forums and to the deletion page)
- LpChris12 (contributed only to deletion pages for PS3Portal and PS3Forums)

My argument is to not include votes for these users. Do other Wikipedians agree? --Thorpe | talk 13:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Thorpe and vote Delete per nom. --Andy123(talk) 13:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment So Thorpe you can't give a good reason why this page should be deleted, so instead of making an agruement you try to discount votes that disagree with you. Guess what this forum is notable it made runs though Gamespot and other websites after an April Fools joke about Mircosft was going to buy them out. Plus a lot of forums have mention how it strives to be an unbiaed forum with its heavey modding done by deleting any unproven fanboyism remarks. For those who think it should be deleted because it is an unofficial PS3 forum guess what only Sony has the official making every forum outside of that unofficial. WP:WEB. --Gamerman 13:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Gamerman, your only arguement about it being "official" is that Gamespot mentioned it in an April Fools joke, and a statement that your site is unofficial. Unfortunately, those really aren't great reasons why it should be kept. It being in an April Fools joke means nothing. That proves nothing about it being a good and official PS3 forum. I understand that the site is un-biased, but it's still an unofficial forum. Therefore, while many other forums are unofficial, your Wikipedia article will be and is considered advertisement of a forum. It doesn't come from and benefit Sony or the PS3, but is only a place for gamers who will buy the PS3 to talk. No helpful history and no real important data. That's why it fails WP:WEB. Thank you. Darknut Slayer 19:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep That website is great, it is ranked in the top 30,000 in alexa. I say keep it. I can;t see why we have all these pointless pages that are still open and you are considering deleting this

section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computerdefinitions not done by Gamerman.

Comment So far the whole agruement from you deleters is that it is a fan-made unofficial site but yet one quick check of the Category:Internet forums you can find two fan-made sites. Half-Life Fallout a fan made site with no relationship with Valve, why isn't that up for deletion? Or maybe GTA-SanAndreas.com another fan made site with NO relationship with Rockstar Games and/or Take-Two. The only reason this stands out is because it is a PS3 website. Darknut I never said it was official and I also had put "and other website" but looks like you forgot that I said that other forums have talked about its modding. Again any gaming forum not made by a console, developer, or publisher is an unofficial site.Also trying to discount votes to pass something is a terrible pactice to do Thrope.Disagree Gamerman 02:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Only reason why I don't want those to be counted is because they are most likely from the PS3Forums site and have been told to come here to keep the article up - or someone may be using multiple accounts. They have few few contributions. Some only contribute to PS3Forums. Can't you see my point? --Thorpe | talk 12:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep PS3Forums has over 11,000 registered users and is linked to the top search results in Google for "ps3" and "playstation 3", which are ps3portal.com and ps3land.com, respectively. With that in mind, I don't see why this website would need a wiki article to promote themselves. Disagree With Thorpe on nullifying the above users' votes, everyone's opinions should be equally valued, regardless of their experience on Wikipedia LpChris12 20:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but all I think of this is other people are coming to this page to vote "Keep" because either they are a member of the site. Read the notice on this page more clearly. --Thorpe | talk 12:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep There is no reason to take it of. Its one of the best forums out there...there is minimal trolling which can't be said for most sites. While it does focus on the ps3, it has many other sections. Ricokillercon 3:02, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

Comment The site is 'notable' - just look at the 11 thousand pre-launch members the site has. It is already (pre-launch) the largest independent PS3 Forum on the net. This page is also in no way promotional it was created purely to act as encyclopedic entry to be informative for people who want to find out about the forum. Many other sites have Wikipedia pages from large sites like IGN[23] to tiny by comparison sites like Game Freaks 365[24]. The fact that personally I have only contributed to this page is not true and also irrelevant. I'm not a Wikipedia admin and am only interested in helping provide information to its users. If I feel that this page deserves to be here purely to inform the world about what PS3Forums are then in my mind that is a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Morphzilla 09:41, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

CommentI assure you that none of our members have been instructed to "ballot-stuff" this discussion, we have one topic regarding our Wikipedia page, and any discussion that goes on in there is related to this right now. However, I feel that your reasons for putting this page up for deletion have been disproven. Others have already given you numerous reasons to prove that it is indeed notable enough, and, as I said earlier, it is linked to the top search results in Google for "ps3" and "playstation 3", which are ps3portal.com and ps3land.com, respectively. Now, which do you think has more unique hits per day, Google or Wikipedia? LpChris12 07:40, 10 April 2006 (GMT -5:00)

Comment No matter how popular it is the site I think doesn't really need a place on Wikipedia. I am trying to say it still isn't going to be notable to a lot of people even if you are in Google results. There are probably thousands of other unofficial sites in a top 10 keyword result of Google. Does that mean they all got to be put in here? No, just like PS3Forums it isn't notable to a lot of people. The site was most likely put on Wikipedia just to gain even more popularity because they know many Wikipedia pages come near the top of search results. Some of you who voted "Keep" have never even contributed here before and your interests are just contributing to that article and this deletion page. LpChris12, Morphzilla, Gamerman, 70.251.126.100 and 66.108.165.16 are probably users from PS3Forums and may be using multiple accounts to gain more votes. --Thorpe | talk 12:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment No I don't see your point because people have to make an account to vote on this stuff. Plus they are joining because they disagree with you. Yeah a lot of them are joining just to tell you that you shouldn't delete this page because it is notable but you just want to ignore them for no reason. Maybe you should listen to what they have to say and do some research before you make judgement on anything. Only because you don't like what the website is about doesn't mean that it should be up to deletion, try pushing your bias side. Another we thing this site doesn't need or use advertising to grow, since its parent sites are the first to sites you find by typing in "playstation 3" or "PS3" beating out the wikipedia page on the PS3 and playstation.com. Yeah the site Sony made to talk about the own products gets beat out by this. Gamerman 11:50, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

I never mentioned I dislike the site. Make sure you think before you save the page in future. People don't have to join Wikipedia in order to contribute. You can contribute without even logging in. The system just records your IP address. This is what I don't like. People coming for PS3Forums and just voting to keep PS3Forums article up because obviously they support the site. They probably don't know what qualiifies to be an article here. I hope I have made myself clear now. --Thorpe | talk 18:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep - verifiable. For great justice. 15:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment ...to those supporting the PS3Forums (which I agree with Thorpe about them solely being from the PS3Forums), the site's quality to its users and the number of users does not mean it's suffiient enough to beome a Wikipedia page. I can understand that it's unofficial, and there's over 1,000 peple registered. The truth is, no one really cares about that when people search for useful infomation. Wikipedia isn't a site where forum members can post information about their forums for their people. It needs to benefit the community as a whole. The article does not fufil this. Doesn't matter if it's official or unofficial. It's uninformational. And...if it's not for its registered users, it would then be considered advertisement. In this, it fails miserably. I now change my vote from Delete to Strong Delete . -Darknut Slayer 18:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's as clear as someone can put it. Content on Wikipedia has to benefit for a whole community - not just members of PS3Forums. --Thorpe | talk 18:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I already addressed this issue saying you have smaller fan-made sites on Wikipedia that are here for pure advertisement but yet you don't delete them. Also you call yourself a Nsider who I think is using he's bias to pull PS3 page of wikipedia. Just to add it is talking about how it runs its forum that may help others who are just starting one. Gamerman 3:16, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

Comment Thorpe, I have already stated my position on this subject, so I won't waste your time and anyone else's by re-stating it. But I will however, re-state that the members of our forums have ```not``` been making duplicate votes in this discussion. I will not deny the fact that I am from PS3 Forums, in fact, I am a Moderator there, and I definitely would not approve of our members doing this on our website, or any other websites for that matter. I'm not asking you to change your mind, since it seems that you, as well as the other Wikipedians here, have already made up your mind on the subject of this topic, but I will ask you to please not accuse our forum members of stuffing a ballot which you have already so clearly pointed out to be useless. Thank you. LpChris12 16:34, 10 April 2006 (GMT -5:00)

Comment OK, to Gamerman's last comment - I hope you wasn't directing that at me. I am a supporter of Nintendo and Sony. I plan to get PlayStation and Revolution when they come out. LpChris12 - I am saying that forum members doing this could be a possibility. Anyway, as for other non-notable sites currently on Wikipedia they may eventually get deleted. Things change all the time on Wikipedia. --Thorpe | talk 21:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Hoping to be an impartial judge, I would be remiss to not point out that upon visiting PS3forums.com, I found a thread talking about this issue. In it, the following comments are quoted here: "Thorpe you are going down," "This kid is real prissy isn't he?," "Thorpe knows he is losing so now he wants to cheat," "Really he is unmature 16 year kid," "What the *expletive deleted* Wikipedia made him an admin at 16." And you cannot deny that you are not rallying votes. There are posts with running updates reflecting the vote count, and a blatant call to "rally votes." http://www.ps3forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=19215&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

TheLaw 4:50, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

Comment (response to forum thread) I was just going to post a link to the forum thread (did a search for Wikipedia on the site). They want me down. Guess I won't be welcomed if I join (even though I like PS3). I am doing what is possibly right here. Being an admin at age 16 is allowed and there are younger administrators here at Wikipedia too. Whoever said people were not voting here from PS3 Forums is wrong because I see plenty of discussion in the thread. [25]. So, there's plenty more as well in the topic. One member in the thread even states that everyone sign up to Wikipedia and vote to keep it. My point exactly from earlier. I would like to state that I did not put this page up for deletion because I was banned from PS3 Forums. I have never even joined or come across it. The only forums I participate in mainly are GTAForums, GameSpot, Gamesradar and YourPSP. There is also no such thing as "winning" (as described in the thread). Remember, new users or people just contributing to PS3 Forums who have voted here will not count. They are still welcome to comment (as explained at the top of this page). Even if the page is deleted it will still be on Wikipedia (only viewable by admins). So, you could (if deleted) request a copy of the page from an admin. Oh, I am not an Xbox fanboy. I do not own a Xbox or Xbox 360. I own PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable and Nintendo consoles just to let you know. Check out my games collection to see. --Thorpe | talk 22:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Of course, there are a few users who believe what has been said above, but many of it had been speculation, as the users probably did not see the reason for you to nominate this page for deletion. If your heart was in the right place, then I have nothing to hold against you, and neither should any of our other forum members. We may not see eye-to-eye on this subject, but don't take that as hostility towards you or any other Wikipedia Staff who may have commented in this thread. LpChris12 18:48, 10 April 2006 (GMT -5:00)

KeepPS3Forums has long been a reliable and non-bias site for easy access to a wide verity of nex-gen and past-gen information. We are not some small insignificant site either. Tommy Talarco and the popular site www.joystiq.com are only a few examples of people who visit the site. This article is not hurting your site and so far the only damage is being done by the users proclaiming PS3Forums is a fanboy haven which the forums has strict rules against. Visit www.PS3forums.com and you will see how large and high quality the site really is. ~Perfect Sin (68.1.165.96)
Delete. Ad. -- cmh 02:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Again, Thorpe can you state what part of the What Wikipedia is not and this page, also state why it breaks it. Also you don't think the forum that this page is about wasn't talking about this? A lot of the comments are immature but when they look at this what are they suppose to think. From you basically saying that there comments don't count, try to be fair and unbias on this. Thorpe am sure you would be welcomed at PS3forums as long as you don't act like you have done on the this page. Also it is a proven medical fact that a 16 year old is immature, since the brain isn't fully deveploped till your 21. Areas that are affected are those that are suppose to handled self-control. So take no offense when someone says your immature, till your 21. Gamerman 10:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Before I say anything - no I'm not a member, and no I'm not an administrator. However, I am a long-standing supporter of Wikipedia and level-headed individual, so I feel justified in asserting my views. There are two main criteria at play here: 1) Whether PS3Forums is a 'notable' site; 2) Whether PS3Forums provides a sufficient source of information. I feel that the forums meets both these tests.

First off, notability: PS3Forums is the largest and oldest independant PlayStation 3 forums on the Internet - with over 11,000 members. There are many much smaller and less significant websites which have been allowed a page here at Wikipedia. During events such as E3/CES, the forum has literally hundreds of gamers viewing and using the site at the same time (800 during E3 2005). With over 320,000 articles on the site, it is the home of tends of thousands of gamers - and there is a very strong sense of community. I'm sure, Thorpe, that if you joined the site you would certainly have a very warm welcome as a fellow gaming enthusiast. Owing to the extreme significance this community has on the lives of of so many people, I feel it meets the notability criteria.

Secondly, informational value. This test, especially, I feel the forums meet without question. As a buzzing hub of gamers, the very latest news is constantly being discusssed - and we frequently have new pieces of information way before larger sites such as IGN and Gamespot. Top journalists at sites such as Joystiq, Gamespot, IGN, Gamesindustry.biz are readers of the site, and indeed the staff at the forum have spoken with many of them. Furthermore, many reprensatives from gaming houses such as Capcom and Eidos are frequent readers of the site. If all of these prominent organisations read our forums for information - how can it be argued we don't provide informational value? It's clear that anyone seeking the latest information, such as our fellow Wikipedians, would be well-placed seeing this page and checking out the forums. Furthermore, due to our zero-tolerance policy on fanboyism and blind console loyalty, all information presented on the site is balanced and education. We are not a place to aid the proliferation of biased propoganda - we encourage intelectual debate and comment. Surely we warrant one page on Wikipedia informing your users of how the site functions, whats involved, etcetera.

Moving forward, I agree that in it's current form the page posseses little value. We need to work together to create a PS3Forums entry which adds purpose, and enriches Wikipedia as a whole. We are asking you to, based on what has been said, reconsider the deletion of this page - and work with us to create a page which benefits everyone. Thank you for reading this. --- Kieran O'Neill (A concerned wikipedian and forum member) 16:24, 11 April 2006 (GMT) (comments left by 86.17.63.244)

Comment I believe Kieran O'Neill is going in the right diretion. As I have personally seen the PS3Forums, I can agree that the actual site is informational and popular. However, while agreeing to this, I still cannot support its keep or a clean-up. I cannot see anyone adding more to the atual article than there already is, which is not much at all. There is no clear history of the forums, minus the first introdutory paragraph. There is unorganization in the board list, and no clear definitions to any of the important boards. There is no actual useful information about the forums either. Now, I do agree this could be a very informational page about the PS3Forums, but it needs a lot of work. I still put mine as a Delete. Darknut Slayer 18:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I am fairly neutral about this article, but as it stands I don't think it makes it. I have copyedited it to remove some of the dreadful POV and vanity - and I did this objectively whilst still being completely neutral towards this discussion (honest). I could have further removed the detailed description of the layout of the site - something you shouldn't find in any other article. I edited it so I could see what was left after it had been made suitable for an encyclopaedia, and after some consideration I'm afraid to say I don't see much in it. It's just Yet Another Forum and we delete these things all the time around here - rightly I think. Show me some notability; some recognition by others; some recognition that this site constitutes part of knowledge, and I will change my mind. As for the vanity, it seems clear to me that many of those who either wrote the article or supported it do not understand what Wikipedia is. I'm sorry but you saying it's notable or popular or great is not good enough. WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR. Read it and re-write. Delete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment To all the deleters why don't you make a list of information that you believe should be added to the page for it to stay. So it can help the members of the PS3forums to make it meet the Wikipedia standards of a page. Instead of making a quick judgement since a lot of don't have information the page ask those who do, like the members of the forum to help. Gamerman 9:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

See WP:WEB. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Stop posting that link say what you think is wrong. Since many sites have been named that have made reports on the PS3forums and couple of them have been address in this very page.Gamerman 10:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

comment - it's the first time I've posted that link, and I mentioned it along with the other policies because it clearly shows what must be demonstrated in the article. But I've already told you that. Bye. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:29, 12 April 2006

Comment But it isn't the first time somebody has posted here many people have cited it here. Then information was given discounting all the rules in that page. That is way I said stop posting it. Pages from joystig.com that have a link going to PS3Forums.com: [26] [27] Click the picture [28] Click the Picture and even a member of the forums gave some of the question in said article. Gamerman23:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Moe ε 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB etc. Sandstein 19:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment In all honesty, I believe all unofficial pages should be deleted. But since that will not happen, to delete this one and this one alone would be unfair. As said by others, the site itself is a large site, larger than other sites that have articles written about them. I also doubt that the site needs the advertisement, as it already had more than 10,000 users before the article was even created. I also agree, though, that the article itself contains little information on the site. However, there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that contain even less information than this. I think it would be wrong to delete this when all this article needs is a little more information.Psa- 21:47, 12 April 2006

Comment Psa I have to agree with you that the page has very little information on it for now. Really all it needs is time for the members of PS3Forums (since they are the ones with the information at the moment) to add it to the page. Gamerman 9:09, 12 April 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 01:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris De Lutiis

Can't find famous cricketer on google or on the cited web sites. Either fiction or non-notable. Prod tag removed without comment. Weregerbil 17:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, if he is real he may one day be notable (although non-existence is no bar to notability, is it?) Now - nn. Avalon 20:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 01:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria day celebration

Party! Weregerbil 17:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like a blog entry attempt. 23skidoo 17:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
And a very poor one at that. Delete the hell out of it, and perhaps the participants in VDCII will drink and vomit themselves to death and spare us a repeat blog. RGTraynor 19:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I was going to say how mean that was, but you're right, that article sucked. Delete. Lord Bob 20:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Heh, I agree that it was mean, but the only thing more pathetic than a few screens worth of a tale of drinking, urinating and vomiting is someone thinking the world needed to read that. That's two minutes of my life I will never get back. RGTraynor 20:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    - Delete, per RGTraynor. Seriously. This makes no sense and looks exactly like a blog. There's no need to spam up Wikipedia with this bull. Darknut Slayer 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as rubbish Imarek 21:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete per WP:NOT, or maybe userfy if the creator can be contacted and wants to move it somewhere not WP. Non-notable event journal. I agree with the above comments. Party on! Barno 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete of course, though I must say I was pleasantly surprised by the F. Scott Fitzgerald reference amidst a semi-coherent drunken rambling untainted by carriage returns. Since when do Americans celebrate Victoria Day? Looking for an excuse to get drunk, I suppose. Not much else to do in North Dakota. StarryEyes 23:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Nonsense. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete.

[edit] Symphonic Haze

I can see no reason for this band being notable; no mention of any recordings, much less successful ones, or indeed anything else. Googling also turns up nothing. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as vanity.Bjones 17:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as nn band/vanity. Wickethewok 17:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete {{db-band}} candidate, non-notable as per WP:Music criteria - albums, singles, chart positions, notable members, tours. (aeropagitica) 22:35, 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. SushiGeek 01:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Betesh

Delete - No info anywhere about this project/person besides personal webpage, thus not claim of number of sales is not verifiable. Wickethewok 17:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Go to www.merkaz.com and there is official mention of this project.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davido629 (talk • contribs)

Delete for NN and vanity bio. This project might just barely clear the WP:MUSIC bar for notability. This guy doesn't. He isn't the actual recording artist, according to the website. Props to him for his preservation work, but as far as I know, the only fellow in modern music history prominent for churning out music without writing, performing or conducting it is Alan Parsons, and this fellow's a wee bit short of that. RGTraynor 19:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to point out that the above site is the same site that was linked to before. It seems like a nice project devoted to a good cause. Does your project have any sort of press coverage or anything written about it by anyone not associated with it? Note that the bio is clearly non-notable, but I'd like to see if the project is also notable (eg. has verifiably sold over 5000 CDs - also note that he does not claim 5000 separate CDs, but 500 11-CD sets sold, if that matters). Wickethewok 19:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per RGTraynor Imarek 21:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. — Apr. 7, '06 [22:19] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Delete, per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment. This individual does seem to be important in the field of Sephardic Cantorial work. A copy of his work has spotted recently at the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary in Manhattan.
- Comment. Copies of my works are sold in bookstores; I'm a multiply-published RPG game author. That doesn't make me notable by definition. RGTraynor 14:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Hobbs

Biography of a highly accomplished and awarded 19 year old Canadian, but it may not meet WP:BIO along with WP:V as it is unreferenced (no sources cited). blue520 17:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn. Highly accomplished for 19, but basically, he's the founder of a small (very small, clearly fails WP:CORP) computer and web design company. There are thousands of companies like this. I'm also suspicious of vanity: three separate article contributors, none of whom has ever edited anything else. Fan1967 18:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO and as Fan1967 has stated, his company doesn't meet WP:CORP. That being said, good for him... he would appear to be enormously accomplished for his age. If he keeps this up he will probably meet WP:BIO before he hits 25.--Isotope23 18:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Google "Spartan Innovations" "Mark Hobbs" yields two hits, one a dead link. A fine young fellow, but premature for an encyclopedia entry. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Golfcam 00:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Mark Hobbs is an amazing speaker and a fine role model for young entrepruneurs. He has forsight and vision, not only for his own company but for those around him. I too acknowledge, that his he may not be recognizable as the typical entry but a great resource for young Canadians. I only wish more information regarding his work was published here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ljac05 (talk • contribs) .

Speedy Delete. CSD G4. I think I tagged this with prod or {{{nn-bio}}} in the past. It was deleted before. [29] -- cmh 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Anno Domini. SushiGeek 02:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Before Christ

This article is basically a duplicate article/fork of Anno Domini. Most opinions as expressed on the talk page are in favour of a redirect, but there's a persistent opposition to this, so perhaps it's best to solicit comments here. — squell 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Anno Domini per nomination. Also, having a duplicate article like this might encourage POV-forking on what is a pretty delicate subject matter. — squell 18:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Anno Domini... we already have a fork of Anno Domini and Common Era. No need to add another.--Isotope23 18:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Anno Domini per nomination. No good reason to have separate article --JimWae 18:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect It seems to me that there must be a word or phrase than can encompass this whole discussion. Jonas Silk 19:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It's a bizarre use of process, but, really, I can see no better way to do it. Yeah, redirect. Lord Bob 20:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect DJ Clayworth 20:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
NO VOTE - this is a bunch of editors from the Anno Domini article attempting to sabotage a good and valid article, therefore, this vote is moot and should not be recognized. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this. If you are already assuming that everybody participating here will be in favour of redirection, then how is it a valid article? — squell 22:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect. Lambiam ^Talk 02:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge some useful content and redirect to Anno Domini. "Note: BC is no longer used as the term for a year before AD, but is now BCE (before christian era)"? Most people still use BC! Grand master ka 03:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
merge I have to agree with Grandmasterka. In its proper context, the use of BC is perfectly acceptable and continually used. Roodog2k 14:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that the nomination isn't concerned with this. If there would be consensus that having a seperate article on this topic is useful, it would of course get polished up. — squell 15:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect, belatedly. dewet|™ 16:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge Moe ε 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

merge and check disambu's -- max rspct leave a message 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 02:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Clockwork Orange (computer game)

There is no way to prove this game's existance and it is more than likely a hoax. There are no sources, references, or links provided, and all information from search engines provide is copied from Wikipedia. – Hibana 18:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V... can't verify this game ever existed. If delete is the consensus, can the closing admin also remove the reference to this game from the "Trivia" section of the main A Clockwork Orange article?--Isotope23 18:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, removing all links to deleted articles is part of the responsibility of a deleting admin. Angr (talk • contribs) 18:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I was just tying to make life easy for the closer.--Isotope23 19:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as a hoax. I removed the references to the game on A Clockwork Orange. Brian G. Crawford 18:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete There was talk of such a game at one point, and one can still find gamer 'requests' for one - so a hopeful crystal-ball gazing hoax (unfortunately - could be a cool game) Bridesmill 21:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete There is hardly any information there, probably a hoax due to the extreme popularity of the novel and movie

Itsgotbigteeth69 09:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP! The game did exist, I recall reading about it in a computer game magazine some time in the late 1990s. They gave the game such a poor review, that the developer sent in a reply that was published in the next issue. User:Browned.
Conditional keep, if some source/reference is found on the web. --Snargle 03:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep: There should be evidence somewhere. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: agree re the evidence, but perhaps folks should do research 'before' posting the article - It rings a small bell with me, but can find nada on the web other than that one atari box cover pic.Bridesmill 17:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
KEEP: The Atari edition of the game clearly did exist.

Comment - sorry, but one image of boxart is all we have so far, and some vague memory - that's not much foundation for an article - I'm not saying 'photoshop', but with only 1 image...?Bridesmill 23:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Moe ε 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party? 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shootclub

A contested PROD. The orginal PRODder gave the argument "Does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:WEB"; I agree and feel it more advertising than an encyclopedia article. Delete Angr (talk • contribs) 18:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Advertisement for NN game, much of which is, in fact, cut-and-pasted from its website. RGTraynor 19:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as copyvio for an nn game Wh e re ^(talk) 22:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Alexa rank of 2,012,893 hardly makes for a notable website. Advertising. (aeropagitica) 22:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as the author agrees with the delete decision & is now familiar with WP:Music criteria for notability. (aeropagitica) 22:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bellevue Death Squad

Delete - Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. All google hits are for their own Myspace page. exolon 18:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete NN even by the low standards normally applied to such bands. RGTraynor 19:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Agreed - sorry. New user. Not familiar with the notability policy. Am now. NickLocarno 15:07, 7 April 2006
- Heh, no problem, man, it happens. RGTraynor 21:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete {{db-band}} candidates, WP:Music violation, as noted by NickLocarno. (aeropagitica) 22:24, 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 delete. Flower party? 02:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Y. Fleming

person is not notable for wikipedia Bgbonner 19:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep: Seems marginally notable within his profession. Peter Grey 19:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment The only thing about this guy I found no google is this website about his WW2 service. http://carol_fus.tripod.com/army_hero_rob_fleming.html Seano1 19:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Jonas Silk 19:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Peter Grey. Just enough of his obit shows up in a Google search to verify the article. Monicasdude 02:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No famous buildings? No schools of architecture? No breakthroughs in design? No Google Scholar or Google Books hits, one minor hit on "site:.edu", only 49 hits for Google overall. Just doesn't come close to "marginal". --Calton | Talk 16:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Carlton. The fact that he designed a high-rise building "east of I-240" can't possibly be enough. Do we have biographies of anyone who ever designed a building in the U.S.? No way. --Deville (Talk) 16:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing separates him from every other regular architect who ever lived. Harr o5 05:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divorced for the third time

Delete any relevant material is already covered in Islamic marital jurisprudence and Triple talaq. As it stands now the article is a content fork. Any relevant material should be moved to the aformentioned pages but the page as is should not exist. Jersey Devil 19:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Terrible title, material covered elsewhere. Brian G. Crawford 23:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Triple Delete per nom and above. Шизомби 00:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Triple Talaq us from this article! All of this is covered elsewhere--Deville (Talk) 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge. There is information here not present in any of the articles mentioned above, and also not in Talaq (Nikah), in particular the fact that a succession of marriages of the same couple followed by divorces (which is different from triple talaq!) leads to this state. Lambiam ^Talk 09:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This article has been nominated before. The result of the debate then was keep. Lambiam ^Talk 09:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment, that is from July 2005. The fact that it was kept over a year ago means very little to this afd, it does not make it immune from afds.--Jersey Devil 21:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Stupid Human Tricks

This appears to be a list of tricks the original anon poster personally claims to be able to do. This is, for a start, autobiographical, non-notable, unencyclopedic, and perhaps the most damnable form of OR. Conceivably, it could be rehabilitated, as a list of actual SHT's from David Letterman's show(s), but unless such an effort is ready, IMO it should be deleted ATM. Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete "I can... I can... I can..." I can tell a WP:NPOV violation when I see one. Non-notable, non-encyclopædic, better off on a personal webpage than here. (aeropagitica) 22:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft and OR - there is no way to verify these and this could easily turn into a vandalism nightmare. --Hetar 22:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, OR, non-V, even NN. Let it go please. --Deville (Talk) 16:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original research and a list apparently created just for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete this is an insignificant waste of time -- 85.210.13.122 14:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wow, should be a speedy deletion. Personal promotion page and violation of NPOV. It's kinda funny, though :P Freddie 01:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, vanity, OR, listcruft, I think its a waste of significant time. Avalon 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki and delete. SushiGeek 02:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technology in Atlas Shrugged

More fragments of an old wikibook, largely moved to wikibooks:Atlas Shrugged. Contents merged to Atlas Shrugged.

Transwiki and Delete Septentrionalis 19:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki and Delete -- infinity0 20:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Atlas Shrugged. A merge has occured and edit history should be kept. -- JLaTondre 21:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Unless I misunderstand transwikiing, it will be kept at Wikibooks. Septentrionalis 22:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  - If this article history is deleted, there is no easy way to trace back the merged contents of Atlas Shrugged to the transwikied contents of Technology in Atlas Shrugged. While it will probably never be required, why make it harder when it can be made simpler? Redirects are cheap. -- JLaTondre 23:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
"Delete"
transwiki and delete Moe ε 18:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party? 02:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Day to Cherish Wedding Videos

Non Notable Company As Per Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) Orangutan 19:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --Thorpe | talk 20:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:CORP violation, non-notable company. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete A7. Non-notable corporation. StarryEyes 23:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Only real people or groups of real, people can be deleted under CSD:A7. Not companies. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Golfcam 00:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PS3Portal

Not notable enough. There probably to get more people to visit. Thorpe | talk 20:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Keep You don't need to be a member of Wikipedia to know this whole thing is BS. It's appauling just how hypocritical you are being towards websites and advertising. Joystiq, Engadget, Slashdot, and some site called "hack a day" all have wiki pages that aren't getting deleted.

The community is not small and in some cases offers more information on a quicker basis then those sites listed above. What, just because we have PS3 in the title of our websites means we are advertising or are extremely biased? This is ridiculous and I feel PS3Portal and PS3Forums are just being uneccessarily descriminated against.

Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Try doing Google search on just PS3, first thing you will find is this website. Beating out sites like IGN. Gamerman 13:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep This site is just as up to date as IGN and 1up, it is user specific and only deals with the PS3 thus it's not cluttered with news about the other two systems. And yes, it is famous and notable, look at the forums it has an extensive list of members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tribunal (talk • contribs)
Keep I have to disagree with you Thorpe, this website is the top search result for "ps3" on Google. I'd consider that notable enough. LpChris12 20:05, 9 April 2006 (GMT -5:00)
Comment Again, just like the deletion of PS3Forums the people voting "Keep" have little edits and only contributions to the article being deleted. --Thorpe | talk 12:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The article has to benefit a good audience. Not just members of the site. --Thorpe | talk 18:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment And again, just like the PS3 Forums deletion thread, do we not make valid points simply because of our lack of experience? Could it not also be possible that these members first came to Wikipedia through this website, and plan on contributing here more often? LpChris12 16:39, 10 April 2006 (GMT -5:00)

Comment That is the policy: The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You can't argue that with me. --Thorpe | talk 21:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment No, of course I can't, but that still doesn't mean that we cannot make valid points whatsoever. Perhaps if you would provide an explanation to back up your part of the argument then maybe we could better understand why you believe this page should be deleted? LpChris12 18:27, 10 April 2006 (GMT -5:00)

Comment Hmm. Perhaps this page explains it. --Thorpe | talk 22:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, check out What Wikipedia is not. --Thorpe | talk 22:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep PS3Portal.com is a professional site dedicated to giving its visitors tha latest and greatest news on the PS3. This Wiki page was created so that anyone wishing to learn more about the history of the site or what the site pertains to...can! ~Perfect Sin (68.1.165.96)

Weak Delete. This article does not assert its notability within the article which is a requirement of WP:WEB. I agree with above posters if it is a major resource, but really it must assert its notability and does not. -- cmh 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Thorpe can you state what part of the What Wikipedia is not and this page, also state why it breaks it. Gamerman 10:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
delete Moe ε 18:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. Sandstein 19:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sorry, John. SushiGeek 02:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vivipary

Topic already covered in detail at Mammal and in the appropriate place in related articles. Page seems to exist primarily to play up an unusual word. Word is legitimate, but page has no potential to grow beyond a dicdef and link list. Prod rm by anon. John Reid 20:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Not all viviparous creatures are mammals. Has the potential to be a useful article. DJ Clayworth 20:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep per DJ. Disagree with the nom on the article's potential. Eivind ^t ^@^c 00:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I found this article searching for information about certain insects, not mammals.Fnarf999 20:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I challenge the assertion of potential quality. Can either editor give any specific example of any related trait that is shared by a viviparous mammal and a viviparous plant besides the mere fact? Or to rephrase: Can you identify any specific quality of the subject ("Vivipary"), anything of note, beyond the dictionary definition and a list of organisms that possess the trait?

If you believe the subject has potential, please show how this may be possible. Otherwise, I suggest your comments are pure optimism. John Reid 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please keep, as 4th year biochemist at university, this page was particularly helpfull for my Plant Biochemisty revision Dave McMillan 12:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Moe ε 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Masters of Atlantis

I find Atlantis interesting and Cayce interesting, but with 17 Google hits it just ain't encyclopedic. Prod removed by author, who just added more external links. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It's definitely not encyclopedic. Brian G. Crawford 23:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopaedic. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PC Crub

A racial stereotype joke. If it really is a common misspelling it could be a redirect, but it reads like someone making a joke. DJ Clayworth 19:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to PC Club. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Your assumptions about being racist are unfounded, and you are reading more into it than it is. I created this article and the "deletion" notice should not be there. I word my articles to be as factual and unbiased as possible, and as an employee at the headquarters of this company, I'm clarifying this frequently occurring misunderstanding. --CelticWonder 20:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

First, mispronunciation does not equal misunderstanding. Second, as an employee why are you editing the article? In fact, you have created an article on your own employer, which is almosst certainly a bad idea. Just zis Guy you know? 12:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to PC Club - No Guru 21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to PC Club, good for a trivia section. Doesn't warrant individual article regardless of whether it is or isn't a racial stereotype or joke. --He:ah? 21:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nonsense bit of Engrish. Just zis Guy you know? 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as absolute crap. Brian G. Crawford 23:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Fine... I'll put it as a section on the main PC Club page. --CelticWonder 04:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Accurizer 12:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not worth a redirect. Appears to be of limited currency and interest. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Attack at worst. Unencyclopedic at best. -- cmh 02:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I have no objection to the deleted page being replaced with a redirect (redirects are cheap) but I don't see there's much use for it; is anyone actually going to type in "PC Crub" rather than "PC Club"?! --kingboyk 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect. Yes. --68.70.226.128 18:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Moe ε 18:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gateware

The term 'gateware' is not in common usage in industry (or academia). There appears to be only a handful of people at most trying to push it. A Google search for gateware mostly turns up proprietary products, and almost no use of the term in a general sense as claimed by this article. Brouhaha 20:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 20:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above --Hooperbloob 21:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete apparent protologism. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rdubs

Non-notable neologism. 2000 Google hits, and none in the first few with this usage. DJ Clayworth 21:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, neologism WP:NEO.--blue520 21:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete 11 google hits for "rdubs +roommate"; neologism indeed Wh e re ^(talk) 22:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Accurizer 13:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Leave How else is a word like this supposed to enter English vernacular? 10 April 2006
delete Moe ε 18:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki and delete. SushiGeek 02:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maxim (saying)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Brian G. Crawford 21:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki to wiktionary and then delete; this article has some interesting info that isn't in the wiktionary entry. But it isn't encyclopediatic. Wh e re ^(talk) 22:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki per above Just zis Guy you know? 22:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, transwikiing per above (basically done already). No potential for a full article. This shouldn't need a full AfD, really. --Quuxplusone 23:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a contested proposed deletion, so according to policy it has to come here for deletion. Brian G. Crawford 17:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Moe ε 18:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was made into redirect as per article creator. DS 16:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stanner

Neologism specific to one school. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 21:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Other- Merge content into Archbishop Molloy High School. --blue520 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect into Archbishop Molloy High School] Wh e re ^(talk) 22:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Sorry, I didn't think about that when I created the article. I have added all this information to the Archbishop Molloy High School page. Feel free to delete this article.
Delete as per WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 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. SushiGeek 02:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foxhole Campsite

I never thought I'd say this, but... campsitecruft. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete and ~~redirect to Cuckmere Haven~~ as the same text has been added to that article.--blue520 21:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it did until it was removed by Redvers and on second thought it seems not notable enough to suggest a merge.--blue520 00:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, Blue - I forgot to watch this AfD and deleted the section of the article without noticing you'd referenced it here. Apologies. The section was deleted (together with a raft of similar ones from related article\s) because it/they were "what I did on my holidays" sections (POV recommendations for pubs to eat in, places to stay, nice people to say hello to etc). ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 10:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn Wh e re ^(talk) 22:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as Kamp Krufty. Who is going to search for Foxhole Campsite? Nothing links to it except AFD.Eivind ^t ^@^c 00:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as campcruft. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iggens

Relevant policies: WP:V, WP:RS

Likely a figment of someone's imagination. Zero Google hits for "Infidel Iggens" and "Baldwin Evensworth" - and there should be, if any of this is true. Sandstein 21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--blue520 22:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, probable hoax. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

First of All, I do not like the cut of this "Sandstein" person's Jib. Sandstein should mind his/her own business. Infindel Iggens is one of the unsung figures in the history of our world, and it is rare to have such a treat as to learn about this amazing person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WoodDaver (talk • contribs)

Note: User:WoodDaver has since also vandalised my user page. Sandstein 04:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Sir Isaac Lime 02:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unverified, probable hoax. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am Dr.James Baldwin, professor of great detectives not known throughout the world. I have done extensive research on many detectives like Iggens, in fact, I have seen many of the files that Iggens himself has written, and I must say, that it is disgracefull that just because people have not heard of Iggens as much as they have of other great detectives,that it should be deleted. Iggens is one of the great masters in detectivry and it is very sad that this many people think he is a blubbering fool out of someone's imagination. It is a disgrace to him, and all unknown detectives, and to myself too. Wonderfull biography to whoever wrote it. -Dr. James Baldwin

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Edmond Tassadar

Non-notable, google don't give any result _→AzaToth 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Moved to New Zealand in 1812? Oh come on now! Septentrionalis 21:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Hoax. "Philosopher of Cokalalism" Supposedly killed on a train in New Zealand in 1822, decades before there were trains in NZ. Fan1967 21:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO, probable hoax. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 17:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle Magica

Relevant policies: WP:WEB, WP:NOT (advertisement)

Lengthy advertisement for a non-notable website (alexa rank 1,648,282). Twice prodded for that reason, twice contested. Sandstein 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle Magica may not be "notable" to you but at one time it was quite popular and beloved by many. I played it when I was a kid and I wanted to make a Wiki about it. Is that so wrong? It isn't an advertisement. It is a history and an overview. If it is favorable, it is because I enjoyed playing it so much as a kid.

Also it should be noted that I spent a lot of time researching things before making the entry. I think you people need to chill out, it isn't like I was posting referral links or anything like that. Wikipedia should contain knowledge about this game and I filled that need.

Also, the relevance of using a current Alexa rank is laughable considering the website has been featured in the media and at one time had a much better ranking.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.7.46 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a citation for where it was featured in the media? Or was it just some blog or another website? I disagree with the anon's claim that the ranking is irrelevant, and it is currently at 1,648,282. I can find nothing relating to this game that would help it meet WP:WEB so delete. --Hetar 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The article has no evidence of notability cited, not even claimed. Can the anonymous editor show where BM "has been featured in the media"? Barno 22:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. BM isn't notable. --Please, do 00:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This one was just a blurb: http://springfield.news-leader.com/columnists/asby/0308-Netgamesou-33378.html

There was also a front page, center section, and back section article by Michael Brothers also of the News Leader:

As well as a feature in a magazine that I can't seem to locate at the moment. (It was back in 2001. Memory is fuzzy, I will try to contact the people involved with the game now and see if they know.)

I am sorry, I am new to Wikipedia but this game was huge in my area of the country and I thought it was notable. I just wanted to provide people a brief summary and history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenNightshade (talk • contribs)

No offense taken, certainly. However, we must follow policy in determining if something is notable enough for inclusion. The policy WP:WEB says:

"The content itself has been the subject of multiple [my emphasis, Sandstein] non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion excludes: ... Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report ... a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site..."

It appears that the article you cited, while a start, isn't yet sufficient to establish notability under WP:WEB. It's only one, and it might well qualify as "trivial". I think we need some more sources, sorry. Sandstein 05:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom (and very poor Alexa rank in particular) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:NOT Computerjoe 's talk 17:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Further, author requests it as well, and I think that while that's not determinative, that should be taken into consideration. --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 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 and transwiki. Somebody else needs to transwiki, though. SushiGeek 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concepts in Atlas Shrugged

This is two fragments of an attempt at a wikibook, a Cliff's Notes for Atlas Shrugged. Much of the rest of it is at wikibooks:Atlas Shrugged; so should this be; most of it has also been merged into Atlas Shrugged). Transwiki and delete. Septentrionalis 21:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete and transwiki as above. Brian G. Crawford 23:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Things in Atlas Shrugged. Eivind ^t ^@^c 00:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki and delete as above. Ian Rose 00:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
concur with nom makes sense. Roodog2k 13:59, 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. SushiGeek 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top Fourteen

Neologism. Only reference is to a blogger's website. Non-notable slang used only on a small number of online discussion boards Interestingstuffadder 21:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, it seems to be used a fair amount outside of the bloggers website (as the almighty google says) Wh e re ^(talk) 22:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: May I remind you that the objective of wikipedia it to provide authoritative and verifiable sources for the information that is presented in articles. [30] The sources that appear when this google search is run seem to be almost exclusively internet message boards. That is, these were merely opinions of a small group of individuals, posted in a forum for personal opinion (bulletin board). The citations provided are far from authoritative, nor factually verifiable. Please refer to wikipedia policies on reliable sources. [31]Interestingstuffadder 22:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Neologisms don't belong in Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford 23:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess you should mark all the terms linked on the neologism page for deletion. Looks like there are several hundred exceptions to this rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.31.71 (talk • contribs) .

Keep. The term has appeared in published admissions books by Richard Montauk, Anna Ivey, Robert H. Miller, and Susan Estrich, and is frequently used by prospective students (search for the term at Xoxohth, LawSchoolDiscussion, and 4LawSchool and you'll literally get thousands of threads and hundreds of thousands of posts {not an exageration] referencing the term}), current students (in addition to the message board postings see Penn Law's LALSA using the term Top 14 to refer to Penn's peer schools), professors (in fact the term is so widely used that it's been attacked by Brian Leiter), admissions consultants (including the two most famous ones, Loretta Deloggio and Anna Ivey), pre-law advisors (for a few exmples see the University of Dayton Prelaw Advising Website and SUNY Binghamton's press release bragging about the number of students admitted to the Top 14 law schools), and deans of admissions. This isn't an obscure term to anyone familiar with prestigious law school admissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.244.132 (talk • contribs) 00:00, April 7, 2006

Keep. For substantially the same reasons cited in the preceding comment.160.39.31.71 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. As demonstrated above this term is not some obscure internet phenomenon but rather is widely used among prospective law students, actual law students and to a lesser extent, actual lawyers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.72.130.244 (talk • contribs) .

Weak keep; better to merge its content with law school or college rankings. This usage isn't common, but it wasn't made up on xoxo or lsd.

The only reason people care about "T14" is because the top 14 law schools (unlike, say 25) have been remarkably stable in the past decade or so, leading to the conception among some that there are 14 schools that are, far and away, better than the rest. Of course, the actual difference between 14 and 15 is pretty small. One of the reasons Leiter opposes T14 is because he is a prof at #15 UTexas. Czar Dragon 00:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Texas is actually 16th now, though Leiter did talk about the probably future rise of the "top 16" shortly before the recent USNews rankings came out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.31.71 (talk • contribs) .

Keep but add more accurate definition that it is a really limited term used by a specific message board populated by anonymous posters with terrible grades from low ranking schools who use fake IDs to pretend that (a) they go to one of the so-called "prestigous" schools and (b) compensate for appalingly poor grades at the schools that they do attend. Keep with heavy emphasis on the absolute lack of credibility the term, has with any real practitioner of law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.5.33.167 (talk • contribs) .

Warning -- possible coordinated effort: this deletion debate is being discussed at one of the very message boards that is the source of this neologism. [32] Beware of biased attempts to influence this debate, sockpuppetry, anonymous edits, trolling and other shenanigans. Interestingstuffadder 00:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Once again, the message boards are not the source of this term. SUNY Binghamton used the term in a press release almost a year before any of the message boards mentioned here were created. There were also several pages devoted to the term in Robert Miller's Law School Confidential and Richard Montauk's How to Get Into The Top Law Schools, both of which had their first editions released before any of these message boards came into existence. This term has been commonly used by those in the law school community for almost 15 years now, and is hardly some kind of new internet jargon. 66.28.244.132 00:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is actually a valid, rather useful term. There are an easily discernible 14 "national" law schools, and in the legal industry, "top 14" (or T14) is helpful shorthand. Also, my apologies: I'm a contributor, as you may see from my history, but this is the first time I've chimed in on a deletion discussion. Excuse me if I've posted this in the wrong spot or something. jtl9000

Keep. As a student applying to law school, I've encountered the term "top 14" in discussions with prelaw advisors, on various internet message boards, speaking with current law students, and listening to admissions officials. Thus, it is quite a common phrase. But more than just a phrase, it is an actual group of schools characterized by 20 years of consistent rankings in published news sources which is in turn derived from the opinions of judges, lawyers, and meaningful statistics (selectivity, job placement, etc.). Note that a law school professor (Brian Leiter) linked in the web resources section of the article rails against the prevalence of this term. This should suffice to show it is in fact pervasive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.229.201.180 (talk • contribs) .

Keep Known in the legal community. YellowPigNowNow 05:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep This is a common term used among law school students. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.223.172.130 (talk • contribs) .

Keep This appears in books, on blogs, on discussion boards, and is even referenced by law professors who dislike it (e.g. Brian Leiter). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.23.207 (talk • contribs) .

Keep Comparable to other well-established entries like "Jesuit Ivy", "Little Ivies", "Public Ivies", etc. In fact, I think "T14" is probably a more common, verifiable, and cemented designation than "Public Ivy."Wikiwriter706 19:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: reopening as improperly closed -- the required 5 day period did not elapse (actually, not even 24 hours elapsed)...a longer period is further justified by strong interest from inecperienced users and a documented coordinated effort to influence this debate (see my comments above). Interestingstuffadder 22:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Weird to mention Leiter, since he describes it as emerging from "bowels of Cyberspace" and calls it meaningless here http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2006/03/from_the_bowels.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.112.222.175 (talk • contribs) .

keep*: Respectfully, to call something this well documented a neologism seems in error. The fact that it is generally thrown around by better educated lawyers and students does not in and of itself deny it a place in Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia should be open to compiling well executed articles on field jargon, as they make these terms more accessible to those outside a given area of study. The same holds for medicine, finance, military doctrine, etcetera, where numerous articles of comparable “obscurity” exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.125.153 (talk • contribs) .

Delete. Not cited in any media outlets I can find. This seems to be an attempt to use wikipedia to legitimize a point. If it is truly so imperative it will be recreated with better sourcing down the road. For now, seems to be an experiement in wikiengineering the truth. -- cmh 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Per user:cmh. The only references to this term I can find lie within a very limited universe of law school related bulletin boards and blogs. Though this term is used a lot in those places, limited use in non notable forums does not equal notability. This seems very much like a neologism. Also, I hope whichever admin eventually closes this debate takes into account that many of the above keep votes resulted from the above mentioned coordinated effort. Captaintruth 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Anyone who spent even half a minute looking at the links in 66.28.244.132's contribution could see that these criticisms are baseless. Again, if we're going to include less-notable and concrete terms like Little Ivy and Public Ivy, this article unquestionably merits inclusion.160.39.31.71 03:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: If you do not think those articles belong on Wikipedia, feel free to nominate them for deletion. The existence of some questionable articles is hardly a rationale for including more. Interestingstuffadder 04:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Those articles have already withstood deletion attempts. Deleting this article would be an arbitrary deviation from established precedent.160.39.31.71 05:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no precedent here. The other entries are not relevant to the discussion here which is on developing consensus from editors on the topic of this page. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms suggests that neologisms can be deleted and protologisms should be deleted. Just because a neologism is in use doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- cmh 05:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How can you not see any precedent? Literally hundreds of "neologisms" are well-established and accepted with significantly less verification of their widespread use. At least four books, two college career services sites and a law professor, to say nothing of the literally thousands of discussion forum hits, have been cited in support of keeping this. That's more than sufficient.160.39.31.71 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms suggests that neologisms can be deleted and protologisms should be deleted. Just because a neologism is in use doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- cmh 15:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment::: Respectfully, I question the grounds on which it is being called a neologism. It’s not new. This term emerged in early 1990’s and has very strong empirical backing. Year in and year out U.S. News, along with major law school admissions commentators, have given it implicit or direct credence. The article documents this.

Moreover, it appears that Wikipedia is increasingly being hijacked by a group of overly dedicated editors. These individuals, rather than providing commentary in areas which they are actually informed, attempt to monitor the whole institution at large. While their actions warrant merit with respect to cleaning up vandalism or removing the posting of images not under copyright, they are often poor judges of the internal merits of pages.

Indeed, the claim is here that there has been a coordinated effort to preserve the page, by references to its deletion entry on xoxohth.com and lawschoolnumbers.com. While I can find no references by a search of said sites, I will say that if there was one, so be it. Such a posting only brings many individuals from the legal world to the page, who can subsequently weigh in on its accuracy. If such a term was indeed bunk, there would likely be many more votes for deletion than their currently are from actual members of the law profession, as opposed to registered wikipedians. Moreover, where the term appears in specific law school Wikipedia entries (see gulc, the term has not been removed (and they, indeed, are also monitored by a large number of students, faculty, lawyers, so on). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.125.148 (talk • contribs) .

You do not have an account on wikipedia, and from that I surmise that you aren't experienced in the way it works. I don't mean this to be offensive, but rather just to note that others here may understand the process more clearly due to their experience. Wiki here implies collective consensus in both writing but also in managing the encyclopedia. The processes evolve over time, but have arrived at where they are today after a long long road involving the consensus of thousands of people. The process may not be perfect, but it is working OK. I understand that you feel the term under discussion here has widespread usage and is therefore encyclopedic. You see many lawyers using the term, feel it is established, and therefore feel that wikipedia should have a page about it. You have pulled together many facts about this term, and feel that as you have an understanding of it you are sure that it fits with Wikipedia. You need to remember that here at wikipedia we have a policy that we do not do original research and the understanding that I've attributed to you is original research. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and must cite secondary sources only in determining whether to keep an article. The arguments described above are all arguments based on primary research, namely going out to find blogs and books that use the term. I see no references to books about the term, or papers that treat the usage of the term. Accordingly the term is not ready yet for wikipedia. It may be in time, but not now. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term. You seem quite skilled in writing, may I suggest creating a wikipedia account and working on a few other pages for a while. IMHO I think we must let this one go. -- cmh 22:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not original research. Please familizarize yourself with the term before you use it. If someone were trying to create the idea of a "top 14" by simply citing the USNews rankings and making some kind of an argument, that would be original research. Simply reporting on the existence and widespread-usage of the term while citing numerous examples of such usage is not.160.39.31.71 23:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong. Research based on primary sources (such as those you cited) is original research. Non-original research would rely on secondary sources. Interestingstuffadder 00:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please click on this link: Wikipedia:Original research. Scroll down the screen until you reach the section entitled What is excluded?. Read the final point. Then click on the following link: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- cmh 01:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a helpful quote for you guys from the Wikipedia policy: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." This article is not inventing a term. It is not presenting any original analysis or criticism of the term or its use. This is a non-issue. The desperation to delete an article despite an obvious consensus among informed individuals and overwhelming evidence supporting its inclusion really helps illustrate the overzealous editor problem cited above.160.39.31.71 01:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to delete this term? T14 refers to schools that have NEVER been ranked out of the top 14 since the inception of the US News and World Report Rankings began.

Keep! Not to get philosophical but obviously if there is such a debate about this term than it is in fact an existing "term"; "phrase"; "expression"; "idiom" or whatever you want to call it. Who cares if its "original research"? Some people (like me) use Wikipedia to look up definitions of words they haven't heard of and this site helps people figure out the definitions of terms that they dont already know. (Plus, as other posters have already indicated T14 is commonly used) This is precisely what encyclopedias are supposed to do: give you the the definition and relevant information of a term,

No, that is not what encyclopedias are supposed to do; that is what dictionaries are supposed to do. Interestingstuffadder 05:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per copyvio. _→AzaToth 23:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pouria Montazeri

Non-notable _→AzaToth 21:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Copyvio from IMDb.com. (aeropagitica) 22:18, 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 speedy delete. I see no assertion of notability here. The organisation he is a CEO of does not seem especially notable, and that is as close as it gets. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Eggar

Created by an editor whose other edits include removing the unaccredited status from a couple of Southern Baptist colleges, suspected as a Gastrich sock by at least two admins, subject of this article scores under 500 Googles, has no apparent claim to notability (a book published this year - unless it was the Dav Vinci Code that one book is unlikely to be sufficient). Creator's neutrality is indicated by the fact that, although he lists Eggar's degrees, he quite forgot to mention that they come from unaccredited institutions. I call this Gastroturfing. Just zis Guy you know? 21:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Looks completely non-notable, unimportant, and insignificant. Brian G. Crawford 23:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable person, due to being a published author scholar and President/CEO of a major organization. --Please, do 00:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Creator has been blocked as a Gastrich sock, and I'm about to block Please, do, who is another Gastrich sock. Jason, don't you have books to sell or souls to save or something? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless article is updated to prove importance. Arbusto 00:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Criteria #5 Banned user. Pages created by banned users while they were banned. See: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for details. Arbusto 00:52, 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 delete per (CSD G4)--Adam ^(talk) 22:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guatamala Day

Appears to be a rather verbose and semicoherent description of a database glitch. Talk page contains what looks like a consensus that this should be afd-ed, with no afd resulting. I'm proposing that this be deleted as unencyclopædic and non-notable. Tonywalton | Talk 22:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--blue520 22:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom - and the article was actually speedy deleted earlier, so this is a recreation. Tyhopho 22:37, 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. SushiGeek 02:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DJ RedSkeÿe

"Well known in the local underground scene." Fails, WP:BIO and his only releases were netlabels. Delete. --Hetar 22:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete seem not to meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC.--blue520 22:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the problem here, I saw that my label had me listed but no info on my page, so I added some in. Not exactly making a vanity post or anything. --DJ RedSkeye 18:33, 7 April 2006 (EST)
Delete per Hetar. StarryEyes 23:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (See also DJ Grimly Fiendish on AfD below, created by the same user. The pages link to each other, quelle surprise.)

He is merely making a page to inform people of his background, stylings, and to show interested in his work. There is no narcistic purposes, other than promotion. Is that wrong? No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justyn1337 (talk • contribs)

Actually, it is. - WarriorScribe 14:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. person isn't notable. --Please, do 00:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. - WarriorScribe 14:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the Myspace test. Stifle (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Way Out

I am posting this article for deletion in accordance with WP:NMG Benji64 22:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. WP:NMG needs serious revision as it overly resticts new artists simply because they are not owned yet by the RIAA. --CelticWonder 06:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Be that as it may, WP:NMG is the way it is now, and that is the criteria i posted the article for deletion on. The criteria is not what the discussion is about. As well, it seems clear to me that this is a self-posted vanity article, put up for no other reason than to promote a hardly known band. Benji64 15:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If we didn't have WP:NMG we'd have an entry for every wannabe who has a home-made MP3 available from his myspace page. Let new artists become genuinely well-known first, and then list them in Wikipedia. Fan1967 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn band. Stifle (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kdr delaware

Non-notable student fraternity, as per {{db-group}} Previous deletion contested by author, AfD to decide. (aeropagitica) 22:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable student organization. Brian G. Crawford 23:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. StarryEyes 23:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as {{nn-club}}. Blatant vanity. Grand master ka 03:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Im not sure that the subject is completely "non-notable", as well, I think the main problem and the reason it appears as such a vanity article is the first-person wording. Perhaps it just needs to be wikified. Benji64 15:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete all fraternities/sororities unless very obviously notable in several states. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The first-person wording definitely makes the vanity obvious, but even rewritten it's just a fraternity chapter. · rodii · 03:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foqueism

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Some made up a form of art, Google gives 2 hits [33], that's not even a neologism. Was tagged for a speedy. Looks like a promotional showcase for the artist, not like a Wikipedia article. feydey 22:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Modular. (Talk.) 23:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete 2 GHits for the word and a grand total of five for the artist, two of which are genealogy pages. That's amazing. It's hard to imagine how any working artist can be that far under the radar. Fan1967 00:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Looks okay to me. Might be a bit slanted towards the artist, but I understand and can appreciate the concept of hidden images. It is something I have wondered about for years. Nice to see it put into text.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.12.110 (talk • contribs)
Keep I took an art class one time and ask the professor "did the artist actually intend to paint those images in the clouds?" He said "Don't know, probably not". So, now at least there will be a term for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.169.247 (talk • contribs) 8 April 2006

Note - both the above IP addresses resolve to Southwestern Bell Internet Services in Plano, TX. Fan1967 21:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unverifiable, probable original research. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is an interesting entry and shoudl be maintained. Wikipedia is an excellent resource to learn about art, and Foqueism is as legitimate as any form of art to study and learn. Please keep it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.219.21 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 8 April 2006
Keep I am the lucky owner of a Mark Kiselis painting. People are always seeing a shape or tree in the modern art. Before you choose delete, take the time to look at the paintings on his website www.kiselisart.com He is truly a genius!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.180.129 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 April 2006
Keep Interesting article. Who's to say with 100% certainty that this isn't a burgeoning new genre? Artists who push us to look at things in a new way are what makes art...well, art. I'd hate to see it deleted because some people can't "google" this newly coined term.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.199.146 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 9 April 2006
Keep I am wirting from Vilnius and we know Marckas Kisielius' work and hope to have museum honor with some of his work. We likes the symbolism and continue to support him. Iki.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.182.67.130 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 9 April 2006

Note Every keep vote above is from an IP with no previous WP edits. Fan1967 04:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep I love the insight that appears in each painting...please keep.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.87.192 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 April 2006
Keep KEEP: Although this appears to be original to the artist, it can be easily updated with other artists who have the same - and then grow. Do not Censor original ideas because then you have ideas known to us in Warzsawa when it was under occupation. Keep this term and watch it grow!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.142.18 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 11 April 2006

Comment Please read WP:OR, WP:NEO and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not the place to float new ideas and new words. Fan1967 14:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

delete Moe ε 18:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep If the word Fauvism came up for review with Wikipedia in 1888, it would get nuked in a heartbeat. It was radical and unfounded...plus certainly would not show up in Google. Wonder if St. Patrick, the patron saint of excluded people according to Wikipedia, would not have showed up on Google either but he turned out to be one of the greatest saints. So, in America we don't start our prayers with "In the name of the Google, and the Son and Holy Spirit..... Amen ! Many computer tekkies, engineers and accountants cannot see images on canvases because they come by it naturally....that side of their brain simply doesn't compute while other artsy folks can appreciate it. So, whether you nuke it or not, the sun will rise and art will continue. When computer gurus like Gates and Jobs come up with cool computer terms, the world accepts it without question but when an artist comes up with a new term, it is frown upon. Read John Paul II's letter about Artists in 1999. Best Wishes ....Mark Kiselis, Creator of Foqueism, a Non Editor of Wiki April 12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.169.247 (talk • contribs)

Comment Can you even remotely guess how many people invent words and try to put them here? Kaloogian. Splace. Uterosexual. Omgsplosion. Extravolution. Norgs. Those are just some of the ones from the last month. Every single one of the authors is convinced that someday it will catch on, and we should list it here just in case it does. That's not the way it works. Fan1967 00:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. DVD+ R/W 23:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
KeepArchitect...? Must be related to Nimrod...Don't those guys take 5 years to get out of college ? Maybe that's why he's a "Drag-on". If you are only going to listen to "editors" then why have an open discussion...seems senseless ! - Signed Non Editor but a Listener of New Ideas. Apr 12

Comment We are willing to listen to anyone who can tell us if we've misjudged the situation, and that in fact the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I've seen no indication that any of the people offering opinions have bothered to learn anything about what Wikipedia is (and isn't): WP:OR, WP:NEO, WP:NOT. If you aren't going to learn what our policies and goals are, then why post? Seems senseless. Fan1967 02:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be Right Back

Very little content, unencyclopedic material Modular. (Talk.) 23:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, horrid dicdef. StarryEyes 23:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above - not a word, so not a candidate for Wiktionary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. Wiktionary already has wikt:right back and wikt:BRB; I don't think there's a need to transwiki anything. — TKD::Talk 03:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. NTK 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Usually I hate to delete articles about topics like these, but (no offense) this article is just stupid. Freddie 01:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (Game)

I don't think this particular drinking game is notable enough for inclusion. A few hundred Google results with the most sensible query, but only the first three appear relevant. Precious few editors in the article, an anon who started it and a handful of clean-ups. All available evidence suggests non-notability. StarryEyes 23:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. StarryEyes 23:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, and I say this as someone who once actually saved a stupid drinking game from being deleted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn. NTK 21:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per KillerChihuahua. Stifle (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --phh 23:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. SushiGeek 02:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myra Louise Taylor

Delete Non notable person. Mostly red links on page. Of no intereset to anyone--Light current 23:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep The red links can be removed, as they are fodder for future articles. She would be considered very interesting to the people of Newfoundland for her contribution to society. HJKeats 00:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, redlinks mean we need more articles, not that the subject is not notable. And she does appear notable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as above. Monicasdude 02:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, if what the article claims is true, she definitly is notable. pm_shef 18:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This deletion debate was improperly closed early by NTK. I have reopened it so that it can take its five-day course. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - notable. Skeezix1000 23:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Has done nothing more than at least one person in every city in the world has done; was a leader at a hospital, nothing more. Harr o5 05:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Has anybody seen confirmation of the information? The external link [34] doesn't seem to have any info on Taylor. Maybe I'm not looking the right spot. Google brings up only Wiki mirrors for me. Of course, info on such a person may not be in Google (which is fine), but some sort of source needs to be mentioned (paper is fine, as long as they're stated). This is the only reason for me not voting keep. I don't doubt its true, but just want sources. --Rob 07:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep this person is notable, and the article now has appropriate references. --Rob 22:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The text makes a pretty solid claim to notability, and is now referenced. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Nom did not do research. Redlinks can be removed. Faulty AfD. -- cmh 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. One or two of the redlinks are debatable; the rest merit and will eventually someday get articles. Samaritan 15:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Moe ε 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English Mark

Who?

chocolateboy 23:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Setting back the ginger cause fifty years. StarryEyes 00:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom-- NN, V, OR. -- Mwanner | Talk 02:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like a comedian that's just starting. Good luck, and come back here when you have some notability. Grand master ka 03:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy. Lambiam ^Talk 08:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, vanityhoaxcruft, but maybe, just maybe, qualifies for BJAODN --Deville (Talk) 16:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:HOLE. Stifle (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If there's any independent confirmation (outside of the original poster and one unsigned comment supporting him) that proves that this guy has even a strong regional (as in they've heard of him throughout Northumberland or Yorkshire or Kent or wherever) following, I could change my vote. However as it stands, Google has zilch on him. Pat Payne 17:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 02:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Grimly Fiendish

Non-notable DJ, few Google results. Created by same user who created current AfD candidate DJ RedSkeÿe, which also links to the page. StarryEyes 23:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. StarryEyes 23:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn artist that fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC --Hetar 00:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Hetar. Could pass for an A7 speedy. Stifle (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moe ε 18:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. SushiGeek 03:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pillow fight

Dicdef of a completely obvious concept plus unverified original research plus meaningless trivia. Brian G. Crawford 23:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete-- not encyclopedic--Light current 00:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment are we being hasty here? Its obvious to us, is that cultural bias? Is there any way to make something of this article? There are psychological implications, surely - pillows are exceedingly harmless weapons. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - it does need some work; in particular, the reference to the Beatles is kind of silly. But it's definitely real, and deserves some coverage. Just because it's a children's game doesn't mean it doesn't matter for adults. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - The article just needs a little improvement. Manufracture 02:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. Good references, like the Beatles pillow fight (which I didn't know about) and a very notable game. Grand master ka 03:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. With all due respect to the original nom, since when does something being a "completely obvious concept" justify deletion? We have articles on things that any idiot would know, but we don't delete them because of it. No doubt the article needs work, but that can be requested through the appropriate process. YellowPigNowNow 05:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. It's obvious to me what milk is but it's still here, isn't it?MrBlondNYC 12:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I would not call a pillow fight a "completely obvious concept". Prominent and singular place in American(/Western) culture. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 16:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This AFD was closed by NTK, but it was too early. I am reopening it, please leave it for the usual five days. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This article has some interesting information. Metamagician3000 13:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- a completely self-explanatory phrase that does not require an encyclopedia entry. It's not an organized competitive activity or game, it doesn't have a notable history, and there's nothing else really to say about it. Honestly. Pillow fight = fighting with pillows, and that's basically the whole of it. The article goes into excruciatingly tedious detail ad nauseum in defiance of that barrier, which lends support to my delete vote. Also while it gets mentioned in pop culture once in a while and the Beatles appear to have had one, neither of those makes this topic encyclopedic. GT 07:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep - could lead to something interesting. Cedars 16:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope you inclusionists are around to vote to keep Wooden spoon fight and Squirt gun battle when I write those. Brian G. Crawford 17:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If an article on a high school that conducts no valuable academic research, is not the location of any significant event, has had no notable impact on culture and is not relevant to 99.99% of people on this planet can be kept than something that is an occassional form of recreational play can be kept (by the way consider merging your squirt gun battle article with the water pistol article). Cedars 02:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So your first point is a non sequitur that has nothing to do with this topic being self-explanatory and obvious (a high school might be unencyclopedic but not for those reasons) and then you provide exactly the solution that should be done with this article (merge Pillow fight into Pillow). Mind boggling. GT 01:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Whatever. -- cmh 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] April 7

[edit] Trigun yaoi

[edit] Minor Characters of 6teen

[edit] GoToMyPC

[edit] GoToMeeting

[edit] Oligonucleótido

[edit] List of Pokémon abilities

[edit] Miller Time

[edit] Jack's Broken Heart

[edit] Guide 2 Games Forums

[edit] Hi

[edit] Moments in Grace

[edit] Airline alliiances

[edit] WWNN

[edit] A property of PI

[edit] Voice_Male

[edit] Soiling

[edit] Anaki

[edit] Colors (band)

[edit] Expansivity

[edit] Camadosa S.A.

[edit] Santy.A

[edit] British fried chicken outlets

[edit] the unconscious is structured like a language

[edit] Collingwood Magpies 2006 Season

[edit] Denkou Choujin Gridman

[edit] Orneo

[edit] Money broker

[edit] The Mugshots

[edit] League Freak

[edit] Christian Essenes

[edit] Lucent Dossier Vaudeville Cirque

[edit] The RadKicks

[edit] Fallibroome High School

[edit] Monkey Milisha

[edit] Ape-Ball

[edit] Alicia Roberts

[edit] Europeantenders resource

[edit] X-02

[edit] Panelaben

[edit] Kevin McHugh

[edit] MotoModders

[edit] Bayit international

[edit] Tom Ingebrigtsen

[edit] Ne'er-do-well

[edit] Noreasterner

[edit] Or what

[edit] Occasional table

[edit] open links

[edit] Original Post

[edit] Gâteaux

[edit] The Huntunes

[edit] Widmore

[edit] CANcaseXL log

[edit] Mike Murdock

[edit] Chooo

[edit] Luciferene

[edit] Genocide (song)

[edit] Doorknob (game)

[edit] Mind Pirate

[edit] Mutterbumser

[edit] MRBS

[edit] Olivier Schetrit

[edit] Enfo's Team Survival

[edit] Stablising selection

[edit] Defence Housing Society Islamabad

[edit] Outpost 31

[edit] Jordanhell Productions

[edit] Nabi and Rasul

[edit] Lambeau Leap

[edit] Funnyyyy.com

[edit] OnRPG Forum

[edit] Caribbean Princess

[edit] PS3Forums

[edit] Chris De Lutiis

[edit] Victoria day celebration

[edit] Symphonic Haze