Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< March 15 March 17 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] March 16

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts talk 02:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Simpsons quotes

It was de-PRODded, so I'm listing it here. This article's content should all be in the Wikiquote q:The Simpsons article. I vote delete and redirect to The Simpsons.--ragesoss 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with Wikiquote article, per nom. --Sammysam 19:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • PS. Unless those quotes are already in there, which most of them almost certainly are. In which case delete. --Sammysam 19:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki any that aren't on Wikiquote. I'd suggest the redirect per nom, but I don't think we're in the business of redirecting cross-project. -- Mithent 19:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Right. I mean redirect to the wikipedia article.--ragesoss 21:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps redirect to the External links section in the Simpsons article? Ie. where the Wikiquote link is.--Sammysam 23:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I read somewhere in the Wikipedia namespace that redirects to sections do not and will not exist. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, you're right. My mistake.. I'd be against a redirect then - it would just be annoying to get redirected to The Simpsons if you wanted a list of Simpsons quotes. --Sammysam 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
            • I actually did think it was on Wikipedia:Redirect that I read that... but I wasn't completely certain if i was that or if it was elsewhere... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, of course. --Tone 21:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per nom. Or, to be more precise, move anything not on the existing Wikiquote page to it and delete. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki anything not already there, agree with everyone -- Samir (the scope) 23:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki; as per Wcquidditch --Irishpunktom\talk 23:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there such thing as a speedy transwiki? Ardric47 00:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • And also soft redirect the current WP title. Ardric47 00:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 10:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital War

Is this an article about the new breed of electronic warfare? No, rather a discontinued webcomic, found here. The Alexa rank is is over 1 million but it doesn't mean much because this comic hasn't been updated for a year. Is this comic notable? Are there respectable sources for this? I don't think so, it just looks like any other comic genesis comic. - Hahnchen 23:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete pending 3rd-party verification Ziggurat 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, see above Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it was updated three times in June 2005, going by the archives [1]. Thus, the "one year" claim is technically wrong - but I'd say the point being made there is sufficiently valid even so. (The last update before then was in January '05) Michael Ralston 01:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Michael Ralston. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 04:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per all of the above. -- Dragonfiend 05:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. dcandeto 06:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn --Khoikhoi 07:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Herostratus 09:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 16:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn cruft article. -Oscar Arias 16:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn web comic. — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. James 21:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with nom -- Samir (the scope) 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. I'm willing to consider userfying on request. kingboyk 10:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dock boys

A webcomic, found here. The majority of the article was written by User:Dockboys, who is the webcomic artist Scott Drummond. Alexa gives no data for this website. Various searches on Google bring up little, "Dock boys" webcomic brings 60 links and "Dock boys" Scott Drummond brings up 20 links. The only hint of notability is that it's printed in a university newspaper, I do not believe this is a marker of notability, I do not think the cartoon strip in my university paper is notable and it's the same for this. - Hahnchen 23:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep a.) the University of Kansas is pretty big, b.) many comics that go on to prominence start in college papers, c.) upon a glance, the article needs no improving, d.) this is potentially useful or interesting to any kansas student, e.) wikipedia is not paper -- Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course, Wikipedia is not paper. I feel however, that a comic strip who's only claim to notability is appearing in a college paper just isn't good enough. I have written for my college paper, and there are 2 comic strips which run on it. How is a college newspaper's comic strip more notable than all the other sections of the newspaper? You can check out one of the college comic strips here, notable? I wouldn't say so. - Hahnchen 01:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Hypothetical merge What if I made an article for the college paper (which I think is more clearly notable) and added this "Dockboys" thing to that page? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 09:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - Personally, I would be against that. As mentioned before, this article was written by the ilustrator of the comic, Scott Drummond. I believe that an article should be balanced, with important topics getting wider more detailed coverage than less important points. There is no way I would vote to delete an article for the University Daily Kansan, but I would have problems with it if the article included all this Dock boys vanity. At most, the comic would just have a few lines mentioned in the article. Readers should not think that Dockboys is the only thing in the paper, nor its most notable aspect. - Hahnchen 15:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are hundreds of comic strips like this, and this one is in no way particularly notable. Harro5 01:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; my particular college paper carries three different strips, none of which are of any importance either. Nifboy 02:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, 99% of the webcomics are non-notable. --Terence Ong 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hahnchen and Nifboy, not notable as either a print or web comic. -- Dragonfiend 05:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 07:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. -Oscar Arias 16:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If it 'comes to prominance', give it an article then. --InShaneee 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. Sandstein 08:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fü Productions

A webcomic found here. It has been previously deleted a year ago at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fü Productions as non notable, and has now been recreated by what I'm guessing to be the same user, User:JaceSoro. Looking on Google for "Fu Productions" brings up nothing as all the links are irrelevent. What is notable about this webcomic? What takes this website beyond the infinite sea of webcomics out there? I can't find anything. - Hahnchen 23:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I found it on Google just fine, are you sure you didn't misspell it? Fifth result. 71.198.149.190 02:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply - My point about Google, is that it is sometimes used to see how well known a specific website is. The more hits it gets, the more its generally thought to be well known. However, the number Google gives back is not useful, as mostly it's to do with Kung Fu and not Fu Productions. - Hahnchen 03:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing to meet WP:WEB, but recommend transwiking to the KoL Wiki. (I might even do that myself). --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. note that the KoL wiki is not related to wikipedia and therefore a transwiki cannot be applied. if you want to copy the information, hurry up before it is gone. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, a majority of the webcomics are non-notable. --Terence Ong 04:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no signs of notability. -- Dragonfiend 05:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn --Khoikhoi 07:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Orphaning? Uh..what does that mean? JaceSoro 20:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A user had blanked the nomination by accident earlier. Cryptic restored it to this page. - Hahnchen 21:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Just being pedantic here, but the real reason it was orphaned was because of that ü in its name. It got munged in this edit somehow. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable webcomic. Nigelthefish 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deo (comic)

A webcomic found on the free webcomic webhost Comic Genesis, here. Alexa makes no mention of it in Comic Genesis' stats. A Google search for "deo webcomic" (without quotes) brings back 170 links. But when you look at them, the majority is nothing to do with the webcomic. Is there anything notable about this website? Are there any good sources about this website? - Hahnchen 23:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • delete per Hahnchen Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Nifboy 01:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no signs of notability. -- Dragonfiend 05:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn --Khoikhoi 08:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn cruft article. -Oscar Arias 16:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deo is one of the better-written webcomics, IMO, and deserves better notice. I encourage people to read it before voting to delete just because they never heard of it. Plus, the article has more material than a lot of stubby kept webcomic articles. Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 17:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn cruft. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. The art is incredibly well-drawn, but the comic is still, at this time, not notable. -- Zaron 20:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. There's no consensus to keep, but something of a split between a merge and a delete. There's not much to merge, and User:Irishpunktom has replaced the article with categorisation (see e.g. [2]). I can't close as a merge and delete because of GFDL issues. I shall therefore, with the new category scheme and the comments about not watering down the Observer article in mind, close as delete. That's not to say an interested editor can't add a mention to the Observer article, but honestly I don't see anything worth saving. kingboyk 11:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observer's 50 funniest

This article seems completely pointless. At the moment, it's just a couple of links to a fairly old, obscure list, which anyone could find with a quick google search. I can't see how it could be improved either, beyond regurgitating the list, which would be pointless and copyright infringement. If people want to mention this list in the articles of the people who were in the list, why not just link to the list? Rather than linking to a couple of sentences about it. Sammysam 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Either Keep or Merge into The Observer – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with a possible merge. It's a short blurb to introduce a link to an external, arbitrary list. WP:NOT, NOT, NOT. The people on the list might be funny and notable but that's not the issue. Deizio 00:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the main article. Weatherman90 04:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into The Observer, or else delete. --Terence Ong 04:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Terence Ong. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Two-plus years old list of then-contemporary comedic acts is not encyclopædic, compared to something like a list of Perrier Award winners & runners-up.  (aeropagitica)  07:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Feezo (Talk) 09:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. Proto||type 09:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 16:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above -Oscar Arias 16:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and don't merge, we don't need to fill The Observer with random references to past features. -- Mithent 19:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Turn To Category - As it is it's nothing short of a link..make a category of this name linking the fifty?--Irishpunktom\talk 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do what? Deizio 01:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I'll just do it! --Irishpunktom\talk 10:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 08:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & expand. The Observer made an intelligent assessment. There's plenty of material there to write a decent article that could interest many wikipedians. Veej 13:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
or merge Veej 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I should probably support my own nom --Sammysam 15:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samurang

This was speedily deleted during a terminated AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samurang. WP:DRV opted to overturn that decision, with some concerns over whether this was simply very non-NPOV or actually an attack — see here. It comes back for a full consideration by AfD. -Splashtalk 00:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Just some Korea - Japan backbiting written by a non-native speaker. I've seen plenty (2 years in Korea) and stuff like this is usually 5% half-truth, 95% nationalistic spin. Unsourced and unencyclopedic. Deizio 00:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment article is almost too incomprehensible to judge. if this "samurang" is indeed a korean cultural forgery (despite the POV, it indeed may be such), it may be a notable one - a possibility that the original AfD doesn't go into. i mean, maybe this idea/invention - the idea, apparently, being that korea once featured a samurai-like class of "samurang" who preceded japanese samurai - has gained huge currency in korea and is believed by hundreds of thousands of people. until we have some idea of how widespread this idea is in korea, we should hold out the possibility of keeping and improving the article Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is true that being wrongly believed by huge numbers of people is a kind of notability, and there may be something in this but you really have to present it properly or not at all, its not the same as someone creating a really badly written article about "Pepsi" which you can easily label as keep & cleanup. Each case has to be judged on its merits, given the history of this article and the niche interest it holds, I don't see any justification to keep it unless someone who knows what they're talking about has a go at it. We must be very careful not to build a slanted record of history here - one man's biased, nationalist rhetoric becomes an 8th-graders class project. In cases such as this a very high threshold of verifiability must be seen to be crossed. Deizio 01:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As said above, this article is almost unreadable. Needs verification and serious work, otherwise delete. --Ricaud 01:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As now improved by author, no longer merits deletion. --Ricaud 18:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as unverifiable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Keep after cleanup. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, no encyclopaedic value. --Terence Ong 04:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reasons as Deizio. Note I was the one who originally added it to AfD the first time. Users from the ips that most frequently edited this article have also been repeatedly adding similar nationalistic stuff to Kumdo. At best this article should be heavily NPOV'd up and merged with Haidong Gumdo, since they seem to be the ONLY supporters of this concept. AKADriver 06:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to Merge with Haidong Gumdo and redirect. I still don't see the term being used outside the context of Haidong Gumdo, but at least the article is no longer excessively biased. AKADriver 17:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per niffweed --Khoikhoi 08:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as Deizio is right on the money.Vizjim 09:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to Keep following clean-up. this article still needs work, but nmow seems to be edging towards NPOV and encyclopedia quality.Vizjim 16:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Deiz. JIP | Talk 10:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am the original author of the article and just revised it. I would like to ask you to judge by the current version.
    Yes, I am a non-native speaker and I admit my English is not good, but I think what really matters is whether we share background knowledge. I'm not sure about it. I want to know what obstructs your understanding.
    Notable? Google returns 10,400 hits for samurang [3]. Doesn't it suffice?
    Does anyone claim this story? I added three related webpages to the article. You will see this (absurd) story is actually believed by some. I used to assume no one would take it seriously, so I was shocked when I met a proponent on the Net. That's why I created this article.
    Does it really a Korean cultural forgery? Read the article. Search Classical Chinese documents for 士武郞 and you will get no result. Look up samurai in a Japanese dictionary and you will learn its true etymology.
    By the way, I want to ask Deiz. Which do you think is 5% half-truth, 95% nationalistic spin? The story of samurang or my explanation against it? --Nanshu 14:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, didn't mean to insult your English - the main problem with my understanding of the article is my total lack of familiarity with the subject matter. Anyway, let me ask some questions: 1.) "samurang" are (according to people who believe that they exist) a korean class that came before the japanese samurai, right? 2.) the "samurang" did not actually exist, right? 3.) the "samurang" idea is a product of korean nationalism, or something like that, right? 4.) most importantly, in korea, how widespread is the idea of the "samurang"? How many people believe in the "samurang"? Thanks - Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Hi Nanshu, good on you for doing up the piece and answering the comments here. My comment "stuff like this is usually 5% half-truth, 95% nationalistic spin" was a general comment based on my experiences in Korea where I came across many such nuggets of disputed history. While I stand by my comment - there is plenty of rubbish out there where Koreans believe one thing and the Japanese believe another, and such stories almost always get embellished with supplementary depth, colour and shade over time - I am happy to see the article improved and brought towards a neutral point of view. I am switching my vote to neutral, as I still have concerns about the POV and verifiability. I trust it is plain from my comments that my concern is this must be properly sourced and referenced or risk being open to question. Also please don't take offence from my comment about your English (I wasn't in Korea for the weather, I know how hard it is!) but the English Wikipedia does demand a native standard of English in articles, such as would be found in a published English-language encyclopedia. If the content of the article is brought up to scratch you'll find someone who is happy to clean up the English. Deizio 20:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Bobby, I think I've already answered your questions above. Haidong Gumdo, which broke into numerous organizations due to factional strife, claims the samurang were an elite class of warriors of Goguryeo. Most Koreans believe Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom although the characterization is disputed by China, and Goguryeo was destroyed long before samurai emerged in Japan.
        It is almost impossible to prove the nonexistence of something. But it is safe enough to say that the samurang did not exist because there is no evidence for the existence. When Koreans are blamed on absence of evidence, they usually claim, "Hideyoshi/Japanese imperialists burnt evidence (so we cannot prove it)." I heard this plenty of times and always think if Japan had had enough time and money to do such a stupid thing, mighty Japan would do something for her own good instead.
        The samurang were cooked up by Haidong Gumdo and it pander to people (or potential practitioners) with nationalistic narrative.
        Does the google result suffice?--Nanshu 00:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't pretend to understand the underlying issues, but from the version I read I understood that it alleges that a false etymology of the word samurai has been circulated in Korea for propaganda purposes. I have no basis for an opinion as to whether this is true, or widely circulated, but it is interesting; and where unfamiliar cultures are involved, that's good enough for me. Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Since the Haidong Gumdo community is steadily growing and more and more people are bound to look up "Samurang" I'd recommend keeping the version submitted by me earlier for NPOV reasons. People should be made aware of the controversial nature of the term and the numerous indicators that it's actually a neologism. The current version is also too heavy on the Samurang/Samurai wordplay. Whether the words are related or not has little bearing on whether one group was modelled after the other since the similarity (though unlikely) could be purely coincidental. I'd also like to learn more hard facts about those legal actions that were mentioned. Information about the trials written in English is very hard to come by. SpiralKnot 15:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • See [4] (written in Korean!). --Nanshu 00:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, see comments above. I think the article is heading towards NPOV, and the author appears willing to abandon POV to keep the article.Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does need work. David Sneek 16:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per above Computerjoe's talk 17:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup B.ellis 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This article needs Cleanup and Verification. --Tone 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & cleanup. --Saintjust 23:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, on the right track with the clean up so far -- Samir (the scope) 23:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep at last I understand it! Just zis Guy you know? 23:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as well as note the warm, fuzzy feeling that one gets from seeing how this pulled together. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be good enough for inclusion. Batmanand | Talk 23:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deletion. RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State of DAH

Article about a Micronation created 2 days ago in a web forum. Creator removed prod tag with no discussion. Would seem to fail WP:V, having no reliable sources to cite with any information about this micronation. Also probably self promotional, see WP:NOT. W.marsh 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • DAH-lete. (nn) Bucketsofg 00:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is it WebCruft, GameCruft or ForumCruft? WP:NOT for stuff you invented in a web-forum. Deizio 01:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete clear-cut case Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Under what criteria exactly, if it's so clear cut? --W.marsh 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
consider WP:SNOW Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity, nn, etc. --Ricaud 01:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete nn -- pm_shef 01:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Timrem 02:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy delete completely absurd. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense AND nn-club. --Rory096 03:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete For obvious reasons. —Larry V (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, patent nonsense like virtually all micronations. Monicasdude 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete now. Reyk 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, vanity, nn, patent nonsnese. --Terence Ong 04:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per all previous wikipedians.--Jersey Devil 05:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-encyclopædic nonsense.  (aeropagitica)  06:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above --Khoikhoi 08:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  23:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SamBakZa

Website fails WP:WEB with no concrete assertion of notability. "Most popular part of the site" appears from the article to consist at present of two Flash animations. Delete. Hynca-Hooley 00:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete a quick estimation/averaging tells me that their english-language bulletin board has about 1,344 posts - and the english readership is apparently the largest. any notable website is going to have more feedback than that. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • comment i refrain from actually keeping here because i am too familiar with the site to give a neutral perspective, but they have two flash animations which are presently in the top 50 at newgrounds.com. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as I noted on the talk page, if they really did win the awards attributed to them in the There she is!! article, then it's notable enough for me. AKADriver 06:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per AKADriver. Failing that, Redirect to There she is!!. --Billpg 10:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per AKADriver --TBC??? ??? ??? 16:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per AKADriver and other 14k Google hits Computerjoe's talk 17:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bobby, and Google Hits [5], not notable for en wikipedia, the article in no other language is created. --MaNeMeBasat 08:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per AKADriver. Also, it is the artists that comprise the article - I don't think the article is at all about the website, so WP:WEB is hardly the correct guidelines to follow. Cursive 00:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with There she is!! Melander 07:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The group's notability isn't for its exciting web site, it's for their cartoons, particularly the flash Animations. Rōnin 20:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The web site has an Alexa rank >900k. WP:N. [6] Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Portland Public Schools, Oregon. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portland School District

Delete because there is already an article on Portland, Oregon's School District (Portland Public Schools, Oregon) Tv145033 00:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect. Eivindspeak! 01:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Redirect The page is just a redirect by someone unfamiliar with the process. Deizio 01:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. pm_shef 01:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • redirect this please people might search it Yuckfoo 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Portland Public Schools which I just turned into a disambig. (It used to redirect to the system in Portland, Maine). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above B.ellis 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Sjakkalle -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 04:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Books of Histories of Thailand

Delete. Page is awkwardly titled and hard to find, and lists only a few resources. Entire contents of this page have been incorporated into appropriate pages under History of Thailand -- see Talk:Books_of_Histories_of_Thailand for details about where. Archivizt 01:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • delete this page fails to reference any of the books and does not explain their importance or contents. WP:NOT wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft. Feezo (Talk) 09:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete while I love Thailand, this unmaintainable list of unlinked books helps no-one. -Oscar Arias 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT, listcruft. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Please note I think this article could be useful if it was propery scripted but not as it stands. image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 10:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinface

Neologism. Usage as defined in the article appears to be limited to one Web site.[7] --phh 01:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A very strange article, something that I have never heard of, and I doubt that anyone cares to hear about. Weatherman90 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — An article that needs to be cleaned up and have more information added, but it has more usage than beyond the single website. (For instance you can read the article to find international usage.) Val42 05:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I've never heard it called "Chinface," but that concept has certainly been around for years. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.Enecyclopedic neologism.--Dakota ~ ° 07:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The "idiosyncratic usage" clause of WP:GT means that a low number of google hits for a single name for a concept/subject does not automatically render the actual subject of the article nn. While there is no clear and universal term that can be used for a rename, we find enough evidence of "chinface" on google to see that it's not a protologism. Since the subject of the article is notable (per Ohnoitsjamie), the mere lack of a universally-known name for that subject should not compel a deletion. So, we have a reasonably notable subject with a somewhat-lesser-known name - this makes it a particularly poor candidate for transfer to wiktionary and a reasonably decent candidate for WP inclusion. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 10:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The editor who wrote this article has made other dubious edits ([8], [9]) referencing subjects on losethegame.com, the website mentioned above, suggesting that the attempt to "mainstream" the Chinface appellation is part of an ongoing violation of WP:SPAM. --phh 15:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC).
Please understand that I am not trying to spam my website. My website is about things I am interested in. If I find that something I believe to be notable, such as chinface, is not on Wikipedia, I will add it. If I have already written about it on my website, then I will link to it in an attempt to provide more information. I can assure you that my website does not make me any money. Kernow 20:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism, unencycopedic. I appreciate the Red Dwarf reference as much as anyone but I can't see how chinface is sufficiently notable separate from internet videos to merit an article. MLA 13:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn cruft article. -Oscar Arias 16:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per B. P. Smith above I've heard of the term before B.ellis 21:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Gunmen of the Apocalypse was an absolutely awesome Red Dwarf episode, but this thing is not a notable phenomenon. - Hahnchen 22:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know if this is most commonly refered to as chinface, maybe it should be moved to chinhead or chinman. However, such videos are very common, youtube.com alone features many [10], so this phenomenom should be featured somewhere. Kernow 20:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I first saw this on America's Funniest Home Videos (or maybe Funniest People, I just know a full house actor hosted the show) at least ten years ago. If anyone else remembers this, and has time to research it, that could possibly be a source for a different term for it. Dansiman 08:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This certainly didn't originate with Red Dwarf, but at least in 1990, and I've edited the article accordingly. Has it been referred to as "chinface" anywhere other than this website? Vashti 17:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient romes population

As the author states on the talk page, this is pure speculation about figures. It is therefore obviously original research, but proposed deletion would be contested, so here we are. Harro5 01:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. OR, reads like the conclusion of a school project. Deizio 01:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR, definitely smacks of school work. --Ricaud 02:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --DMG413 03:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is a misspelling of Ancient Rome's Population anyway. Bobby1011 04:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename Ancient Roman Demography or sim. This question has been dealt with by academics such as Beloch, Brunt, and Hopkins and is therefore potentially both notable and un-original. (The current article is obviously sub-standard, but that doesn't mean that the topic itself is not worth having.) Bucketsofg 04:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Anything relevant to the topic should be in the Society section of the Ancient Rome entry. Harro5 06:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete, original research, come on we are an encyclopedia, not a web-host for your work. --Terence Ong 04:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research, speculation - unsourced and unreferenced.  (aeropagitica)  06:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete-Original Research Somehow bewildered this survived speedy. J.J.Sagnella 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOR --Khoikhoi 08:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but if we could get the author to give a direct cite for that bit about..."the city we know from census taken at the time of the empire had within its walls 9 thousand baths the diameter of the cities was 11 miles since Strabo tells us that the actual limit of Rome was at a place between the fifth and sixth milestone from the column of Trajan in the Forum 384 streets 80 golden statues 50,000 houses (apartment blocks) 17,097 palaces of exceptional size 31 theaters 11 amphitheatres 2,091 prisons and was probably as populace and even more wealthy then modern Rome"...there could be some interesting info to add to the aforementioned Society section of the Ancient Rome article. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 10:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-admitted original research. JIP | Talk 10:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, original research --TBC??? ??? ??? 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per WP:NOR.--Dakota ~ ° 23:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, admitted WP:OR -- Samir (the scope) 00:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, and the bad grammar in the article name. Anything verifiable can be moved to an appropriate article. Peter Grey
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The article lacked context and content, and since WP:NOT a crystal ball, the weak assertion of notability was void. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jaqueline_Thompson

Delete. I don't think this person exists. Regardless, the scant article of this person was completely false. Damiel 01:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 04:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denis Chicoine

Delete. POV fork. 90% of this article is a direct copy from another article (Francis Schuckardt) except that in this article only the negative accussations against Francis Schuckardt are included with the omission of any answers to the accussations - an obvious backdoor attempt around Wiki policy and guidelines. In addition, 90% of this article is not about Chicoine, but about Francis Schuckardt. Lastly, Chicoine is not a significant enough figure to have his own page. Athanasius303 01:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Chicoine is as significant a figure as Schuckardt in the traditionalist Catholic movement, maybe even more so. He had the courage and insight to break up a destructive personality cult. Much of the information that is mostly about Schuckardt should be merged or deleted. After 1984 Schuckardt fell into obscurity. Chicoine lead a congregation of traditionalist catholics until he died. More information about Chicoine is needed. (Laurie Pipan)
    • Can you supply this info? If so, I'll vote "keep" Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Outside of the small Mt. St. Michael's group, Denis Chicoine is not a significant figure. He has never been covered by the major networks as Bishop Schuckardt has been and outside of his connection with Bishop Schuckardt, he has almost no historical position. Athanasius303 22:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge excess info with Francis Schuckardt. Some information is definitely POV but the article serves as more than simply a POV fork; it carries encyclopedic content and there's no reason to delete it. Nonetheless, much of the material is irrelevant to Chicoine and should be merged to Schuckardt. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Without wading too far into the mire of this arcane and marginal religious dispute, I looked through both the Schuckhardt and Chicoine articles, and I believe that all of the stuff in Chicoine is also present in Schuckhardt, except for the Aftermath & Recovery section. I guess the A&R should be merged in, but I can't find much else. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 10:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Way too little about the subject of the article, just a fork MadCow257 03:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork, definitely violates WP:NPOV, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 05:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per madcow --Khoikhoi 08:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge "Aftermath & Recovery" section and delete - per all above, the Chicoine article seems to be a way around the neutrality dispute - Chicoine is not notable except as an accuser, and thus the bio article functions as a way to bring up and rebut his accusations without having to address their validity - which would have to be addressed in the Shuckhardt article itself to get the POV tag removed. What little new information is present in Chicoine should be moved into Shuckhardt, and the POV dispute in the latter article should be resolved there. Perhaps the POV-removal process will yield further gems like this one from the Shuckhardt talk page: "Since it is a minority view that Shuckardt is a bishop of the Catholic Church and that his excommunications carry weight, the footnote purporting Denis Chicoine is in hell for eternity is both inappropriate, melodramatic, and hateful." Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 10:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: How can it be a POV-fork? It's a different person! This appears appears notable. Article needs cleanup to address POV issues but its not a reason for deletion. The deeper problem, which I think the accusations of POV-forkery are indicative of, is that a lot of the content in both Denis Chicoine and Francis Schuckardt should be moved to the articles about the organizations which they were associated with and the ideas that they promoted. This is why we don't hash out the Creation-evolution controversy in each article about an evolutionary biologist or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in every Israel- or Palestine-related article. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. I strongly suggest using {{PROD}} for this. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ajakkala

Hi - non-notable, unsourced one-liner. Rama's Arrow 02:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 02:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most violent James Bond movies

Fancruft at best. One source and very very debatable. Just kind of a ridiculous article all around. Useless to Wikipedia. K1Bond007 02:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • delete conducting an informal poll does not facts make. therefore this article is fancruft Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ---J.Smith 03:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Very strange, but UE. Gave me some cool memories cause I've seen all those, and the list isn't even accurate at all. MadCow257 03:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eivindspeak! 03:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. An un-necessary novelty article. Weatherman90 04:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless, unencyclopedic, looks like a POV article. --Terence Ong 05:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a mirror Esquizombi 06:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopædic, belongs on a James Bond fansite and not in WP.  (aeropagitica)  06:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RS - "personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources". Question: could the information be integrated into individual movie pages with a note like "according to [site], [movie] is the most violent James Bond film, with..." - like that? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 10:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, though citing the most and least violent Bond films might make for an OK trivia item. 23skidoo 14:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 02:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (no vote): Sounds unencyclopedic and maybe unverifiable. But you know there'll be some out there who would love having this sort of pop culture trivia in Wikipedia. Peter Grey 05:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 08:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Tritithes

Delete. No Google hits for this article, probably fan fiction. BryanG 02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Neo Angelus Revolution

I would have prod'ed this but I thought it was so special everyone should see it. Only wiki-clones on google [11] and nothing in google news. [12] Ohh... Delete since I'm part of the illuminati and I must suppress my enemies... err.. did I type that out loud? ---J.Smith 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete What the hell?! --Ricaud 03:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Harro5 04:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as not notable club. Bobby1011 04:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Illuminaticruft? Bucketsofg 04:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Nar is a clan that is concerned with the direction mankind is taking, the world is heading into darkenss and the NAR believes it can stop that." Doesn't that describe nearly every quasi-religious cult out there? Incredibly generic and unverifiable. Grandmasterka 19:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy delete absurd. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete  ??? cruft B.ellis 21:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment:' This has been archived for my amusement. ---J.Smith 23:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per policy of gettign rid of stuff written while under the influence of mind altering substances. Nigelthefish 17:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anomalopteryx

Incomplete nomination by 68.32.34.152. Reason unknown. Probably a test.

  • Speedy Keep, it is an extinct Moa bird of New Zealand. --Ezeu 04:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep actual extinct animal. Eivindspeak! 06:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Ezeu & Eivind. --Lockley 17:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy keep per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  23:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point of Existence

Cruft; written in UE tone.--Zxcvbnm 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't know, the topic itself doesn't seem too bad. Seems fairly notable as far as mods go. Google turned up a lot of hits, and it won that award. It was definitely not NPOV though. I've cleaned it up somewhat, however the section on the sequel needs work from someone who knows about it as it's really out of date. --Ricaud 03:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Googling "Point of Existence" "battlefield vietnam" yields 189,000 hits. Feezo (Talk) 09:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable B.ellis 21:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 08:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. First off the bat, if an article is written badly, it should be marked for cleanup rather than deletion, thats the general way we deal with those articles on Wikipedia (see WP:CR). The topic itself is certainly notable, from my observations it is probably the second most popular mod for the Battlefield series (behind Desert Combat). Google backs the notability up rather convincingly: [13]. If this is 'cruft' then we have a LOT of deleting ahead of us. Remy B 14:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. ---Dana 02:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Kraf 15:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was well, it ain't delete. I assume one of the "oooh! Rewrite!" champions will be lending a hand when the time comes to improve this article ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recency principle

A concept which appears to be not very notable, not yet anyway. It was listed on a blog by an academic, but the blog is only 2 years old, and the word doesn't seem to have been published? A google search gives 160 hits but most of these pertain to a computer programming concept.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Academics come up with new terms all the time. I don't think WP is the place to make some endless list of all of them. --Ricaud 03:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. Feezo (Talk) 09:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Notes from some googling: 1.) The term has notability and validity as a principle in behavioral psychology formulated by Edwin Ray Guthrie much longer than two years ago. 2.) The way the term is used by the referenced academic is at best tangential to its actual meaning - the actual "recency principle" has nothing to do with criminology; the academic is merely applying it to a type of interrogation tactic. 3.) The WP article in question mischaracterizes the point the academic is making (the "recency principle" is used not to have a suspect incriminate himself, but to allow the interrogator to insert incriminating information onto a recording of the interrogation without the objection of the suspect, who is distracted by a new topic of inquiry). Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep and change completely in light of the above. 1.) add information about interrogator use of the "recency principle" to an article about interrogation tactics. 2.) alter "recency principle" article so that it only includes actual information on the actual recency principle, as described by Edwin Ray Guthrie. I'll do this if no one else wants to. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/rewrite since there is a real recency principle in psychology (we have, in fact, had lectures on it very recently). The article is needlessly specific about interrogation, however. -- Mithent 19:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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)  23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Center of Irvine

Nn community centre. Does not explain how it is notable (size or history), apart from offering religious counselling and the like.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wasn't notable enough for me to have heard of it when I lived 3 miles away. --Ricaud 03:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Turnstep 03:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete also as non-notable.--Jersey Devil 05:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 05:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously non-notable. Should have prodded this. Grandmasterka 19:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - Verifiable[14], and notable enough[15][16]. The Imam, Sheikh Sadullah Khan, Speaks on a daily program called "Gems of Prophetic Wisdom" on Islamitv. [17]. Another of its leaders, Abdel Malik has been arrested [18][19]. So yeah, worthy of a keep.--Irishpunktom\talk 00:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above Jcuk 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above --Striver 15:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snatch-22

Appears to be nn slang. 900 google hits, but they are basically all for a music group of the same name.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete NN. --Ricaud 03:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I did laugh, it's an nn neologism. --Rory096 04:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Rory Bucketsofg 04:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a slang guide, neologism. --Terence Ong 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete and add to BJAODN. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn neologism. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Great band name but... Nigelthefish 16:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dataway

Advertisement for an internet security firm that doesn't show any particular notability. Delete. DMG413 03:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This is just an ad. --Ricaud 03:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 04:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously made by the company itself for advertising purposes. Weatherman90 04:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 06:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisement for non-notable company. --Lockley 17:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable corporation, and I've never heard anyone else in this field mention them. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus so keep. the wub "?!" 12:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era

  • Delete non-encyclopedic, possible content fork minus the POV. Possibe merge with Muhammad is needed.--Jersey Devil 03:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem encyclopedic, or to have any references. Harro5 04:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A completely unworkable list. Could conceivably contain many thousands of people. Zora 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zora. Pepsidrinka 04:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- Yet another well-meaning list that is unfortunately too broad to be useful. Reyk 04:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, a list whose usefulness I can't fathom. Grandmasterka 05:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 06:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article lacked a apropriate introduction, that is fixed. The list is needed to list the people that meet Muhamamd and his companions. We already have list of the Muslim ones, the List of Sahaba. And this is the list of the non-Muslims. The name of the article is strange since consept lacks a formal name, but the concept is real, verifible and sourced, just read the article of the people listed.--Striver 14:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per [Dec 05] precedent and per Striver. Most of the people on the list have their own articles; with lists, notable members is always implied. Provides a worthwhile guide to people associated with an important moment in history. Smerdis of Tlön 16:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I dont't get the point of a list of that sort. What's next? List of Vikings who interacted with Sudanese in the 14th century? Sandstein 16:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, I'd love to read that, if you can make it. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencylopedic and staggeringly poorly titled. NicM 16:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete. Even the title is confusing: a list of everyone who wasn't Muslim, but talked to a Muslim, during this specific period? I don't see what use the list is. -- Mithent 19:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete this article might merit encyclopedic content but it is too poorly explained and too confusing to have any real value. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Ihcoyc and User:Striver. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep terrible title and needs a cleanup but ... too soon to bring back to AfD, some interesting content and war paths should be discouraged. Dlyons493 Talk 22:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jersey Devils Crusade against the forces of Striver Continues. maybe rename, somehow, but clear keep. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone asked why this particular time is relevant. It is relevant since Muhamamd is a very notable name. The list could be named "list of non-Muslims who meet Muhamamd", but that would excluded people who meet the Muslims that fleed to ethiopia. Those people where very prominent, the first Caliph was one of them, and another would become Muhmmads wife. So the list is expaned to include non-Muslims that where involved in such a notable situations. Remeber, people from 1400 years ago are not remebered if they where non-notable, specialy not non-Muslims in Muslim books. And c'mon, we have List of United States Presidents by height order. List name is bad, article is valid, verifiable and notable.--Striver 23:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, I think the list is historically relevant, agree that it is complementary to List of Sahaba, and think it is encyclopedic. -- Samir (the scope) 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if sources cited. Denni ☯ 01:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

All sources are cited in the article of the people, no need to clogg this article by repeating them. However, if you dissagre, it can be arranged.--Striver 01:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable. joturner 01:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pecher Talk 22:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

please consider that the events during Muhammads time are very notable to both Muslims and non-Muslim scholars of Islam, and also consider List of US Presidents by height order.--Striver 23:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, the list is not "to broad to be usefull", Muhammad did'nt live for more than a few years after conquering the Arabian penisula, so most people in the list are Arabs that didnt became Muslims during Muhammads time.--Striver 23:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per all above. I'm afraid I don't see the use in this list any more than Non-Mormon interactants with Mormons during Joseph Smith's era or any other topic defined along these lines. Esquizombi 09:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Are that period and people documented? Where they engaged in wars? Did they shape the life of 1 000 000 000 people? Where they involved in the unification of the Islamic empire? Do we have a List of Joseph Smith companions? We do have a list of Sahaba. The people in the article are notble, each have their own article. We need somewhere where we can access all of them, in the same way we have a list to access all Sahaba. Its two sides of the same coin. People that lived during Muhammads time. The Muslims are called Sahaba, and there is a list of them. This is a list of the non-Muslims. --Striver 15:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Historically relevant. Nigelthefish 14:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleanup/verify tags, significant subject -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 userfy content.  (aeropagitica)  23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eoghan Beecher

Not particularly notable Irish student and political activist. 72 unique Google hits. Delete. DMG413 03:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Chairman of local chapters of political party, doesn't seem very notable. Delete per nom. --lightdarkness (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 04:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 04:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably an article made about himself Weatherman90 04:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity, nn. --Terence Ong 06:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy, article was very likely created by subject, User:Beecher. Or, his mother. Grandmasterka 19:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy, but note that "unique" Google hits are irrelevant in 99% of AfD discussions. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Userfy --Khoikhoi 06:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, albeit with many favouring a merger. This closure does not prevent or preclude merging if a better article would be the product. kingboyk 09:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family tree of Ali

  • Delete, without any sources it fits WP:V, fork minus POV, and the formating and composition is so bad that I don't think anything of it is salvagable. Jersey Devil 04:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems like you made that one up. Wikipedia does have family trees. I asked about it on the Village Pump about a month ago in my own vain attempt to get this deleted. Seems like family trees are acceptable. Though non-notable family trees (which this is not, Ali is certainly a notable figure) may be deleted under non-notability. I will see if I can find the village pump link. Pepsidrinka 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment No, I didn't make it up, thank you - follow the link and you'll find " Wikipedia articles are not: [...] Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Relatively unimportant people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project." Esquizombi 04:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected - sort of. It does say that "biography article should only be for people with some sort of fame" and Ali clearly qualifies. I do however maintain that there seems to be some consensus that certain family trees belong on Wikipedia. See Family_tree_of_the_Eighteenth_dynasty_of_Egypt as one link I found through a quick search. Pepsidrinka 04:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ali clearly qualifies for a biography article, but I don't read that policy as saying that genealogical entries are OK for the famous. I posted on the talk page seeking clarification. Esquizombi 07:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup needs major attention, but the information is certainly salvagable if it can be verified. There a heaps of family tree articles on Wikipedia .Bobby1011 04:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The family relationships around Ali are particularly important. Does need a lot of cleanup, though. bikeable (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Ali's family tree consists of some of the most important people in Shi'a Islam (e.g., Fatimah Zahra, Hasan ibn Ali, Husayn ibn Ali, Muhammad) that this is clearly a family tree of a notable person. Pepsidrinka 05:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, well this is encyclopedic and Ali's family is considered important. --Terence Ong 06:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because it's too long to merge. Gazpacho 10:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Merge as suggested by MLA. Gazpacho 18:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib. The family tree itself needs to be part of an article about the lineage of Ali. The lineage is highly notable. MLA 11:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per MLA. The format of the Descendants article is better. The final article might be titled "Ali ibn Ali Talib family tree" in the manner of other family-tree articles, and would plug the new information from the AfD article into the format of the Descendants article. This would suffice until a handier illustration (again in the manner of other family tree articles) can be created. There is a guide for creating such tree diagrams here: User:Muriel_Gottrop#Family trees Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan --Striver 15:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep important, and the Ali article is already very long. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility: "While 'Wikipedia is not a genealogy database', genealogy of nobility and royalty is considered encyclopedic." - Rynne 15:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jersey Devil stop trying to make a Point -Irishpunktom\talk 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib -- much of it is duplicate. gren グレン 18:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete genealogy is not appropriate for Wikipedia. while it does say, as noted above, that biographies should only be of notable people, this is not a biography. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Notable familly tree. Nigelthefish 16:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib or, better still, Ali ibn Abi Talib. Details of someone's family tree are more informative to the reader in the context of the person, not as a web of satellite nanoarticles. This is the second article about this person's family tree. Why the duplication? Or is the master plan to have Parents of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Siblings of Ali ibn Abi Talib, First Cousins of Ali ibn Abi Talib, ...? Weregerbil 22:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to a new First Muslim Dynasty article because the Family Tree of Ali depends on the relationships of the other members to one individual (Ali), however he was not a separate dynast but the fourth in a line of Caliphs. The most appropriate family tree would be a family tree centred on Muhammad and the first four Caliphs because these five individuals formed the first Muslim "Dynasty", especially as they were all closely related. I note Striver keeps highlighting the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt but this is not a correct comparison as the Dynasty traces a lineage of Pharaohs based on current information. Striver's line of thought would presumably include Family Tree of Elizabeth II, Family Tree of Prince Charles, Family Tree of Prince William etcetera when the appropriate article would be House of Windsor. Green Giant 00:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Eagletalk 01:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was yes! We have no consensus / we have no consensus today! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan

  • Delete Original research and WP:V (no sources), as it is the formating and composition is so bad that nothing is really salvagable. Jersey Devil 04:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 16:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

See bottom half of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion and also this:

--Striver 15:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

(UTC)

  • Keep and expand or merge at Uthman. This person's family tree is of great historical importance. Smerdis of Tlön 16:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand; consider merger or prominent link to this page in Uthman article. WP:POINT is invoked; sorry, but it matters immensely to the history of Islam what the exact geneaologies are. Alba 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and if there are any redundant articles like "Descendants of Uthman" like there were for Ali then merge them in... It's not great to have this in its own article... but... it's better than clogging up the Uthman page. gren グレン 18:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per anonym --Oscar Arias 18:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete WP:NOT genealogical entries are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and Expand: Third Caliph of Islam. --Falcon007 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Pepsidrinka someone other than User:Pepsidrinka :x — Adrian Lamo ·· 23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Take note that I voted to delete this article so your justification is quite puzzling. Pepsidrinka 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand or merge as per Smerdis of Tlön Dlyons493 Talk 22:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOR --Khoikhoi 06:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Question: what in there is original research? Ardric47 00:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to a new First Muslim Dynasty article because the Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan depends on the relationships of the other members to one individual (Uthman) in the same way as the Family tree of Ali. However he was not a separate dynast but the third in a line of Caliphs, so the appropriate family tree would be centred on Muhammad and the first four Caliphs because these five individuals formed the first Muslim "Dynasty", especially as they were all closely related. Striver keeps highlighting the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt but this Dynasty traces a lineage of Pharaohs and is not about breaking up dynasties into nano-lineages. Striver's line of thought would presumably include Family Tree of Elizabeth II, Family Tree of Prince Charles, Family Tree of Prince William etcetera when the appropriate article would be House of Windsor or British Royal Family. Green Giant 00:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per Green Giant. A much better way for a reader to understand a genealogical tree than individual nodes for each person or random persons in the tree. Weregerbil 08:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Move/Merge per Green Giant et al. As it stands, current art is litle more than stub, if WP:V (sources ?), then suit as insert in art. on Uthman himself. Please also see my comments re Author's UnWiki-like attitude in another AFD discussion. WiKinny 18:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 19:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jihadunspun.net

  • Delete not notable, has an Alexa ranking of 4,165,194 [20] Jersey Devil 04:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think perhaps it satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (websites). Note the Chicago Tribune article, and also the fact the the US State Dept has an article including the site. There are probably some other citations that could be added. The Alexa info has no business being in the article, however, IMO. Esquizombi 05:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, Alexa rankings are frequently used in afds for pages involving websites.--Jersey Devil 05:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I referred above to the Alexa information in the Article not this AfD. Esquizombi 05:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Esquizombi. Pepsidrinka 19:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep the website can be considered notable by its relationship with the US Dept of State. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Schizombie . — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Schizombie. Agree that notability is more than just Alexa rank -- Samir (the scope) 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Another strike in Jersey Devils Crusade on Striver - Its an obvious Keep. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Zain 02:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

has an Alexa ranking of 127,460 [21]--Striver 15:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep but rename to Jihadunspun.com. That appears to be the real URL of the website. Notability appears to be there. joturner 15:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable.Nigelthefish 19:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replicator Art

This is a neologism. Google (I know, I know, not the end-all be-all, but bear with me) yields fewer than 200 hits, many of which seem to be related to port replicator art, which is apparently an unrelated computer term. (See that first hit to see what I'm talking about.) Delete.


This is all true, but what is wrong with being a Neologism? How does anything get into language? How do we evolve without starting something new? The largest and most successful broadsheet in Australia (I know, I know) thought it worthy of page 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Lorax (talk • contribs)


Alright we give in, point taken, say no more. Can it be transwikied to wiktionary? It appeared in a newspaper, does that count as print or does it have to be a book? And how do you do it? —This unsigned comment was added by Peter Lorax (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 Speedy Delete. kingboyk 05:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alvin Luk

currently no content. Previous edit was nonsense. Zen611 04:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. I do not know of any famous and/or semi-famous person going by this name. --TML1988 05:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timing of Sahaba becoming muslims

  • Delete, WP:V (no sources), content fork, and nothing from the formating and composition looks salvagable. Jersey Devil 04:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 16:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom, it could be merged with Sahaba. WU03 05:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, POV fork. --Terence Ong 07:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge to Sahaba with verification. Pepsidrinka 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Muslims attach importance on who became Muslim when. See the following to verify that:

See Identity of first male Muslim, then read this passage that shows how much importance Muslims attach on the Timing of Sahaba becoming muslims:


Twelve Ranks of the Companions

The Companions were divided into twelve ranks by the scholars. This division was made according to the chronological order and some groups are also included in others. It was accepted by the majority of scholars:

1. The four Rightly-Guided Caliphs, namely Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali, and the rest of the ten to whom Paradise was promised while alive. They are Zubair bin Al-Awwam, Abu Ubaidah bin Al-Jarrah, Abdur-Rahman bin Awf, Talha bin Ubaidullah, Sa‘d bin Abi Waqqas and Saeed bin Zad, may Allah be pleased with them all.

2. Those who believed prior to Umar’s conversion and frequently gathered together secretly in the House of Arqam to listen to Allah’s Messenger, upon him be Peace and Blessings.

3. Those who migrated to Abyssinia in the first hijrah (migration) for Allah's Sake.

4. The Helpers (Ansar) who were present at the first ceremony of taking the Oath of Allegiance to Allah’s Messsenger at Al-Aqaba.

5. The Helpers (Ansar) who took the Oath of Allegiance to the Messenger at Al-Aqaba, the following year.

6. The first Emigrants (Muhajireen) who joined Allah’s Messenger before his arrival in Madinah during the Hijrah (Emigration).

7. The Companions who participated in the Battle of Badr.

8. Those who emigrated to Madinah during the period between the Battle of Badr and the Treaty of Hudaybiyah.

9. The Companions who took the Oath of Allegiance to Allah’s Messenger under a tree during the expedition of Hudaybiyah.

10. Those who converted and emigrated to Madinah after the Treaty of Hudaybiyah.

11. Those who became Muslims after the conquest of Makkah.

12. The children who saw Allah’s Messenger either during the Conquest of Makka or during the Farewell Pilgrimage, or in any other place and on different occasions.

According to this ranking, Khalid bin Al-Waleed would come in Rank 10, since he accepted Islam after the Truce of Hudaybiyah.

Source: http://www.swordofallah.com/html/companionshome.htm


As you see, this is a important topic to Muslims. The article needs better sourcing, not deletin. The sources can often be found in the article of the people. --Striver 15:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Why is that a voting rationale? As you can see by the reasonable number of Delete votes in all his recents AfDs, these AfDs are warranted. Striver has created a large number of articles that have little to no information and questionable significance (although he has also made many beneficial articles). I commend Jersey Devil for questioning the importance of these articles and trying to root out the ones that aren't necessary. joturner 20:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Remeber that this is going to be a big list, there are lots of Sahaba, and this list would dominate it. Ill also add some context right now.--Striver 00:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and merge as per Pepsidrinka but with one proviso - the list Striver has pulled out of a hat about the ranking of Sahaba would make an excellent addition to the Sahaba article (minus the peace and blessings liberally sprinkled through the list). Green Giant 01:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No can do, that is a Sunni ranking system. I only brought it to show that the topic of when they became Muslims is higly relevant to Muslims, Shi'a also view such a list as very important. The list needs time to grow and mature, not to be deleted. --Striver 02:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • keep--Zereshk 21:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Cyde Weys 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Skinner

  • Delete does not meet WP:BIO. Only one book of unknown readership listed. Arbusto 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Per Worldcat, one library owns the book listed. Very hard to search for other books by the same author as there is an American author named Jonathan Skinner who has written a ton of books on economic issues. Thatcher131 21:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps delete this page as NN and create a new article featuring the more academically known economist? Arbusto 04:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity non-notable. But note that his church also has a page, Widcombe Baptist Church, as do a host of other local churches of no particular significance. A major cleanup project! Slowmover 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Changing "vanity" to "non-notable" per the fair criticism of Uncle Davey below.
Thanks for that. Yes, she did do a Widcombe church page, and she did the Skinner page, but I take it that these are matters she happens to know about. Since she also did this page Tota_pulchra_es, a page reflecting on Mary and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which is contrary to Baptist and other Protestant theology, so it is unlikely that she has POV issues, whereas there is systematic deletion of Christian related articles going on all over Wikipedia. I think it is one thing when there are two sides trying on the one hand to increase Christian content and on the other to delete it, but it's a pity if the contributions of someone who had no such intention, and was merely writing about something local to her, should be caught up in this. Uncle Davey (Talk) 12:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Slowmover 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless notability is further established. the.crazy.russian vent here 20:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep' I know I created this page, but I believe Jonathan Skinner is well known in many circles in Britain, and is an important figure in evangelical teaching and the FIEC. He writes many articles for the evangelical times and is a renowned scientist. He has given many talks and lectures attended by wide audiences. Delete if you wish, but these are my reasons for proposing to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbyemery (talk • contribs)
Please sign your comments. If you would like to strengthen the article by adding information that will independently establish (outside your own opinion) his importance, feel free to do so. Check the guidelines for help on verifiability and inclusion of biographies. Things like newspaper accounts of his lectures, book reviews (if he has written any) will help establish verifiability and notability. The AfD discussion runs for 5 days before closing, and if you have made significant improvement you can ask for a reconsideration. Thatcher131 21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. --Sugarpie Honeybunch 21:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I see you added some articles he wrote. That is useful, but it would be more useful to list articles about him. Thatcher131 22:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Sugarpie Honeybunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a possible sock puppet. First edit ever was to add 4 articles to the Skinner page and second edit was this vote. The user has not made a third edit. Arbusto 04:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable biography as it currently stands. No discussion regarding attitudes, viewpoints, criticism, notability amongst peers, etc. Book reviews and citations of influential articles that Skinner has (co-)authored would be a good start. The justification for keep above is weak - in which circles is Skinner well known and for what? Why is Skinner important in evangelical teaching and to whom? These are questions that researcher may well ask, so the article should make an effort to provide answers.  (aeropagitica)  23:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per (aeropagitica) OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notabl bio. --Terence Ong 07:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete article has not established notablility.--Jersey Devil 10:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sugarpie Honeybunch is not a sockpuppet of Abbyemery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.62.225 (talk • contribs)
I would be curious to know how an unsigned anonymous user with an IP address belonging to a German cable company would know this. Thatcher131 12:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
That user was me, I could not sign in as I was on a school computer. I assure you that I have not created any sockpuppets. That would be a waste of time and no doubt someone would notice. Abbyemery 18:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you couldn't log in, but thanks for clarifying. Thatcher131 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
If I had signed in I would have been spotted by the teacher not doing the work that I was supposed to be doing, and I would not have been able to make the edit at all! Abbyemery 18:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Me again. Sorry that I'm still fighting this, but I really believe that this guy is notable. [22] - his website, featuring information about the book he wrote and a radio program he recorded for BBC radio 4 ([23]). [24] - a page providing information on his book.
    • I think it would help more if the links were not all self-promotional. Except for one review of one book, nobody seems to care about him outside his immediate circle. Slowmover 18:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Slowmover, I don't understand what kind of link you want? Ask me and I'll try to search for it. I'm not being deliberately ignorant, but I'm still at school. Abbyemery 18:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
We are looking for evidence that other people beyond Skinner himself and possibly a small circle of parishoners and fans finds him insteresting enough to write about. If 2 people think he's important, then he probably isn't; if ten thousand people think he is important, he problably is. The dividing line is invisible and fuzzy. To help the wikipedia community evaluate specific people, we look for outside evidence. See below. Thatcher131 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Evidence Lexis/Nexis search covering the past 12 months finds several columns written by Skinner for the Western Daily Press and some letters to the editor replying to him in one way or another. He takes on Richard Dawkins, who had just run a 2-part BBC special declaring that religion was immoral, and he defended tony Blair, who was criticized by the press for saying that God would judge the rightness of the Iraq invasion. Also a book review that thought Skinner's book proceeded from a logical fallacy and would only be convincing to the already convinced. (I can't link to Lexis/Nexis but I can provide the dates and page numbers; I don't know if the Western Daily Press has a web presence or not.) I have not voted yet, leaning toward keep but would like to know what others think in light of this Lexis/Nexis search. Based on the fact that he has published 50+ newspaper columns in addition to a column in the Evangelical Times, and because we have dozens of articles on the Expanded Universe (Star Wars), we can keep this one too. Thatcher131 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Good evidence, hadn't seen that. I'd add and re-clarify that he writes for the Evangelical Times which has a circulation of about 40 000. I believe that he is therefore notable as a journalist. People disagree? Abbyemery 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes. Being a journalist is not notable in itself. It hurts a bit that his only book review comes from a publication he writes for. Slowmover 19:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice one Slowmover. But if you search, you'll find lots of reviews of the book (The Edge of Known Reality and Beyond) coming from independent reviewers/publications. Being a journalist is not notable, but being a notable journalist is something else altogether. Abbyemery 20:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh good grief, I missed the fact that "Evangelical Press" is the publisher of his book. So I don't find any independent reviews, just what appears to be his own site, the publisher's site, the sites of booksellers and some blogs.....Slowmover 20:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep apparently somewhat notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Evidence See the article's talk page. He seems to be notable and quotable in and around Bath but I didn't find evidence of wider penetration; not to say it isn't there, but the burden is on Abby and I've done all I can. Just for the sake of argument I raise this point [25] on the value of importance as a criteria. His existence and viewpoints can certainly be verified based on his public writings. Thatcher131 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He's verifiable, seems somewhat notable and exists. Which is more than you can say for all the crappy pokemon characters that have articles. Jcuk 01:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although there should also be a disambiguation page, as there is also an American Professor of economics in print and an ecopoet both of whom share that name and each feature higher in Google, it has to be admitted, although this is no accurate measure of notability. I disagree with the point about it being a vanity article as there is no evidence that the user who created the article has any POV-bending connexions with the subject. Uncle Davey (Talk) 17:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable Cursive 23:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks Verifiable & Notable. Nothing to lose to keep.--Michaelwmoss 08:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No reason at all to delete this Itake 03:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys, it's me again, I'm a bit of a newbie to this and I'm just wondering: is the page kept purely on votes for delete or keep, despite the fact that a lot of the delete votes came in before evidence was displayed? Abbyemery 07:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
No. Only one vote per person is allowed, but the decision is not made by the volume of votes (therefore, multiple votes by one person make no difference anyway). After 5 days, unless it looks like more time is required, an Admin will review the debate, decide if there was a consensus, and act on the consensus. This looks like no consensus to me (IMHO), so it's likely that this page will not be deleted. Slowmover 15:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Seems to be notable but could use more support. Nigelthefish 20:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - more or less notable and totally harmless.
    ♥♥♥Gubb ✍
    15:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Userfied.  (aeropagitica)  06:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Bossi

Vanity page is an understatement. Zen611 05:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Obviously Userfy. It begins "This user"... Grandmasterka 05:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am using my own bio to learn how to use Wikipedia. I accidentally managed to link it to my name when I was trying to figure out what the "Redirect" command did. Feel free to delete -- I fixed it so it is only a part of my user page now. Sorry about that! We're all new at some point. ...Thisisbossi 05:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone close this now? Grandmasterka 05:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Sunni view of the Sahaba. I will do this by copy-paste; others can edit it at will. -Splashtalk 19:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not mentioning the faults of the Sahaba (Sunni doctrine)

  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 16:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. I don't see how this merits it's own article, but it may belong somewhere. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Sunni view of the Sahaba, which incidently is a fork of its own. Nonetheless, until that article is dealt with, this should be merged there. Pepsidrinka 06:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. Not notable in its own right. This type of information should be in the main article itself. --Terence Ong 07:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Sunni view of the Sahaba per Pepsidrinka. Feezo (Talk)
  • Keep. This article needs cleaup and expansion, not deleting. Not mentioning the faults of the Sahaba is a major doctrine among Sunnis.--Striver 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jersey Devil stop trying to make a Point. COuld do with a rename though.. surely there is a better name? -Irishpunktom\talk 16:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. May I point out that there are already Uprightness of all Sahaba (Sunni doctrine), All Sahaba go to heaven (Sunni doctrine) and Sunni view of the Sahaba, all of which were created by User:Striver, and that's just the ones I found at first glance. Hello? Striver, please read WP:POVFORK, which clearly states that Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. And that goes double for four articles on what seems to be the same stance on the same subject! To top with, all of the rambling content in these articles could probably be merged to one or two paragraphs in Sahaba. Striver, please don't just create forks. Write in the main articles so that people can find (and edit!) the stuff. Sandstein 16:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge content to Sunni view of the Sahaba per Pepsidrinka and Feezo. No issue with the content, it's the awkward article name. --Lockley 17:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into sunni view of sahaba... I don't really see evidence that this is a discrete doctrine... so, much better talked about in context. gren グレン 18:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per all above. -Oscar Arias 18:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • merge this page already seems to exist. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above Dlyons493 Talk 22:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this one's a clear fork -- Samir (the scope) 00:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been claimed that the four doctrine articles are pov forks. They are not. Each one is a distinct doctrine. They are not "split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject", they are all Sunni doctrines, it is not different views. It is several different doctrines, not views. Just like the doctrine of trinity and virgin birth are not the same thing. Further, all articles are linkt to the Sunni view article, and the Sunni view article links to them, so there is no risk of not finding them. However, i do admit that the articles need heavy editing. That is a reason to edit, not to delete.--Striver 15:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, don't understand your comment here. POV forks should be amalgamated into original article and deleted. -- Samir (the scope) 23:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Pepsidrinka. Another inappropriate and needless fork. Green Giant 01:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above, unencyclopedic forks of religious debate. Weregerbil 08:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Per Pepsidrinka Nigelthefish 15:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete. Despite any perceived or actual WP:POINT disruption by Nom, reading of art. and comments by Author, his talk page, and related AFD discussions suggests that Striver is of view that none of his artcles should ever be deleted. Seems to think this is always either a personal attack ("Don't take it personally" is Wiki advice) or an attack on the belief system to which he openly subscribes.
  • Merge per Pepsidrinka. --phh 01:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that contributors to these AFD discussions have treated each AFD individually , and different outcomes have resulted - some delete, some keep, some merge/improve - Striver's direct advocacy of voting by others for retention of all his AFD articles seems to me to suggest that :

  1. his articles generally warrant a high suspicion of WP:NPOV violation
  2. his (apparently passionate) votes and AFD comments should perhaps be accorded less weight
  3. his repetition of arguments that have been successfully and cogently countered in recent previous AFDs means those arguments should be afforded almost no weight at all.

These comments are NOT a reflection on Striver or the belief system with which he is aligned. I do note however that his stated goal is to present a specific POV. It seems to me therefore that this means :

  1. His contributions will need editing to ensure NPOV
  2. Some of the detailed material contributed will be better replaced by links to specialist web-sites - it is not Wiki's role to replicate all the information on the net, but provide concise summaries of key (notable) information (in this case to English-speaking readers) and links to appropriate specialist material

In summary, Wiki is not a soap-box, and Striver needs to be content with the consensus of the community on all his work. As it says at the bottom of every page : "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." :) WiKinny 18:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimbo Wales [26] [27]

There is a difference between writing pov and writnig about a pov. I dont appreciate incorrect accusations.--Striver 02:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pet peeves

This list was removed from Pet peeve per consensus on that talk page given that it was unencylopedic and unverifiable. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Necessarily POV, culturally specific, and unverifiable. Delete per nom. --TeaDrinker 05:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, see talk:Pet peeve, making this its own article certainly does not help. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The list is cute, but needs to be replaced with a list of pet peeves of notable personalities (and which personalities have them -- some will be associated with more than one person) -- anyone who is quoted in another publication about one of their pet peeves, and has their own article, could have an entry on that list. And it would be pretty interesting... +sj + 06:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There's plenty of room at Pet peeve for any material that at least meets a basic standard of verifiability, a separate page is not needed. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it is totally POV - be like having a list of favourite ice cream flavours. User:Themepark
  • Delete fairly uncontroversially for me. It seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information and I think it (and many other crufty lists) should go. Sorry. Politepunk 08:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Rachel Cakes 08:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork, unverifiable and supposed listcruft. --Terence Ong 08:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note that a "new user" has spammed over 80 users advising them of this AfD nomination, one of which was Rachel Cakes above. android79 12:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Or, at least, it was meant to be one, at one time. Friday (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the list. Pet peeve should either be kept or moved to Wiktionary. — Itai (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as much as I find the list amusing. A few verifiable examples should be in Pet peeve. -- Mithent 19:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete by its nature this list could never reflect NPOV. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom B.ellis 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per multiple excellent reasons above. My pet peeve is listcruft... Just zis Guy you know? 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete people have different pet peeves - you can't list them all --Khoikhoi 06:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above reasons. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 12:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Move pet peeve to Wiktionary? ---Dana 02:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Terence. Joe 02:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per POV -- Ian ≡ talk 04:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts talk 02:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred M. Donner

  • Delete, unless the notablity of this person is established then I vote delete. Jersey Devil 05:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 16:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We can't go listing every single professor in the world, can we? dcandeto 06:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 08:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per Dcandeto. --Ricaud 09:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A full professor of Near Eastern History at the University of Chicago, which is a leading institution in that field. Has published two major monographs on early Islamic history, as well as a translation of a volume of the history of al-Tabari (one of the most important early Arabic historians), published a large number of articles in reputable journals and is a journal editor himself. His c. 500 page The Early Islamic Conquests (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981) was called "a major contribution to the understanding of early Islamic history" by the reviewer in the International Journal of Middle East Studies 1983, p. 577. Checking the Swedish National library catalogue I note that all three of his books are available in 3 or 4 leading research libraries.[28]. (That's all from about five or ten minutes of searching.) If we can have an article on every professional baseball player in America, we can have one on Donner too. I wish Striver would write more useful articles, but that is not a reason to assume a priori that anything or anybody he writes about is "non-notable". u p p l a n d 09:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
comment - This info should be put in the article - Uppland:hint, hint as you have done the research. -Oscar Arias 19:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Uppland. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Uppland. Monicasdude 15:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep See botom half of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion --Striver 15:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable professor and author, per Uppland. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jersey Devil stop trying to make a Point -Irishpunktom\talk 16:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, definitely not a necessary article... but, why not? gren グレン 18:49, 16

March 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, per gren, but the article needs more info on why he is notable. -Oscar Arias 18:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Uppland. Encyclopedia Britannica cites the The Early Islamic Conquests as a reference in its section on Iraq. Capitalistroadster 19:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per Uppland. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uppland. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Uppland B.ellis 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and please research AfD nominations before making them. Dlyons493 Talk 22:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment AFAIK people are not obligated to research articles before proposing them for deletion, though that may be preferable. There is a burden of proof upon the creator of the article to include information on notability, etc. and if that info is not there, and if the article apparently violates WP policies that are named in the nom, it's not unreasonable to AfD it. Esquizombi 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, while the publication history and books are not enough alone to sway me, the translation of the history of al-Tabari is impressive. Great research, Uppland. Dlyons493, in defense of Jersey Devil, the article did sit as a one-line stub for four months -- Samir (the scope) 00:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, it is up to the author to establish notablility and a one sentence article unchanged for months does not do that. I am sorry for not knowing the importance of every single academic in existence. With that I change my vote to a conditional keep so long as the information mentioned in this afd is added to the article to meet with WP:V, if it doesn't then I still vote delete.--Jersey Devil 01:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

am sorry for not knowing the importance of every single academic in existence he says, without even have bothered to click the link i provided in the article. --Striver 02:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment, your link is to his faculty page at the University of Chicago! Pracitically every academic has a faculty page! It means absolutely nothing.--Jersey Devil 02:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You questioned the verifiability of the individual. A faculty link should resolve that. Perhaps you meant WP:N? --Irishpunktom\talk 12:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uppland, but please add info to this article! Esquizombi 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Zain 02:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable professor at a notable school. Nigelthefish 16:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to University of British Columbia . -Splashtalk 19:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Black Hand (UBC)

Unverified, non-notable. Delete. Ardenn 05:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity, nn. --Ricaud 09:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Feezo (Talk) 09:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into main school article. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As a non-North American this doesn't really figure any lower down the scale of importance or any higher up the scale of vanity than the Rose Bowl Hoax. However, the whole section of practical jokes seems to be very thinly populated with non-notable entries. 217.204.54.229 12:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom, vanity. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Bobby P. Smith Sr. Derekwriter 02:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge TastyCakes 22:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as it is notable, as it happens to a society with 43,000 members, and considering all the pages in Wikipedia about erelevant flame wars that occur in slashdot and Usenet history, this hacker group is at least as notable. Plus, it has been verified through the newpaper link on the article page. Nick Dillinger 23:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it would help if there was a direct link to the Ubyssey ARTICLE that covered the Black Hand, and not just the main site itself (which forces us to look for it ourselves)... --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 04:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly! Ardenn 04:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The newspaper did not choose to post that photo and caption on their website, though the photo on the cover of the newspaper is clearly of the Black Hand's stunt, consistant with the photos on the page anf in the external links. --Nick Dillinger 20:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The link to the page, as it currently stands in link [2], is to the archive for that issue. The cover for the paper's homepage has changed, but the link is now for that specific issue. It can be verified. Zoom in if neccessary--Nick Dillinger 22:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 21:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter George Oliver

  • Delete,non-notable biography WU03 05:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a {{nn-bio}}.  (aeropagitica)  06:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7. --Terence Ong 08:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, an open and shut case. --Lockley 17:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete vanity article as pgoliver was the original editor and is not notable. -Oscar Arias 19:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ziad Abdelnour

Asserts insufficient notability, and the article is also too POV even if arguably notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 09:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Feezo (Talk) 10:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since his main notability is his role as president of a venture capital company, I looked up Blackhawk Partners (enough google hits to be notable, although some are unrelated) and made a stub article for it. The article mentions Abdelnour and his role as president of the US Committe for a Free Lebanon. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power_numbers

Delete Duplicate of previously deleted Other names of large numbers Ben Standeven 05:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unverifiable, possibly original research. Topic is already covered in names of large numbers. Feezo (Talk) 10:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, then redirect to Names of large numbers. Turnstep 16:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as unverifiable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Already covered in Names of large numbers. Denni ☯ 01:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the title itself, "Power numbers," is a neologism; if not I'd like to see sources for it. This article does not even attempt to cite sources, particularly for the numbers not found in standard dictionaries ("Googolminex," "Millinillitrillion," "Googolplexplexplex," "Novenonagintennecentumillillion.") If you remove the unsourced material and the material duplicated in other articles, I don't think anything is left. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Vines

It has been proposed that this article be deleted as it is not in line with Wikipedia's Articles of Notability. I disagree, as the articles mention that published authors or editors with a readership of more than 5,000 can be included in Wikipedia, and the Veritaserum site run by this individual has a much higher daily readership than 5,000. - Brethenbrother181, 23:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Article fails to establish notability.

  • Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 06:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Deletejust one of many sites--Porturology 06:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete I'm not sure why this wasn't {{db}}'d to begin with. dcandeto 06:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers, probably could have been {{nn-bio}} too.  (aeropagitica)  06:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 09:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio.--Jersey Devil 10:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete nn fansitecruft, being a webmaster does not fit under published author argument. -Oscar Arias 19:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn B.ellis 21:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted, as Matthew Vines is both notable and influential within the Harry Potter world. He has over 5000 viewees of his website a day, making him notable enough for appreciation on Wikipedia.


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PaGaLGuY.com

Virtually no encyclopedic content - may or may not be a notable website, but the article as it stands is basically advertising. Delete unless fixed. GTBacchus(talk) 06:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment, it should be noted that the site has an alexa ranking of 76,848 [29]. Pretty decent ranking. I'll wait for others to vote before deciding. But yeah, it really does have to be de-POVed--Jersey Devil 06:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement. dcandeto 06:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 53,000+ members denotes some sort of importance. Even if all of them aren't active, it is still a remarkable number. Wikipedia's million plus editors, though a large number are indefinitely blocked vandal accounts, a million accounts is a significant number. Though fifty thousand is no where near a million, it is quite an impressive number in India, no where near the internet capabilities of the English speaking countries. Pepsidrinka 07:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, 53,000 members out of the six billion in the world is totally non-notable. Ten million members is considred notable at least. --Terence Ong 09:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
53,000 on a first thought, with any numbers to say its not, is still notable for me. Remember, not every person in the world has internet access. So your six billion argument does not hold. If you can find me the number of how many Indians have internet access, I may reconsider. Right now, that seems like a fairly significant number. Pepsidrinka 18:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad and low Alexa ranking i.e. nn. --Terence Ong 09:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • PLEASE DO NOT DELETE. This is a site which is the one stop resource link to all MBA aspirants for India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.231.12 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, wikify, de-POV Notable - it's an important resource and forum for a certain growing class of people in India. Article needs to become NPOV and get wikified, but that will be easy. It's interesting and useful for Indian users of wikipedia, a very large number of whom are members of the class that use this forum. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wikify, and DEFINATE de-POV per Bobby -- Oscar Arias 19:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, wikify, de-POV as above San Saba 20:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, de-POV Seems notable. Nigelthefish 16:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, albeit with something approaching consensus for a merge. I'll close this debate as "keep" but the result should not be taken to mean that a merger cannot be performed. If a better article results from a merger be bold and merge. kingboyk 09:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommended precaution

  • Delete, not encyclopedic on its own. Posssibly merged with something. It should be noted that this was up for deletion in July 2005 with only 3 votes resulting in a no concensus (See here for previous AFD) Jersey Devil 06:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 16:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Probably agree with nom, but what is the actual arabic term for "recommended precaution"? It should have been added to the article in the beginning. Additionally, if this stub were to be merged (per WP:WINAD it cannot exist as it is), where should it go? Esquizombi 06:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand No reason why this can't be an article. It's a notable feature of daily life for millions of people. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep search this for "precaution". Then also see bottom half of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion --Striver 15:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jersey Devil stop trying to make a Point -Irishpunktom\talk 16:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to whatever the Arabic / Persian term is... these English translations of Striver's aren't very good... like List of notable Muslim reports... it should be List of hadith.... having an article implies notability so notable is redundant and any scholar calls them hadith not reports... rampant English translation of terms mostly used in their original language is bad. gren グレン 18:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Or you can just improve the translation -- I already changed "Muslim callers" to "Caller to Islam"... AnonMoos 12:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep nothing wrong with this article. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to the Arabic term. I've heard of the concept before, yet the Arabic term escapes me at the moment. Pepsidrinka`
  • Strong keep Term is, I think, Ihtiyat Mustahab Dlyons493 Talk 22:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep or merge. It should be under the Arabic term, as that will be the one used in discussions of fiqh and sharia. I'm still not sure that this deserves a whole article, however -- it could easily be merged into Fiqh. IMHO, breakout articles are necessary when a topic gets too big or contentious in a main article. Creating them just to hold one para is a pointless waste of Wiki resources. Zora 00:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair point - merge is fine with me too. Dlyons493 Talk 00:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikisource is wasted by being forced to spew out a list of 1000 arabic words, instead of a simple article for the word you wanted. --Striver 02:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge (or delete and merge) to Mustahabb. Thereafter, I think Fard, Mustahabb, Mubah, Makruh, Haraam and any other related terms should be merged with redirects into Fiqh or else collected in a single subarticle of Fiqh covering these, perhaps "al-ahkam al-khamsa" or whatever title would be appropriate. Esquizombi 03:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Gren. --AladdinSE 00:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Recommended precaution" is NOT the same as "Mustahabb", its "Ihtiyat Mustahabb". Its NOT "Recommended" + "precaution", its a term used by Shi'a marja when they are not sure of what they should say, its complemeted by "obligatory precation" as i have explained in the talk page. --Striver 00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment I do believe I understand what you're saying, but the distinction can still be made between the two in the Mustahabb article, and as I indicated above, I believe all the fiqh terms should be merged. Esquizombi 03:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It should have better title though. Zain 01:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Fiqh--Isotope23 21:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snurgly

Delete neologism, slang with very few ghits in this context. Prod removed without comment--Porturology 06:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Ordinarily this defaults to keep, but I'll make the purely editorial (not administrative) decision to follow the recommendation of those proposing a move, since it appears to address the concerns of thos worried that we'll turn into a genealogical database. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family tree of Maymuna bint al-Harith

  • Delete, does not meet WP:V as it has no sources. Also not encyclopedic. Formating and composition very bad, nothing really salvagable from the article. Jersey Devil 06:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 16:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. She is only important because she was a wife of Prophet Muhammad. Her status does not merit a family tree. Pepsidrinka 07:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Your going to have to be more explicit than that. As you can clearly see, I have added my opinion on that article, so I clearly know that that article exists. And since all of these pages are on your watchlist already, you shall see that I have expressed to keep on the Ali article. So I am clearly judging each article on its merits. Yes, she has prominent half-sisters, but that is because of who THEY married, not because they were notable on their own. Now, unless you can convince me that every wife of the Prophet deserves a family tree, I'm convinced that she does not deserve one. Pepsidrinka 19:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility:

While 'Wikipedia is not a genealogy database', genealogy of nobility and royalty is considered encyclopedic.

Muhammads wives are royalty. We call them "mother of the belivers", other call it "queens". A queen is a royalty, specialy when she also is a notable Sahaba and have other prominent family mebers. --Striver 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

List of family trees and Family_tree_of_the_Eighteenth_dynasty_of_Egypt --Striver 02:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The policy is known as "verifiability", not "verification." Just because something does not have sources does not mean that is cannot have sources. I am strongly in favor of adding sources everywhere, but unfortunately, if we started deleting articles solely because they are unsourced, then there might not be much left of Wikipedia. Ardric47 00:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, I am aware of the rather explicit conditions given in Wikipedia:Verifiability#The_policy, but I stand by my slippery slope argument and believe that a chance should be given for references to be added to articles. Ardric47 00:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The article sources are there, you just need to click the link. Many of this things are also so much common knoweldege that sourcing is not even necesary. If you know anything about that topic, that is. But sure, ill add a tag to the article--Striver 14:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Move to a new First Muslim Dynasty article for similar reasons I have given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Ali and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan. Mainly none of these individuals was a separate dynasty on their own but all were part of the first Muslim Dynasty centred on Muhammad and the first four Caliphs. Otherwise we will be here till Kingdom come, with family tree for every single person who was related to Muhammad or happened to live across the street from him. Striver, you need to accept that family trees link related individuals but are not normally focussed on a single notable individual when there are other notable individuals around them. Green Giant 01:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per Green Giant. A much better way for a reader to understand a genealogical tree than individual nodes for each person or random persons in the tree. Weregerbil 08:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Eagletalk 01:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persons related to Qur'anic verses

  • Delete completely unencyclopedic, fork. Jersey Devil 06:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 16:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment can you please elaborate on why this should stay?--Jersey Devil 21:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Besides Zayd ibn Harithah, Banu Hashim, and Abu Lahab, the rest is original research without any verifiable sources. Nontheless, there is nothing worth keeping anyhow. Pepsidrinka 07:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Listcruft. Feezo (Talk) 10:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • unsure, not worse than many other lists around here. Needs references though, if deleted, may be recreated with proper references and discussion. dab (ᛏ) 15:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Certainly more notable than the lists of pokemon and other Listcruft. See list of lists. This list in itself is higly important for Muslim, can you imaging being addresed by the Qur'an? Or being the reason for a verse coming? Now, there is fame. List needs better sourcing, that is a reason to slap a sign on it, not to afd it. see also bottom half of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion--Striver 15:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jersey Devil stop trying to make a Point -Irishpunktom\talk 16:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment can you please use Wikipedia policy to elaborate on why this should stay?--Jersey Devil 21:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per irishpunktom B.ellis 21:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep has to be given the benefit of any doubt due to circumstances of the nomination. Dlyons493 Talk 22:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge content—if properly verified—either to Qur'an or to the articles for the Suras in which the people are mentioned. WP:V is a must. Relative importance of being mentioned in the Qur'an might also be addressed. Esquizombi 00:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Zain 02:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family tree of Shaiba ibn Hashim

  • Delete Does not meet WP:V and is unencyclopedic. Jersey Devil 06:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 17:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility:

"While 'Wikipedia is not a genealogy database', genealogy of nobility and royalty is considered encyclopedic."

Just read Shaiba ibn Hashim, all of it, and then tell me he is not royalty or something comparable. --Striver 01:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

List of family trees and Family_tree_of_the_Eighteenth_dynasty_of_Egypt --Striver 02:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Move to a new First Muslim Dynasty article for similar reasons I have given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Ali and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan. Mainly none of these individuals was a separate dynasty on their own but all were part of the first Muslim Dynasty centred on Muhammad and the first four Caliphs. Striver, you need to accept that family trees link related individuals but are not normally focussed on a single notable individual when there are other notable individuals around them. The Eighteenth Dynasty is an excellent example of a precise and clear presentation of a family tree despite there being a lack of information on the dynasty. By the way in line with your comparison, as Family tree of Shaiba ibn Hashim is centred on Shaiba, would you also claim there is an individual known as Eighteenth Dynasty for the relevant Egyptian family tree? Green Giant 01:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per Green Giant and all the other Family Tree of Xyz AfDs. Weregerbil 08:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family tree of Abu Bakr

  • Delete not encyclopedic and the sources are questionable. Jersey Devil 06:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 17:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

--Striver 01:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/Articles_for_deletion#Jersey_Devil --Striver 01:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable familly tree Nigelthefish 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Abu Bakr. Details of someone's family tree are more informative to the reader in the context of the person, not as a web of satellite nanoarticles. Weregerbil 22:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Merge with American Idol.  (aeropagitica)  23:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Idol imitations

Unencyclopedic and superfluous. Delete or Merge with American Idol. Zpb52 06:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with American Idol. This doesn't need to be anything more than a section of the main article.  (aeropagitica)  07:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Agree as above. Besides, American Idol itself is a remake. --Ricaud 09:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with American Idol. This is not an article in its own right, I agree with Ricaud. --Terence Ong 10:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per merge bandwagon above Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. The article should really be about 'imitations' of Pop Idol anyway! -- Mithent 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above --Khoikhoi 06:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 19:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abd-Allah ibn Rawahah

  • Delete, one sentence article that does not meet WP:V (no sources) and doesn't really establish notablility. Jersey Devil 06:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 17:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Was a companion of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and fairly notable one at that. Pepsidrinka 07:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, individually notable. Gazpacho 10:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep pending AfD votes on the apostles of Christ. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable figure in Islamic history. Capitalistroadster 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Historic figure of Islam. --Falcon007 20:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy keep this is the sort of the example where User:JerseyDevil is thoroughly overstepping his authority. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge 'AI Clones' or some such in main article B.ellis 21:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep notable historical figure. Poor nomination. Dlyons493 Talk 22:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Zain 02:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Expand to make more notable then keep. Cool3 18:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Illinois Mennonite Conference. -Splashtalk 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lombard Mennonite Church

Delete Contested Prod. Local church with150 members--Porturology 06:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable place/community of worship.  (aeropagitica)  07:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn church. --Terence Ong 10:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The material can be merged into Illinois Mennonite Conference. JonHarder 14:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful to Illinois Mennonite Conference. Grandmasterka 19:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per above. Heh, I drive past this place daily. --InShaneee 21:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as the most relevant historical details relate to other churches in the area as well: "Mennonites have used this church as a launching point for starting mission churches in the city of Chicago" mennonot 16:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dean Obeidallah

  • Delete One line article with notablility of comedian not established. Jersey Devil 06:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 17:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 07:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 10:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep has performed around the country and recently won an award presented by the family of Bill Hicks and the notable NY Underground Comedy Festival - writeup at his site, writeup at NYUCF site - this article is part of a clear series of articles on Muslim comedy that is being created by User:Striver...nearly all of which have been nominated for deletion, regardless of notability. Guy is an up-and-comer, and already notable. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion--Striver 16:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep article has no inherent problems. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep needs expanding B.ellis 21:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Zain 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as advertising. --InShaneee 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barona Valley Ranch Resort and Casino

Delete Worst vanity/spam I have seen. Was deprodded by author user:baronavalleyranch--Porturology 06:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: as ugly advertisement. --Hetar 06:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertising, nothing else.  (aeropagitica)  07:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom, I wonder if these people ever think they are actually reaching customers through this spam?--Jersey Devil 09:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A7 - discourage this stuff Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not really a speedy candidate. non-notable corporation. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep and rename to Allah Made Me Funny (comedy tour). kingboyk 09:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allah Made Me Funny

  • Delete non-notable comedy tour. Jersey Devil 07:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 17:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename: Azhar is notable. Preacher Moss may be, though I've not heard of him. I'd suggest a rename to Allah Made Me Funny Comedy Tour to help differentiate that it's not vandalism or test cruft. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per Swatjester. Pepsidrinka 07:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per Swatjester. I have heard of this, despite knowing nothing about Muslim comedy. It's a new and growing field, and someone will be looking for information. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per Swatjester. JoshuaZ 14:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Renamed to Allah Made Me Funny (comedy tour). — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: is notable. joturner 15:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Ordinarily this defaults to keep, but I'll make the purely editorial (not administrative) decision to follow the recommendation of those proposing a move, since it appears to address the concerns of thos worried that we'll turn into a genealogical database. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family tree of Aisha

  • Delete non-encyclopedic, one source which hurts it meeting WP:V. Formatting and composition very bad. Jersey Devil 07:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 17:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Tang

  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.

Delete. Unverifiable Biography, possible hoax. Blue520 07:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unverifiable in English, non-notable in any case. Feezo (Talk) 10:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Feezo, nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as unverifiable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unimportant for encyclopedic reasons. If he is real, that's a hell of a resume. Er, that was tongue in cheek, of course. TKE 02:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as important to show the current leaders of China's Nuclear programs. As Chunhe Tang or Michael (English Name) Tang is currently the Head of Division for Nuclear Materials which can easily be verified User: Johnny Zhou 09:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as well-known chinese-american professor and an international expert and pioneer in nuclear science which can be easily verified by even the weakest of minds with the simple tool called googleUser: Mich0eL 10:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because Mr.Tang has done great work as a nuclear professor and educatior as evident by his countless awards User: FenderT206 10:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: The above is the user's only edit. --Fastfission 04:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep his great accomplishments in nuclear science research have inspired me to pursue a career in that field User: User: linkininki 10:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: This user's only edits are to this AFD. --Fastfission 04:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This man has accomplished much and should be worshiped for his amazing deeds to society. As a former resident of Beijing i have heard much of what he has done and have even indirectly benifited from it User: User: shanzy89 10:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Note this users comment has been restored afer being deleted by User:24.44.52.11.--Blue520 06:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: User:Shanzy89's only edits are to this AFD. --Fastfission 04:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The purpose of wikipedia is to provide as much information regarding everything as possible. The accomplishments of Mr. Tang in the field of nuclear science are amazing, and it is a part of wikipedia's obligation to preserve this great man's memory. User: User: hereticalsaint 10:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Note the above comment was posted by user:24.44.54.3--Blue520 07:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. -- Grev 04:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wow, someone put a lot of work into this hoax. GrandmasterkaImage:Blend Flag.jpgImpart wisdom 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm changing my vote to BJAODN. After reading this article closely, it seems that every single sentence is fundamentally flawed in some way; I've never seen anything like this! GrandmasterkaImage:Blend Flag.jpgImpart wisdom 06:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment to label something as a mere hoax without actually checking the factuality of the statement defeats the whole concept and purpose of wikipedia...if one may simply scroll down the page or enter a simple search engine..they can easily find that Professor Chunhe Tang is not what u call a "hoax" but rather..surprisingly on the other side of the spectrum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Zhou (talk • contribs)
There are a lot of outlandish claims and obvious problems with the article. They start at the third sentence: "He was almost immediately born as an orphan because of his parents's subsequent exposure and fall to the AIDs virus and the perpetual lacking of clean drinking water." There is exactly one confirmed case of AIDS from the 1950s, and it was stored plasma from someone in Sub-Saharan Africa in 1959. If he was born in 1959 this means his parents had to have both died from AIDS in 1959 or 1960, long before it was known to exist (the next single known case is in 1969.) This sentence is obviously false and I think much, if not all, of the rest of the article is too, and I won't waste my time checking every single claim in here. GrandmasterkaImage:Blend Flag.jpgImpart wisdom 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Before nominating this article I did attempt to check the factuality as it stood at that point in time and a found it to be unverifiable from English language sources. The article has been extensively modified since and in no way did the article contain any information about Professor Chunhe Tang when I nominated it for AfD.--Blue520 08:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Rather than deletion, maybe we should advocate a simple clean-up of grammer usage mistakes and Chunhe is the chinese name of Michael as mentioned before—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.48.66 (talk • contribs)
  • This user changed the implausable "AIDS" to malaria without verification. TKE 23:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and BJAODN" as i know that this is a joke vanity article. Mike Tang is actually a student at Amity High School, and he admits that he created this article as a joke, furthermore, he openly encourages his friends to "help keep Wikipedia from deleting his page"Draganta 17:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Obvious hoax. Link given ref's somebody in China doing research there by 1970. According to article born in 1959. So he got his quadruple degrees in, um, 11 years? A genius, yes. "... lecturning local farmers about the future power of nuclear energy during his five hour lunch break." Ahh, wait, surely he would have had to _study_ during those lunch breaks? "... the power of nuclear energy to end both world hungry and certain types of STDs." This is so obviously another creative writing exercise ... Shenme 17:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Michael is a popular name in America and Tang is the most popular name in China so to have a another person attend the same high school is not rare...but rather very likely. Thus the former reason does not make sense at all. To the subsequent comment, genuises do leave on this earth and are able to use the energy of nuclear power to light and operate equipment and facalites for scientists in the pursuit of curing STDs. A possible editting might be needed but not as drastic a step as a deletion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Zhou (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Ever since I stumbled upon this article, I have been captivated by this overwhelmingly intriguing biography and have done some extensive research thereafter. Micheal Tang does indeed exist and continues to be a major contributer in the nuclear sciences. In my sincerest opinion, it would only be rightous that such a remarkable individual be kept on Wikipedia for the general public to access. User: MexicanDude500 3:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That's interesting, because aside from claims from users with no contributions who just registered, I can't find an editor on here with any credibility that can verify this article. You got links? You've been researching you say. Give me books, give me bios. Don't give me crap that Second Lieutenant in the US Marine Corps has the power to discharge. TKE 23:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note at the time of posting there is/was no user User: MexicanDude500 the coment was posted by User:24.44.52.11.--Blue520 06:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is quite intresting indeed because some users on wikipedia might not remember that they too were once "newbs" on this site by nevertheless wish to contribute just the same. Just because u dont have a long list of contributions behind you does not mean you have not spent hours on hours reading articles from this site and gaining experince on how this site works. Instead of labeling articles as "crap", one might take the less agressive approach to suggest change and actually SCROLL DOWN THE PAGE to find the link. I m sry to inform u that this is not a page on Geroge Washington or Newton, but rather a page on a smaller figure of science and education. Though his contributions to science were just as important, there have not been countless sources written about Mr.Tang yet. Well initially, this article has a base. Though small, it is there and one should attempt to EDIT and HELP and PROVIDE SUPPORT and CHANGE rather than partake in a warpath with lists of accusations. A person of experince should rather, in my opinion, take the time to find the correct info and edit the actually article. Besides, experience should fear the vitality of youth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Zhou (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: This whole discussion is ridiculous. I can find eight sentences in the entire article (yes, I counted them individually) that do not have a serious problem with them (logic, an extremely improbable statement or otherwise.) Please stop wasting time (yours and ours.) GrandmasterkaImage:Blend Flag.jpgImpart wisdom 01:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentNews Flash: Improbable things happen....what one may think is improbable might be the norm for another —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Zhou (talk • contribs)
  • The Case is Closed. Look at User:Johnny Zhou's, the creator of the article, first version before he took off into this little land of bad, unfunny fiction [30]. TKE 22:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious hoax, as outlined above. --W.marsh 23:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable + implausible = probably a hoax. At the very least, definitely doesn't belong in Wikipedia if it unverifiable, which even the author claims. Fact that the only "keep" votes are obvious sockpuppets and/or friends really cements the case. --Fastfission 04:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Believe my children believe in the truth...have faith for all the extra info was from a personal phone interview with the professor himself. Anyone who wants his number can request it by email. —This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Zhou (talk • contribs) .
    • Note: I have struck out all of the clear duplicate votes. All of the other "keeps" are no doubt sockpuppets or meatpuppets as well, of course, but having not run a CheckUser I won't cross them out. --Fastfission 23:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • As a consolation to Mr. Zhou, this should get a sock puppet award. It's up there with Spanjo, but more creativity in the article space. TKE 03:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I will say this once: those ppl are not "sock puppets" ...they r inhabitants of my district that feel passionate about the professor. THEY ARE NOT SOCK PUPPETS ...OMG...HOW MANY TIMES MUST I REPEAT IT....ALL THE ppl voting for deletion ARE SOCK PUPPETS and MEATPUPPETS..ur accusations r just as baseless as this one...and one more thing...life is creative if u want it to be and mr.tang did do just that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Zhou (talk • contribs)
          • Yes. You, Mr. Mike Tang of Connecticut, are being very creative with your life. I was giving a compliment, backhanded as it was for your biography. However, any rational person can identify about a dozen historical discrepencies on a quick scan alone: first being that the real Professor Tang lives in China, as can be found on your reference to the real professor's website.. At this point, I'm only carrying on the discussion because you continue to insult the intelligence of every person on Earth with this posturing. TKE 18:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Thx you for ur compliment, I m honored. I've never said that the professor had any relation to me but rather that the chinese community of my area held him in high regards thus "creativity" is not the main point of the issue but rather that of mere "truth and facts." You may take out what u feel is ..as u deemed "historical discrepencies" for wikipedia is a land where "anyone can edit" even u! Johnny Zhou 04:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Zhou (talk • contribs)
              • It's fun, isn't it? Look, I've got the article archived so I can put in WP:BJAODN, so your fame shall live on- never fear! And please sign just by typing four tildes (~), it puts in the username and date. Thanks. TKE 03:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aralan

Hoax; does not exist. Maker of "religion" is on prod. Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 07:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - this is a fictional religion created for a fictional micronation which has had several posts on messageboards and free websites but most amusingly on Lav Wiki. I look forward with anticipation to the completion of the fictional holy scriptures :) Green Giant 02:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tufail ibn Abdullah

  • Delete, article has one source from geocities and thus does not meet WP:V. The writing is completely unclear, makes little sense. Jersey Devil 07:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 17:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no genealogy database. Gazpacho 10:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
How is this article related to a genealogy database? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment. If, because of the man's family tree wikilink, you think it's a genealogy database (which is irrelevant since this is the article, not the famliy tree), perhaps you'd like to take a look at all the fictional and non-fictional family trees in the List of family trees. - 67.9.142.225
  • Keep and expand. Companions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad are notable. Pepsidrinka 19:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep article has no inherent problems. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and expand: Companion of Prophet (pbuh) --Falcon007 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above Dlyons493 Talk 22:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, definitely notable, but article needs complete overhaul. - Eagletalk 14:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jersey Devils Crusade is a breach of policy --Irishpunktom\talk 21:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Zain 02:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mess with MSN Messenger

Delete, gets an Alexa.com traffic rank of 9192, might be worth a link from the MSN Messenger article but also might not.-gadfium 07:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable MSN Messenger fanbase website. --Terence Ong 09:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A link on the MSN Messenger article would be enough. Proto||type 09:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the main MSN Messenger article. Weatherman90 22:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Crap site. 05:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Highly popular MSN Site, Notable. -- bdude 08:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/redirect. W.marsh 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BBC Radio 1 Gonzo

I don't know why this BBC programme was nominated for deletion, but the nominator forgot step 2. No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 08:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete the show being discussed is Zane Lowe's radio show; its not called Gonzo, which is the name of his MTV show; the article is a poor stub at best; info about the show can fit into the Zane Lowe page anyway. Robdurbar 09:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move and Rewrite The MTV show Gonzo probably (just about) deserves a page, but this is poorly written and wrongly titled. DWaterson 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GOLD

Not notable parsing SDK ... aa:talk 07:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked around for mentions of this. I found the article via a random crawl. The only pages internally which link to this are self-referential. Looking through google finds some promotional links, and a large percentage of these are actually linked from one site. It does seem to be a non-notable SDK. My initial vote is to delete, of course. If somebody can come up with something showing that this is more notable, I'm open to it, naturally. ... aa:talk 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. as nom. ... aa:talk 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Non-notable as it may seem to you, it is a VERY notable parser - possibly the best, most flexible etc. I started this article when I tried to find out more about GOLD and was surprised to find no article about it. Just because people aren't contributing to the article doesn't mean it's non-notable. It is notable. Because it's not commercial it doesn't have a strong marketing arm to make people more aware of it I guess. To those of you who are voting on the AFD, please don't just say "delete" because you haven't heard of GOLD. Donama 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Can you verifiably explain the claim to fame per WP:SOFTWARE? Weregerbil 12:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if GOLD would pass the WP:SOFTWARE popularity contest, though I don't have access to information on all those points - the development team is not numbering into the thousands yet though - < 400 - so Wikipedia will have to wait a few years to have this article. In light of this Spirit Parser Framework should probably also be in AFD. Donama 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It's not helpful to say "well if this should be deleted so should so-and-so." If that's the case, list that for AfD. But it's not germaine to this discussion. ... aa:talk 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Allow me to rephrase: Spirit Parser Framework is considered notable enough to deserve and article. GOLD as an analogous topic therefore deserves one too. Donama 08:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 07:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have no evidence of course, but asserting that GOLD has at least 5000 users seems safe (gets referenced consistently up to page 10 in google) MadCow257 02:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If there's a dispute over its notability, it probably doesn't deserve to be here ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 03:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. I can't understand this: 9 words (counted is, an also) in article and at least few lines in AfD. --MaNeMeBasat 08:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Redirect to Gold to dissuade from recreation. Proto||type 13:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kuzaar 15:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE and redirect to Gold (disambiguation) 132.205.45.110 19:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, if the parser is notable, it should have its own article and be linked to from Gold (disambiguation). Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone can come up with a notable project using it. Haikupoet 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Confusingly, someone has changed this page without using the move tool so it's a disambig and the article in contention is at GOLD (parser). At the same time they've done a good job of adding content to the article about GOLD the parser. It might need to be relisted to really ensure a consensus on this one. I still say Keep. It's notable in my world, but may just be a well-kept secret in the parsing development community. Donama 08:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete asserting an arbitrary and unsourced amount of users does not make GOLD notable. All an unverifiable claim to notability accomplishes is an AfD discussion rather than a speedy. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qutaylah bint Abd al-Uzza

  • Delete, article has two sources from geocities and thus does not meet WP:V and is poorly written in general. Jersey Devil 07:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 17:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. She is somewhat infamous within Islam for her reluctance to accept Islam while her husband did so. Pepsidrinka 19:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a notable figure in Islam, but I urge Striver to better source his articles. Alot of his stuff ends up here on AfD and I think it could be avoided if he sourced it better and maybe pulled in some additional help copyediting his articles.--Isotope23 21:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep article seems fine. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Isotope23 Dlyons493 Talk 22:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/Articles_for_deletion#Jersey_Devil --Striver 00:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jersey Devils Crusade is a breach of policy.--Irishpunktom\talk 21:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Zain 02:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Elf-friend — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Byrd Civil War

POV Placeholder for Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief) Waya sahoni 07:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


delete - POV placeholder for Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief). Waya sahoni 07:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The_18_Cup_for_Poker

This article is about a group of friends weekly low-limit poker game, and as such I believe it's just a vanity page. Bjayakody

  • "[T]he greatest non-advertised poker tournament in the world"??? How can it be anything but vanity? My poker game takes that title! Delete.--KJPurscell 08:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • To begin with, I would hardly call the attendees of The 18 Cup a group of friends. Hardly anyone likes anyone. Secondly, if ours is a vanity page as you seem to think, I believe this is just another example of someone with power flaunting it. How could this be anything but a vanity page for KJPurscell to say that HIS game is the greatest in the world. To finish with, there are visitors to the page in question who do not participate in the tournament, though who want to know who in fact holds the Cup. It is an important contribution to the Wikipedia as a whole in the view of the dozens of people who view it to gain valuable information from it. Do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TexMex (talk • contribs)
    • User's only edits to Wikipedia are to this article and the AfD. --Kinu t/c 19:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • But mine are not and I think it should stay. Feel free to check out my contributions Tmothyh 03:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete classic vanity + nonsense as my poker tournament is actually the greatest MLA 13:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This article only exists to advertise the tournament, which is billed as the greatest non-advertised poker tournament in the world. Hence, either the article shouldn't exist, or the tournament shouldn't exist. It is logically impossible for both the tournament and the article to exist. Q.E.D. Delete. --Elkman - (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I am removing this vote and recusing myself from this discussion per vandalism to my user page. --Elkman - (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity. The only reason to keep would be as Exhibit A for expanding CSD. Turnstep 15:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patently non-notable, WP:VSCA. --Kinu t/c 19:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote to strong delete after vandalism to my user page and tagging of several legitimate articles I've created for AfD. Childish trolling by 125.255.16.172 isn't going to get me to change my already low opinion of this page, unless you count making it go even lower. --Kinu t/c 19:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
      • In fact I do count your falling opinion of our page as a change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.104.143 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 17 March 2006
        • "Your" page. Interesting. It seems that when your friend at 125.255.16.172 vandalized my user page, standards of "who owns what" (as well as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL) didn't apply. But when the deletion of "your" page is up for question, you have to protect "your" ownership. As a side note, I hear that My Space allows people to build their own sites for community participation, blogging, and other sort of things that might be helpful for a poker playing community. --Elkman - (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Keep perhaps change the part that claims to be the greatest poker event. There have been many views of this page and people may want to know who holds the cup. Tmothyh
  • Delete as NN vanity, "In fact I do count your falling opinion of our page as a change." - this page belongs to the wikipedia community, build your page on your own web site. Dan, the CowMan 23:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Obliterate Come and get me you vandals. I'm ready! --D-Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil user boxes 23:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per D-Day (and most other delete comments). Petros471 23:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This is vanity, and I expect it will go down in history with NUGGET and The Walking Game. I'm ready for you, vandals! (Not that I expect you would want to vandalize such a boring page.) ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 05:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am strongly offended that all people who support this page are being tagged as vandals. I believe I have made my views known in a polite manner and have kept to topic. I have also had the courtesy to add my name to each and every post. I also think that some of the comments supporting deletion have been smug and demeaning to the tournament Tmothyh 06:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Read the edits to my user page and then try to tell me that wasn't vandalism. Or, read what someone tagged on Kinu's page and tell me that wasn't vandalism either. When that sort of thing happens -- especially to my own user page and in such personal terms -- I stop assuming good faith. And given that supporters of this article want to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, it's no surprise that others after me are suspecting further vandalism. --Elkman - (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I have just read the things you point to and I think they are deplorable. What I have said (and I believe you have misread)is that people have accused all contributors and supporters of this page of being vandals. Clearly neither Tex Mex or myself are, we have kept things civil and tried to keep within the wiki guidelines throughout this ordeal. This whole process is most disappointing and does not reflect well on many people who have come in provocitably asking for the page to be "nuked". If you must vote to delete this humble page then do so with the same sense of civility that Tex Mex and Myself have defended our newbie page. But I guess that Wiki policy on not biting the newbies doesn't apply when there is a wave of hysteria. Tmothyh 21:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Maybe you should have read your first article. There is a prominent link to it when you are creating a page. Also, I don't consider this a wave of hysteria, not by a long shot. Does it look like we're biting you? If it does, we apologize. A good idea is not to participate in Wikipedia's affairs (basically, Wikipedia namespace) until you have 50-100 edits. By this time, you have a good feel for the project, and you usually don't get caught up in things like this. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 17:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am in support of my colleague here. The fact that it has already been mentioned that a wide variety of people do in fact view this page as a source of information seems to be the reason why a few vandals have come out of the works. And the fact that because this has garnered some heat over the recent days is hardly reason enough to have a load of people support the deletion of this fine article because a friend was vandalised, or there is controversy associated with the entry. There is no reason to suggest a strong delete because you were not vandalised. All I see this page being used for is personal enjoyment of people challenging vandals to attack them, inciting a "Wiki-war" in the hopes that, and I believe this to be true, someone tracks the people down and makes troubles for them. This nomination for deletion is nothing more than another opportunity for a person with some power or nothing to do to nit-pick and start a fight with people who don't know better. Rather than challenging the reckless minority and making our simple article look bad and worthy of deleting, take the high road, as two of us have done and either help in fine-tuning of the article, or giving advice, as the respectable Elkman did (and I thank you for your advice pertaining to My Space, as it seems almost certain that our poor article will be deleted now), or sit back and don't meddle in problems that don't concern you. If you believe the article should be deleted, fine, leave your vote and reason, but do not turn this into a barbaric flame war. Tex Mex 05:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, if anyone is knowledgeable in the My Space processes, please, we request your help to transfer our information over to a new page and set it up so that it can act as a 'community-page' Tex Mex 05:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You may think that. Personally, I don't have anything against the article, it just isn't notable enough. Really, you should put it on My Space or Everything2 (in my opinion, Everything2 would be more appropriate). I don't think anybody is trying to turn this into a flame war, either. Remember, assume good faith. Also, you should tell your friends who also support this article to stop vandalizing user pages. Sorry if this is stereotyping all supporters of this page as vandals, but most of them are. This just happens too much in debates like this. We are making this article look worthy of deleting, because it is. Not everything belongs on Wikipedia, and this clearly falls under WP:VANITY. If you read this policy with an open mind, I think you will agree. On a final note, I don't think anybody reads this page for "information". I think it's interesting, but, like I said, better served on Everything2. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 06:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obliterate, and then nuke it. Vandalism as an answer to an AfD on a non-notable third-rate poker tournament is not acceptable. —Nightstallion (?) 10:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have indeed read the vanity guidelines, and this is where the controversy, for myself, begins. For example, I know it's not compulsory, but for me, in my own shoes, to "assume good faith", I would be much more ready to do this if, for example, this had happened: "Suggestion: before beginning any deletion procedures on a vanity article, it is sometimes found that by simply politely informing the creator of the article that this appears to be a vanity article, and by pointing him or her to this page first, that the author him or her self will sometimes easily agree to the deletion him or herself, thus saving much waste of time and energy on the parts of all concerned parties." Also, there have not been many edits because the information contained within the page will only change per the winner each week. The article is not there to further the 'popularity' or 'fame' of The 18 Cup, it merely exists to inform those that want to know about the past week's winner and current champion. Because this is an non-advertised Tournament, please do not rule this a vanity article because two of the competitors are writing it, as, on the vanity guidelines, this is not reason enough because the "subjects" are writing the article. There have been no vanity edits, such as links that promote the event or the individuals, no photographic material, and the article is quite clear and straight forward. We have salient and verifiable facts in here, and, because the tournament is not advertised, there are, of course, only a few select places where these facts can be corroborated, such as participant's blogs. Finally, I see no real information that should be on a user page that cannot co-exist with this article. My vote, do not delete because some people don't know how to contain themselves. Tex Mex 09:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    If it doesn't violate WP:VANITY, it violates WP:NOTABILITY. I stand by my decision. —Nightstallion (?) 11:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    People may want to know about it, but they won't want to know it on an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are for things like the Boston Molasses Disaster. If they want to know about the past week's winner, they should do it somewhere else.If it was advertised, and a large number of people knew about it, then maybe it would be acceptable. What do you mean by "some people don't know how to contain themselves"? You have just said yourself that the participants have blogs. Put this article there! ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 17:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Cnwb 04:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem we have here is that eight of the votes are due to vanity or other reasons other than notability, such as the persons who are voting just to incite vandals. If these people feel the need to continue for a vote which has less backing of all the reasons, then, of course, they are free to. But, in reference to these people that feel the need to vote for a delete on NN, as per Wikipedia "curtesy rules" as I have read them, please explain your vote for us. As the Notability page says, not all notable subjects are famous or important. It is well understood by us that this article is not of a 100% neutral point of view, however, as ςפקSFGiants has put forward, to really have a complete grasp of the method and nature of a Wikipedia Article, an author would need 50-100 edits and the like. We don't have that amount of edits, nor did we when we started the aricle, however, we are working on trying to get our heads around this, and will continue to in the future, in the hopes to improve this article, as well as the greater Wikipedia. Also, this article doesn't fit under any of the eight entries under the "What Wikipedia is not" entry: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", nor does it have anything to do with the future, or predictions. Even the Notablity article says that the definition of notability is subject to some conjecture, and that some editors may instead mean: original research, which this is clearly not, unverifiable, which this is, or a vanity page, which some people are now realising it is not this kind either. The article, by the Wikipedian definition of importance, is relevent to a reasonable number of people as well. Lack-of assumption seems to be key to the notability of an article, do not assume that something isn't notable because you havn't heard of it. There are people within our community that have heard of this tournament, and a substainial amount of these people read this article for the information it contains, such as winners, any new participants, etc. Also, I am not sure about this specifically, but if the first vote is how this article was put up for nomination for deletion, I believe that this nomination should be taken down because of the lack-of-backing for a nomination for vanity, as it is quite clear this is not a vanity article. I also raise the question as to how this page was "discovered", was it searched for, in which case it is somewhat notable, or was it a chance for someone else to just raise thier level of "activity" on thier own user page, and to appear more like an editor. Finally, please, tell us why this article should be taken down on terms of notability, not for one or two, but for the case of all the votes, so that you can pay us the curtesy and help us keep non-notable articles off this project. Tex Mex 04:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • By way of backing up my non-notable vote, as per the request by Tex Mex - the article does not establish why this poker tournament is notable. None of the players are notable, the venue isn't listed, the pot is a mere $2 per player, it has only been running since last year, and it does not receive media attention. It therefore appears to me to be a non-notable subject. Cnwb 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Ordinarily this defaults to keep, but I'll make the purely editorial (not administrative) decision to follow the recommendation of those proposing a move, since it appears to address the concerns of thos worried that we'll turn into a genealogical database. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family tree of Zubayr ibn al-Awwam

  • Delete No sources thus does not meet WP:V, unencyclopedic, and very poorly written. Possible speedy. Jersey Devil 07:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 17:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, so do you think this page doesn't deserve to be on articles for deletion?--Jersey Devil 21:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consenusus. Mailer Diablo 17:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zayd ibn Umar

  • Delete article definately does not establish notability. The entire article is "father of xxxx". Jersey Devil 08:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 17:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, interesting, you think that this page should stay on Wikipedia. Can you please elaborate on why this page deserves to stay?--Jersey Devil 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no genealogy database. Gazpacho 10:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep to this and all related articles, per my statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sa'id ibn Zayd. Can't we join this whole group into one single discussion? Lukas (T.|@) 17:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ancestors and descendents of notable people do not themselves have any notability. Fails WP:BIO. Could simply be mentioned in the article of his more notable offspring.--Isotope23 21:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete nn. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and recreate when substantive information can be added. Pepsidrinka 21:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, page is updated, ill add more as soon as i find it. --Striver 04:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jersey Devils Crusade is a breach of policy --Irishpunktom\talk 21:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Zain 02:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revolutionary Communist League Internationalist

Delete This is an extremely minor subject. It is unlikely to be expanded beyond its current state as a minute stub. It has not been significantly edited since its creation in August 2004. --metzerly 08:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, also no sources so violates WP:V.--Jersey Devil 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now contextualized and references. --Soman 13:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Still falls very, very short of being notable. Every tiny New Haven split from another group shouldn't get its own article. What did this group do that makes it notable? Your three sources give no more than 1-2 sentences to the RCL(I). --metzerly 15:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment some of the material of this article, i.e. the original stub remains unsources. One such thing is that it would have been limited to New Haven. --Soman 08:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless more notability is shown. Currently it sounds as mere re-enactment of People's Front of Judea versus Judean People's Front split. Pavel Vozenilek 18:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Factual, neutral, and sourced. What more do you want? —Sesel 01:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Notability. I'm not against small groups getting noted, but they need to at least have done something. This one seems to have done nothing but float around. Not even the sources cited give this group the time of day. --metzerly 02:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment a general problem with groups that ceased to existed prior to www is that material on the are often scarce. Most probably virtually all material mentioning this group would not exist on www. --Soman 08:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sa'id ibn Zayd

  • Delete, does not establish notability. Simply "sister of Umar". Jersey Devil 08:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 17:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Captain Jackson 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, the main page of the only source used doesn't even work. [31].--Jersey Devil 08:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Feezo (Talk) 08:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no genealogy database. Gazpacho 10:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if cleaned up and context clarified. The families of the early companions of the prophet Mohammed are potentially notable. Lukas (T.|@) 17:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and Expand, One the most important companions [32] --Falcon007 21:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep article can and should be expanded. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because important. --James 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge with Said ibn Zayd. Pepsidrinka 21:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge as per Pepsidrinka Dlyons493 Talk 22:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per article is updated --Striver 04:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jersey Devils Crusade is a breach of policy. " Simply "sister of Umar"" - Simply a member of one of the most important families in world history.. what a ridiculous reason to out up an AFD. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Zain 02:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mughira ibn Abd Ilah

  • Delete Article does not meet WP:V as it only has one source from geocities. Jersey Devil 08:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 17:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no context and Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Gazpacho 10:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on the condition that context and references are added that clearly demonstrate the notability of this person (in the context of the early companions of the prophet Mohammed, I suppose?) Lukas (T.|@) 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep no inherent problems. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Walid ibn al-Mughira. Again, this another article that is in desparate need of WP:V sourcing and additional information to establish context to someone unfamiliar with the topic. Right now I don't see any reason for a standalone article per WP:BIO, but I could be convinced otherwise if some context were added.--Isotope23 21:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Leader of one of the main tribes of 7th century Arabia. Seems fairly notable. Pepsidrinka 21:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep benefit of doubt Dlyons493 Talk 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep leader of Quraish, see also [[33]].--Striver 00:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep needs help, but is worth keeping. joturner 00:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jersey Devils Crusade is a breach of policy --Irishpunktom\talk 21:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Zain 02:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leninist-Trotskyist Tendency

Delete Non-wikified article with no sources (thus violating WP:V) and factual errors. It has not been updated since November 2005. Content fork of United Secretariat of the Fourth International. --metzerly 08:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Needs a lot of work from someone knowledgeable about these things, but I think the subject is suitable for WP. --Ricaud 18:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Ditto Ricaud. Sounds like it could be interesting if improved. --David.Mestel 18:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 17:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michel Aoun - A Lebanese Perspective

  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}}

Apparently intended to be a POV fork of Michel Aoun, which is currently protected due to disputes. PROD contested by author. Sandstein 08:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, most or all of the material covered in Michel Aoun.Bjones 14:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bjones. No Guru 16:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, legitimate concerns should be taken to the Michel Aoun talk page and consensus reached there. POV forks are not a solution.--Isotope23 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE This article is the Lebanese version, whereas the protected article represents the Syrian perspective --Lebanese Historian 07:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • APPEND THIS ARTICLE AT THE END OF THE PROTECTED SYRIAN PERSPECTIVE This article is the Lebanese version, whereas the protected article represents the Syrian perspective --Lebanese Historian 07:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A transparent POV fork after having been prevented from POV-ing the original article.--AladdinSE 21:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lebanese Historian, please read the talk page. CG 08:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Keep this article and remove the protected version developed by AladdinSE because it is purely biased, inaccurate and does not comply by Wikipedia's standards. Fares_S 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP THE ARTICLE. This version should become the original MICHEL AOUN article. accurate 03:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to Lebanese Historian, Fares_S and accurate: I have no idea about the issues here, but please read WP:POVFORK. Content disputes must be settled in the main article. Creating your own preferred version is not allowed. Sandstein 06:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely KEEP. This article is by far more objective and accurate than the version that has been published and blocked. NaylaM 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to Sandstein: Dear Sandstein, Thanks for your concern. I appreciate your initiative to settle this issue in a fair manner that abides by Wikipedia's regulations.
In order to give you a first flavor about the issues at stake, I would like to refer you to the following website that shows the result of a poll undertaken during the coming week and targeting around 100,000 Lebanese citizens (Sample representing 3% of the WHOLE LEBANESE POPULATION).
PLEASE CHECK THIS WEBSITE:
http://lebanonvoting.com/index.php?vote=4
Then, I would suggest that you read the biased article developped by AladdinSE that totally contradicts the Lebanese opinion reflected by this poll, and many other polls that reflect the opinion of the majority of the Lebanese people.
It is not acceptable to delete the Lebanese version and to retain and protect the Syrian NEGATIVE AND BIASED version developed by AladdinSE.
I would propose that you APPEND this article along with the Syrian version of AladdinSE, as a starting point for discussion. We could afterwards discuss every detail, in order to reach some common understanding, and develop TOGETHER a unified version characterized by historical objectivity.
Thanks for your cooperation and understanding,
Fares_S
Hello, Fares_S. It may well be that the present version of Michel Aoun does not reflect the view of a majority of Lebanese. However, this is not important here.
First, Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, not from a Lebanese (or Syrian, or Swiss, or American...) point of view. So what all of you should do is work on a version of the article Michel Aoun that fairly presents all points of view, for example like "Lebanese think that he did X, while Syrians think that he did Y".
Second, this debate is not about the content of the article Michel Aoun. It is about whether the article Michel Aoun - A Lebanese Perspective should be kept. Wikipedia policy is clear here: It is a POV Fork and must be deleted for this alone. It does not matter if it is the best thing ever written on Wikipedia. Take what's good about it and use it to make Michel Aoun better.
Best regards, Sandstein 05:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Great article!! Very objective. The best I've ever read about this topic. Recommend to keep!! TammamS 12:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC) -- This user has two edits in total. Sandstein 05:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP. We should keep this great article GC 12:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC) -- This signature has been forged by User:128.103.108.239. Sandstein 05:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this POV fork and move important information as per Isotope23. Green Giant 02:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I urge administrators to take action against blatant Sock puppetry used to push bias and POVs in Lebanese-relatred articles as well as to influence this vote.--AladdinSE 00:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep - nomination effectively withdrawn. Proto||type 09:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ambassadors to the United Nations

Wonderful, useful, nicely formatted.... and unmaintainable. Wikipedia is not an almanac. I'm racking my brain for some place where this nice list could be kept... any ideas? If not, it would have to go, would it not? It will slowly rot... Herostratus 08:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. From my talk page: I could redirect Sixtieth session of the United Nations General Assembly, the current session, to the list, archive it when the 60th session is over, and denote changes in ambassadors during that session if possible.
We have articles on the membership of the U.S. House of Representatives with 435 members and manage to keep articles on every member, as well as an accurate list of every member, so I do not see how keeping track of an international body of less than 200 people should be more difficult. I came to Wikipedia looking for this list, and it wasn't there, so several months later I decided to spend a few hours tonight coding it myself.
Even then, the United Nations clearly updates the list of ambassadors on their own periodically, and, with each update, marks the latest changes in membership. Daniel Bush 08:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Daniel, you make good points and I find them pretty compelling. I guess my concern is, what happens down the road when you go on to other stuff or - God forbid - are struck by a comet or something. However, since UN Ambassadorships are pretty dang notable, the idea that other people would likely step in and keep the list updated is a reasonable one, although one I'm not sure I find totally convincing. You bring up another issue,though, when you speak of linking.... Here is what Wikipedia has done for the list of 500 richest humans. Every year Forbes Magazine publishes a new one, so we have articles on (something all the lines of) "500 richest people (2004)", "500 richest people (2005)", etc (obviously each article is similar but not identical). I wonder if perhaps the article should not be rename'd to List of ambassadors to the United Nations (sixtieth session? Since Wikipedia is not paper there is no reason not have a list for each session? Herostratus 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Absolutely not. One list is sufficient. Note that out of the 200 or so people on it, in the last year only 17 have been replaced. The year before, 36. That is not an unmaintainable figure. Once I've got every ambassador stubbed (already done 20 or so today), as they are replaced, it is not difficult to create a new category, called 'Category:Former ambassadors to the United Nations', and populate that. There's probably a ton of people who could akready go in that category. Proto||type 17:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, I believe you. (Hmmmm but then the historical data is lost. Persons in future years, perhaps studying debates, votes, and national interactions at the Sixtieth (etc.) sessions and wishing to know the exact persons involved will be stymied.... dunno if that matters.) Herostratus 08:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per nom. Alphax τεχ 08:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If all these guys had article (they really should) I'd say categorise, but as they don't, I'll vote keep. This is useful and notable information. And maybe I'll start stubbing all these redlinks. Proto||type 09:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, good list, useful. Such lists are not listcruft and are good information. Ambassadors to the UN are notable, and I would appericiate if one could create a category for this. --Terence Ong 11:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    Ask and ye shall recieve: Category:Ambassadors to the United Nations. All I have to do now is stub 230-some red links ... feel free to help ;) Proto||type 13:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as relevant as a list of US Senators or Representatives, in fact probably more relevant since it is an international body. Ben W Bell 11:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Relevant, notable ... and I can't see why this is unmaintainable. There haven't been that many ambassadors. 23skidoo 14:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The claim that it is unmaintainable is absurd. Bhoeble 17:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per bhoeble. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Verifiable. Slowmover 22:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As nominator, impressed by energy and cogency of arguments, thus voting Keep. Herostratus 08:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 17:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunni view of the Sahaba

  • Delete The article as is, is a fork article. Many of the parts that make up this article are already from various other articles. Jersey Devil 08:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand the objection to having this as a separate article, unless there is another article giving a comprehensive treatment. See also Article spinouts. Lambiam 12:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 17:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 17:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shia view of the Sahaba

  • Delete Like the Sunni version this is also a fork article with some content which could be put into other articles. One source and a long list. Jersey Devil 08:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand the objection to having this as a separate article, unless there is another article giving a comprehensive treatment. While I agree the article is not in good shape, that is a content issue which is not ground for deletion. See also Article spinouts. Lambiam 12:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 17:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divei Ilai

Delete no assertion of notability. the Talmud is 1000's of pages long. this is one incredibly tiny piece. It's not clear why the author has chosen it for inclusion into wikipedia. I attempted to contact the author for an explanation of significance, but got no answer. Disclosure: I am very familiar with the Talmud and therefore my opinion is well-informed. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 12:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and merge with Giant Lion, which should be deleted. JRP 02:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Umm... what? Merge with a page that should be deleted? Eh? Stifle 00:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't seem to warrant its own page. Stifle 00:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 08:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Giant Lion, which was co-nominated with this article, was deleted by AfD. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 14:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Too tiny a tidbit to be relevant to anyone. --InShaneee 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ecotherapy

Vanity advertisement for original research. The UK press did not "describe" the subject; it quoted the author's description.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 09:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

For Clarity, the term 'A New kind of Environmentalism' was used by the author of the article 'The Force of nature' Hugh Wilson for The Independent newspaper on 29.08.05. to describe the work of some Ecotherapists - myself included & named. Graham Game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.2 (talk • contribs)

This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 06:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising and verging nonsense. Robin Johnson 13:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Spearhead 22:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, blatant ad and vanity per nom. Kuru talk 05:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Girlsoutwest.com

Porn site ad, possibly a search optimization attempt. No indication of significance.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 09:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad for a porn site.--Jersey Devil 09:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad for a porn site.Vizjim 09:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Philip Stevens 09:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Alexa ranking > 78000. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: this is a contested {{prod}}. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable website, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  10:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, porn site advertisement. JIP | Talk 10:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn website, porn site advertisment. --Terence Ong 10:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Porn ad. — Indi [ talk ] 11:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad for porn site with a poor Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn advert. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Weatherman90 22:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —LrdChaos 02:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam Nigelthefish 17:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 18:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USS Odyssey

Delete The last time this was put up for deletion there was no consensus. I feel it deserves another nomination. It is clearly not notable enough as the ship in question only appeared very briefly in one episode. Philip Stevens 09:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Dominion War. Gazpacho 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Hera1187 10:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see a need to mention of a nn ship of a serial. --Terence Ong 10:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep unless there's a general article on minor Trek-universe ships, in which case merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This information would be better off at Memory Alpha, where more users are likely to want to research minor Starfleet ships-of-the-line than are likely to at WP.  (aeropagitica)  12:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Disambig. Turn into a short disambig page pointing to Daedalus-class battlecruiser#Odyssey and Dominion War, which also allows for any future shows using "USS Odyssey" Turnstep 15:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as its already survived one attempt to delete it. Jcuk 16:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No reason not to be comprehensive. Bhoeble 17:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable, could perhaps be merged/redirected I guess, but that can be discussed on the talk page(s). --W.marsh 18:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep we already have many short articles on other Star Trek ships, such as USS Galaxy, USS Venture (Star Trek), I'm sure there are many more. -Dawson 20:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as we have other similar articles, and this article is verifiable. Carioca 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per W.marsh. BryanG 02:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Disambig per Turnstep. JoshuaZ 19:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and disambig 132.205.45.110 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep While a minor ship in the grand scheme of things, it's notable in that it is another Galaxy class starship, a contemporaneous flagship type that was destroyed in prelude to ongoing hostilities with the Dominion. Alternatively, merge into a dedicated article (viz. Galaxy class starship) or about minor/other Federation starships (List of Starfleet ship classes). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable at all. This could easily be handled either on Galaxy class starship#Canon or the applicable episode page. Annorax 12:34, 21 March 2003 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midnightbox.com

Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. Contributor who removed the prod template replaced the content with nothing but a hyperlink. I reverted to a version with some content. RobertG ♬ talk 09:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable, advert. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Blatant advertisement. Feezo (Talk) 10:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 15:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. Another one of my contested prods. Grandmasterka 18:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Alexa ranking of 21,853 [34]. I don't think that would be enough to save the article from deletion though as it is currenly purely an ad.--Jersey Devil 22:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Article now redirects to MidnightBox.com, Inc., which has an AfD of its own. The latter article has a bit more content than Midnightbox.com used to have. IMO it is still clearly an advert, but it is not completely self-evident whether votes to delete Midnightbox.com should also apply to MidnightBox.com, Inc. too. Just for the record, delete as nn & ad togeter with target of redirection. Henning Makholm 13:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete obvious spam. Website owners used sockpuppets and meatpuppets to create this article by offering rewards on their forum for this entry and are now doing the same to try to save this article. This entry is a blatant attempt to self promote another of their wesites and should be deleted. See WP:VSCA 10:34, 17 March 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. Mailer Diablo 01:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marztek

Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn website (no Alexa ranking, doesn't Google). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as I'm the original prod-er. I stand by my reason to delete it per Alexa rankings. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 18:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classic Tales

Consested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 09:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable. No Alexa ranking for external link. Can someone suggest a sensible redirect? Or perhaps someone might volunteer to convert it to a disambig page? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed external link, does this make it acceptable? People will already know how to access the website. —This unsigned comment was added by Kkrogstad (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Updated

  • Removed links to website and other web content. Entry now just includes the literature. Should now be acceptable per WP:WEB. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.118.134.37 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete as per RobertG. Removal of weblinks only makes articles more unacceptable. Green Giant 02:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warnerblade

Turkish article, has been listed on the translation desk for more than two weeks, and has not been translated. The original author returned once to add a "translation in progress" note, but that was also almost two weeks ago, and nothing has happened since. Delete unless translated while on AfD Kusma (討論) 10:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment This is apparently for Warnerblade. kotepho 10:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That is because the "easy" instructions on Template:afd don't quite work. I fixed the heading. Kusma (討論) 11:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-English articles get their two weeks of grace before we dispatch them to the bit bucket. Time's up on this one. Denni ☯ 01:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maze of Thought

Delete A short film seen by 20 people. The official web site is on tripod. Prod removed without comment--Porturology 10:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn and vanity.--Jersey Devil 11:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn and vanity Maustrauser 11:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a movie, what do you expect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poloyoe (talk • contribs)
    • Not much, just encyclopedic value, verifiability, and notability. --Kinu t/c 21:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 12:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Director Orlando Eastwood is not on IMDB either. Editor keeps on re-adding articles about himself and his work. Elf-friend 12:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete an entry on the IMDB is, in my opinion, the bare minimum inclusion criteria for films and filmmakers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, i.e. functionally unverifiable from reliable sources - and vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 13:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. Turnstep 14:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, vanity, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 15:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all delete votes above. --Kinu t/c 19:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, vanity. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Melchoir 07:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are lots of other films listed on here, why don't you delete them then ? —This unsigned comment was added by OrlandoMurdockEastwood (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 March 2006.
    • If you see another article on a film that was seen by 20 people and never released, please point it out. Seriously. Melchoir 10:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey, I said that its going to get an internet release in September, didn't I? -Orlando Eastwood
      • Okay, then try again in September. For now, the Wikipedia article will be deleted, and you can focus on the actual product. Melchoir 12:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doctrine Of Love

The article consists of some poem and an unspecific explanation, with no indication that it was notable, and even if it was, cutting and pasting its text isn't encyclopedic. The supposed author's name gets 4 hits on google, with no indication that it's the same person, it's most likely something made up by the author of this article. - Bobet 11:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. The article at the moment is unencyclopaedic and I doubt that there would be anything left if it was cleaned up.--Blue520 11:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it has a book-stub template on it, so I guess it's supposed to be about some book, but neither the title nor author show up on Amazon or Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic, nn book. Amazon almost tells you everything for European/American published books. --Terence Ong 16:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 04:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misconceptions about the Shi'a

  • Delete or Merge this article already had an afd on Feb. 9 05 with the result to merge into the Shi'a Islam article. The closing administrator of the afd put "I have no idea how to do this, so I'll just slap some templates on the article" just to put a merge tag and wait for someone who knows how to merge articles to merge it into Shi'a Islam (See here for previous Afd). Some contributors to the article however keep on consistantly taking out these merge tags however to try and save the article (See the Page history). So, since the revert war has been going on for some time now, I figured I'd just put up another afd in the article because just leaving the merge tag would result in the tag being taken off. With regards to why this article should be deleted, it is essentially a fork article which is enough to warrant deletion and in addition is not very well written. I would however, naturally settle for what the administrator decided in the last afd to merge this article into Shi'a Islam. Jersey Devil 11:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, blatant POV essay with POV title, no hope of making this NPOV or encyclopedic. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete not really encyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete per User:Jersey Devil. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per previous AfD. If nobody knows how to do that (I certainly don't) then just leave it. Dlyons493 Talk 23:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep this is far to much text for the main Shi'a article, the Shi'a article is about what Shi'a is, not about what shi'a is not. The missconseptions are real and need to be explained per Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS. The misconceptions about HIV and AIDS article is better, and this one can be also. But not being perfect is not a reason to delete it, its a reason to improve it. Again, the Shi'a article is to large as it is, and its not about what Shi'a is not, in the same way that Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS should not be merged into HIV. --Striver 23:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, i invite people to actualy do a count of the votes on the previous afd, in no way was there any concensus for merge that time. --Striver 23:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless this can be de-POVed. Good luck! BTW, seems to be well-sourced. Obviously Striver is able to cite sources when he wants - there's no excuse for future articles to be unsourced. Denni ☯ 01:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I didnt creat this. I just touched it. I mean, i touched its talk page. --Striver 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This is the third time we are voting on this page without the people proposing for its deletion actually contributing to anything in the article, or even discussing anything about the article. Nor are they involved in the Shia article. In the previous AfDs, there was no consensus to merge or delete. This vote is therefore an attempt to yet again delete a Shia article for partisan POV reasons. And that, is pretty sad.--Zereshk 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep.--Zereshk 06:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork. Note to Striver - AfD is not a vote. Proto||type 12:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jersey Devils Crusade is a breach of policy.--Irishpunktom\talk 21:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Kirbytime 00:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Zain 02:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Shabih
  • Keep. Did we not vote on this 2 weeks ago?--Nightryder84 05:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently biased soapbox essay, says it right in the title. Does WP:NPOV still apply? "My religion is great, I'll now explain how others who disagree are all wrong." If there are encyclopedic facts merge those to a non-partisan page. Weregerbil 12:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Irishpunktom. And t looks well-sourced to me. SouthernComfort 02:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Ian Ballantyne

Delete contested prod without reason. I can not find independent verification of this CV. The book he claims to have translated is >400,000 on Amazon and there is no accreditation to him. (I would be surprised if an Indian academic required an English translator). Even if verification could be produced I think he falls below the notability level--Porturology 11:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Unpublished author and non-notable translator. No Guru 16:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Porturology. No mention outside wikipedia and mirrors. The redirect page David Ballantyne should also be deleted and the listing of David Ian Ballantyne should be removed from the Ballantyne article. Green Giant 02:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JIP | Talk 11:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yarrum

Nonsense Ben W Bell 11:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Taged as a Speedy--Porturology 11:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helgason Asgeir

  • Delete Contested prod without reason. pubmed.gov gives him 33 citations as a co-author this means his body of work is nothing very much--Porturology 11:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Helgason has over 40 peer reviwed articles published. Some listed as Helgason AR and some as Helgason A. He is first or last (correspondin) author of the majority of these papers. Additional workes include clinical papers and book chapters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald fair hair (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Thats how many I have and I am a country clinician. It is not enough to be a notable medical scientist--Porturology 11:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, state your name so that people will bw able to compare your works with Helgason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald fair hair (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I have not been put up as a candidate for inclusion in an on-line encyclopedia (not a list of academics mind you, but an encyclopedia). I would be as embarrassed as your boss apparently is, if one of my registrars made an entry on my behalf.
However from my web-name, you can tell that I am a urologist and as a 'radical prostate cynic' I have read a lot of literature on cancer of the prostate and the complications of its treatment. At present your article does not say Helgason's age, qualifications, area of interest (e.g public health, surgery or social work), rank or position at the Karolinska.
All we have established is that he has about 40 citations and 33 of these are listed at pubmed. Reviewing these he is the first or last author of 14 and about 10 are in international, first rate journals.This compares with Walsh, Pat (I bet this comes out red) who has over 500 citations mostly in J Urol.
Interestingly the most important articles in the treatment of prostate cancer in the last 5 years have come from Sweden e.g.(N Engl J Med. 2005 May 12;352(19):1977-84).These articles have multiple authors but Helgason is not one of them.
In short I believe I am in a position to know who the major workers in Prostate cancer are and Helgason is not one of them.
By the way, Helgason's papers are usually co-authored by 5 or 6 - is it your intention to write vanity pieces about all of them? --Porturology 04:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not appear to be more noteworthy than than the average university professor (see WP:BIO). Wikipedia is not PubMed. Additional evidence of notariety outside PubMed might change my mind, such as if he has been quoted (more than once) in newspaper stories as an expert about his field. Institutions are often anxious to promote their research for fundraising purposes or to raise their standing in terms of recruiting students and faculty, and issue press releases that may or may not be picked up by the local press. I searched the website of the Karolinska Institutet (English version) and did not find any press releases about his work. Note that if the article is kept it needs to be moved to Asgeir Helgason. Backwards talking wikipedia is not. Also may be a violation of WP:Vanity. Note that the article has 3 editors whose only edits have been to this article, its 3 redirect pages, or adding links to articles in his field of research. Thatcher131 12:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Helgason has been widely quoted in the national Swedish press (newspapers DN, Afronbladet, SvD, and TV4, Tv3, SVT) and in Icelandic press (Mbl, National TV and Stod2), as well as in several other media (e.g. The European). These media have accessed Helgasons papers without the help of the Karolinska Institutet.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.63.101 (talk • contribs) --this is an IP address at Karolinska University Hospital.
  • Keep the guy is notable and probably somewhat visible in Scandinavia. He's a prominent researcher who has done apparently-prominent research. As for the passionate Helgason supporter watching over this AfD: why not add a few external links for verification, notability-establishment, and general usefulness? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Helgasons work has had substantial impact in the field of treatment for localized prostate cancer in Scandinavia. His contribution has been to highlight the importance of quality of life aspects after treatment (e.g. impotence, urinary leakage) and bring to light that a substantial number of prostate cancer patients are emotionally isolated in spite of present psychosocial support, indicating that psychosocial services need to be adjusted for the needs of men. Obs! "Kveldulfur" and "Harald fair hair" work in the same department as Helgason and are well acquainted with his work.—This unsigned comment was added by Kveldulfur (talk • contribs) and later modified by 193.10.63.101 (talk · contribs)
    • Please read the warning about sockpuppets. Harald fair hair (talk · contribs) and Kveldulfur (talk · contribs) are two of the main editors of Helgason's article, and the linkspamming involving him. The third editor, 81.170.128.26 (talk · contribs) is a Stockholm IP address, and 193.10.63.101 (talk · contribs) is from the Karolinska Institut (where Dr. Helgason seems to work). I was willing to assume good faith that the anonymous edits were simple forgetfulness until this comment from Kveldulfur shows that he knows how to log in. Using multiple accounts in an attempt to influence debate is grounds for being blocked from editing Wikipedia and will not help you win the consensus opinion you need. Thanks for understanding. Thatcher131 13:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from Asgeir R. Helgason: It has come to my attention that PhD students at the department have been trying to get me published on this internet cite. Although their information is basically correct I find it of questionable ethics to publish people’s names and work on the internet without consent. I have lectured them on that and asked them to stop. If people want to communicate about my works and possible influence on clinical practice I would prefer that they communicate with me directly. My e-mail is: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.44.242.18 (talk • contribs) 192.44.242.18 14:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Is this a University based webb cite?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.44.242.18 (talk • contribs)
      • Wikipedia is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." See Wikipedia for a history. It's a continuously updated, peer-reviewed compendium of knowledge that strives for encyclopedic style and content. It is a world-wide endeavor with over 1 million articles so far. Click on main page on the left-hand side and take a look around. Thatcher131 14:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Removed email per policy. Sorry to have to do it but it is for your protection Nigelthefish 18:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notability established. "Average university professor" test is neither policy nor guideline, and parallel test not applied to actors, writers, pro athletes, etc ad nauseum, and indicates a perverse bias against knowledge workers. Monicasdude 14:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow. That's the most interesting AfD discussion I've read in a while. Still, I think that Prof. Helgason is not notable enough for a wikipedia article, so delete. Bucketsofg 15:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to say "keep", but so far I haven't seen anything that would distinguish this individual from millions of other scientists in the world. One significant national or international media citation would do it. But until then I have to say delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The references (below) are good enough for me. I've changed my vote to keep. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Published researcher. One co-authored paper would be enough, let alone 33. Proto||type 12:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The appropriate guideline isThe professor test and I argue that he clearly fails this.--Porturology 04:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Seems to meet Criteria 3. JoshuaZ 04:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Mate, 40 papers - mostly in second rate journals - is a pretty low score for a full time academic--Porturology 04:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This person is well known (at least in the Nordic countries) for his work on quit smoking. I am no scientist and have no information on his scientific work but he his often cited in newspapers and TV at least here in Sweden. He is for example responsible for establishing the Swedish quitline for smokers which is a well known service in this country. Knut 18:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)—User's only edit is to this page (talk • contribs)
    • Then please show us a Swedish newspaper citation. GeorgeStepanek\talk 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

*Keep per Bobby and Knut. JoshuaZ 18:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC) *Delete per Porturology. JoshuaZ 06:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. GeorgeStepanek asked for links to examples of newspapers citations to Helgason. Here are two examples of citations to Helgasons work in the two largest Swedish newspapers Dagens Nyheter (an article on Helgasons tobacco prevention work [35]) and Svenska Dagbladet (an article on Helgasons work on prostate cancer men and emotional isolation [36]). Knut 10:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I've changed my vote—but you still can't vote twice! GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT 2: There appears to be some miss understanding by someone called Porturology that Helgason is urologist. As far as I can see from Swedish publications Helgason is no urologist. He (I think) is psychologist and public health scientist. He is involved in several aspects of health including psychological effect off treatment for different cancers and tobacco prevention. For me he is best known for his work in stop smoking services but I can recall front page articles in Sweden’s biggest newspapers (and TV) some years ago on his studies regarding sexual interest of old men and how treatment for prostate cancer could ruin men’s life since they became impotent etc. I tried to find these articles but they seem not still to be on the internet. However I did find many media articles links (directly to newspaper articles) from Sweden and other Nordic countries that are still available on the internet for Helgason. Most are on his work in tobacco and emotional problems for men with prostate cancer. I my view Helgason is outstanding for his clinical impact on so different fields = tobacco cessation, impotence, quality of life, prostate cancer, emotional problems, care of dying patients and their spouses etc.. In Sweden there are few people with this wide spectrum of impact. Also I looked at his over scientific publications (some were helgason a and some helgason ar) and as I can see they are more the 50? I did not know that he also was doing research in getetics in Iceland. This is what I found just now as links to on line newspaper articles on Swedish search engines. I tried to explain in English what each article is about:

http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/idag/did_9739365.asp (Svenska Dagbladet on prostate cancer and emotional isolation)

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=597&a=343773 (Dagens Nyheter on Helgasons tobacco prevention work)

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/0003/28/roka.html (Aftonbladet on the Swedish quitline)

http://www.systembolaget.se/AlkoholHalsa/Alkoholsamhalle/alkohol_nikotin_rokning.htm (In Sweden the state has monopoly on selling alcohol. This is the alcohol monopoly newspaper interviewing Helgason on his work with the Swedish smoking quitline and his plans to start a similar service for risk drinkers)

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/halsa/story/0,2789,280431,00.html (Aftonbladet on oral tobacco and cancer)

http://www.aftonbladet.se/telegram/0,1082,437113_INR__,00.html (Aftonbladet on men and emotional isolation)

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/telegram/0,1082,437113_INR_p_,00.html (Aftonbladet on emotional isolation)

http://www.mbl.is/mm/gagnasafn/tengdar.html?docid=1795132 (Several Icelandic articles in Morgunbladid – paid access only)

http://www.mbl.is/mm/gagnasafn/grein.html?grein_id=515846 (On the Icelandic tobacco quitline)

http://www.affarsvarlden.se/art/34033 (Affärsvärlden on oral tobacco)

http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=6363508 (The Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang = VG on oral tobacco as smoking cessation)

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/helse/article303547.ece (Norwegian Nettavisen on oral tobacco)

http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/Inrikes/did_2817840.asp (Svenska Dagbladet on the possibility do develop vaccine for nicotine dependence) Knut Knut 21:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I have alittle difficulty with your posting. This is your first and so far only contribution with Wp. You pretend disinterest in the subject (e.g.you are not sure what his qualifications or profession is) but you then are able to quote numerous news clippings in which he is mentioned. This has many of the signs of sock-puppetry.--Porturology 06:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think you read Porturology's comments very well. It is not that he believes Dr. Helgason is a urologist, but that as a urologist himself, he has a more expert perspective on the significance of Dr. Helgaon's research. Generally the most important authors to a scientific paper are listed first or last; of Dr. Helgason's approx. 50 publications, only 14 list him as first or last author. This is an indication of a respectable career, but is not (in my mind) evidence that he is important enough to list in an encyclopedia. He may in fact be more important within Iceland/Scandanavia than his publication record suggests to some of us. You are free to try and improve the article during the debate if you wish. Explain the context and significance of his research within Iceland or Scandanavia and include references to significant national newspapers that quote him regarding his research.Thatcher131 05:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't feel that someone necessarily needs to be a notable researcher to be a notable scientist. The newspaper references provided show Dr. Helgason to be a well-known as a populariser and/or a media figure. Knut has given us more than enough to satisfy WP:BIO: "the individual is more well known ... than an average college professor." He certainly satisfies The professor test: "an academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines." GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you User:Thatcher 131 You have admirably expressed my opinion. One of Helgason's main interests is the complications of treatment of Cancer of the Prostate. I know this literature very well and Helgason with <10 articles, of which he is the prime author, in first class journals is no where near being an internationally noted expert in this field. I am surprised he has not personally intervened in this debate as it must be terribly embarrasing for him.--Porturology 06:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

MERCY MY FRIENDS: When I opened my e-mail this morning I had received mail from a person drawing my attention to an ongoing debate on this internet cite regarding my works and my person. After having scanned through what has been written (since I sent in my comment and asked people to stop) I feel I have to commend on some of the things stated in this strange debate:

1)In my previous mail I published my e-mail address so that people could communicate with me directly. I am therefore a little surprised that “Porturology” did not write directly to me with his questions. And “Porturology” you are right, this is a little embarrassing for me but also amusing. Makes you feel like a PhD student defending a thesis. Unfortunately I have other things to do than to follow debates on the internet. I actually though I had put a stop to the debate with my previous comment.

2) Nordic/Scandinavian people do not like to discuss their own work. It is considered to be inappropriate (especially in Sweden)to sell your self in any way. I know this is somewhat different in other countries but there you go! Different behaviour protocols in different parts of the world is what makes the world interesting.

3) When I did my PhD in 1997 on prostate cancer it received a lot of media attention. Probably not because it was a good work of science. Probably mainly because it dealt with subjects of media interest like sexual functioning, and the dilemma of trade-off between intact sexual function and curative treatment for localized prostate cancer. Also, it included a population based epidemiological study on male sexual functioning in men without prostate cancer up to 80 years that was considered to be relatively representative owing to a fair response rate. Also. at the time there was a heated debate in Scandinavia (and still is) on whether or not to treat localized prostate cancer with curative intent in if so what treatment to choose. So I became the victim of circumstances. My interest in the prostate cancer debate (treat or not to treat) diminished after I realized that there is a lot of politics and money involved and strong lobby groups primarily interested in selling them selves and their products. After that my work in the field has mainly been on emotional isolation of middle aged men and prostate cancer patients. However, emotional isolation in men is a also a typical media subject. So the bottom line is that my work in the area of prostate cancer has probably had this impact in the media owing to the nature of the subject. This media attention is troublesome since it takes up lots of time an energy and is nothing to strive for.

4)I thank “Knut” for his (her?) interest in my work (thanks for these links). However, I need to correct him/her on one aspect. My works on medical and psychological databases are unfortunately presented under both Helgason AR and Helgason A. This often leads to some confusion since my brothers name is Agnar Helgason and he also publishes under Helgason A. Articles on genetics published under Helgason A. are my brothers articles, not mine. I know less about genetics than an average chimpanzee. Sorry if I disappointed you on that.

5)I do not fully understand the focus on my prostate cancer research in this ongoing debate on my work. The fact is that my work on tobacco prevention and in particular smoking cessation (both clinical, educational and scientific) far outweighs my work in prostate cancer at the moment. I have PhD students in health psychology in two different departments at the Karolinska = public health sciences and oncology and presently my work in smoking cessation takes up 75% of my time. Presently we are e.g. developing a telephone based service for risk drinkers based on our experience of running a smoking cessation quitline from 1998. These services are free of charge and rigorously evaluated. In oncology my PhD students (at the moment)are mainly doing work in palliative care. So please “User:Porturology” and others cool down the prostate cancer debate.

6) I do not understand why people do not use their real names in debates like this? It is much more interesting to know who you are talking to. Is this some kind of policy on the Wikipedia?

Asgeir R. Helgason (asgeir.helgason@sll.se) Asgeir Helgason

  • Keep the article might grow. --Tone 13:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable researcher. And thanks for amusing me everyone. Nigelthefish 18:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 I have redirected, most of the info seems to be merged already. Some of the merge supporters below want to tidy it up. W.marsh 05:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Tardent

Delete as Non Notable. Article Helen tardent has already been deleted three times as CSD A7, but creator User:Olympic objects. Mihai -talk 11:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge Despite the failure of this article to wikilink, the referenced Aerobics Oz Style is an article, is clearly notable, and already includes "Helen Tardent"...most of the info from this Helen Tardent page is already there. Let's move the rest (not much). Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Aerobics Oz Style. The biography appears non-notable except in the context of this syndicated(?) programme.  (aeropagitica)  13:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. bogdan 00:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. Merge and redirect. -- The Anome 16:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Nigelthefish 17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was other This has been redirected, and it seems like there was a consensus forming to delete, or at least that the old version of this page wasn't worth keeping. So for the time being redirecting seems okay. An article about points system for driving offenses or something could be created, of course. W.marsh 05:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point system for penalties

Delete. The article "Point system for penalties" has existed since May 2005. In that time, no explanation has ever been added to this non-article describing what a "point system for penalties" is. The sum total of the article is a "list" of countries that have "point systems for penalties" that includes only two items. The only article linking to "Point system for penalties" is "Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China". That article states, among other features of the law, that "The point system for penalties was integrated into the new law." It does not explain what the "point system for penalties" is, how it works, how important it is, or what this means to citizens. Instead, it links to "Point system for penalties", which, in lieu of explanation, states, "see Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China." This reflexive loop provides no information about the topic. A template citing lack of sufficient context was placed in July 2005, and was removed by another user the same day. I placed another such banner in February 2006 and added the comment to the talk page that I would be nominating the article for deletion the week ending 17 March 2006 if no additional information had been added. There has been no activity on the article since I placed the {{context}} template. This is not an article, it expresses no useful information, and it serves no purpose other than to take up space. Clearly no one has any interest in saving it, and after my involvement I still have no better idea of what a "point system for penalties" is. Delete it. Canonblack 12:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as devoid of meaning. Lambiam 12:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not useful and never gonna get expanded Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep expand and rename to something like List of countries with points systems for motoring offences. Jcuk 16:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • merge with Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If I am allowed to reiterate, Jcuk the "article" has been "alive" for ten months and no one has yet seen fit to expand this into an article at all; why should we expect this to change in the future? Without defining what a point system for penalties or motoring offences is, the article is meaningless. In response to Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens, there is no data here to merge. The point is that a "point system for penalties" is not described here or in the parent article. Simply merging the two named countries into the parent article is meaningless when the subject itself has not been defined. A request for context and expansion has been placed twice and in both cases was ignored. Canonblack 00:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remark: I've removed the completely useless link from the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China to this page, so the zero-information loop is broken. Re Niffweed17's suggestion, I think it is a neat way of making the article disappear ;) Lambiam 00:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Points systems exist. Bringing it to AfD may get the article rewritten, and it seems a valid topic to write on. Jcuk 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I never said point systems don't exist or that the topic was invalid, I said this article has been in existence for nearly a year, it doesn't say anything about point systems, and no one is writing it. If the article means that much to you, then you flesh it out. No one else is going to. Canonblack 03:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete useless, expansion questionable in near or far future. --MaNeMeBasat 08:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deletion by User:Tomf688 — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orlando Eastwood

Several attempts have been made to speedy delete this page. The speedy deletion is disputed so I thought maybe it should go here.

  • Keep. The person is trying his best to provide details, but some other user is trying to disrupt the page. --Poloyoe
  • Delete. Person not in IMDB [37] and does not meet criteria for inclusion of biography in Wikipedia. Elf-friend 12:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.This article has been deleted now 3 times. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 12:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia has a lot of movie director articles. Why should this one be different? Posted by user 152.163.100.199 who chose not to sign... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.199 (talk • contribs)
Errr ... because [38]?
  • Delete Non-notable vanity. Maustrauser 12:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete an entry on the IMDB is, in my opinion, the bare minimum inclusion criteria for films and filmmakers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Evidence of WP:HOLE. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:HOLE and WP:V. I've had to block a guy for 3RR violations by revert warring speedy tags. Stifle 13:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Poloyoe.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.121.170 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete hardly notable. The Soul Reaver 13:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Andrew Lenahan on IMDB. Feezo (Talk) 14:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. You can apparently even *purchase* an entry on IMDb if you want, so not having an entry seems a pretty serious blow to someone claiming to be in the film industry. Turnstep 14:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind/Andrew Lenahan. (To Poloyoe: if you want to prove notability here, you might submit entries to IMDb first. It'll take a couple weeks for them to confirm and create an entry.) Bucketsofg 15:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It not fair that some people have pages in the mainspace and other don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.218.72.66 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO. And life isn't fair. Oh well. --Kinu t/c 19:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. Can I make a movie in my backyard, starring myself and my friends, release it on the web, and write a vanity article on Wikipedia? Yes, I can. Should I get away with it? No. Slowmover 21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, WP:BIO. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete nn. probably vanity as well. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as {{db-repost}} and thus tagged. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 18:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor characters in Morrowind

Delete This page reads more like a walkthrough than an encyclopedia article. The Soul Reaver 12:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep We'd all prefer that the creators of the page had given their attentions to something of a "core" encyclopedic nature, I guess, but this is clearly of interest to any player of the game, and the main article for the game is already too large to contain it. Some of the how-to info should be stripped. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information; point 8 refers. (aeropagitica)  13:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and keep In the light of other comments and a review of the material, I think that removing the how-to parts of the article would be an efficient compromise.  (aeropagitica)  18:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There is some how-to stuff, but it's a minority portion of the article content, I think Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep As Bobby Smith says above, the majority of the article is not a walkthrough, but contains legitimate content. The fact that part of the article contains walkthrough content is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. --Xyzzyplugh 14:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful character list from a very notable game. Some of the how-to material should go, but that's not a reason for deletion of the whole thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & some cleanup. Better an all-encompassing article/list than having articles spring into existence for each one (as such, like one of the lists found at Minor characters in Star Wars). Scoo 15:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The game might be notable, but the characters themselves aren't, IMHO. Waggers 16:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The content of Wikipedia will always reflect what readers want to write about. Articles like this exist in large measure so that each of these minor characters does not end up having a separate article. This is probably not what the nominator or deleters here want. Smerdis of Tlön 16:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Smerdis of Tlön Bhoeble 17:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup to read more like an encyclopedia article. There's plenty of precedent for 'list of minor character' articles. --InShaneee 21:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Starblind. --Fuzzie (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Some characters from other games have their personal pages in the main namespace, this is just a common one for all. I've started the cleanup of nonnecessary how-tos. CP/M 05:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Most of them are reduced to minimum by now, though article also needs to be more uniform. I'm working on it. CP/M 23:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Complete agreement with Xyzzyplugh . Johnpf 00:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as I just found this article while searching for the content contained within. If useful to no one else, it's helped me. Jeffool 06:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep needs to be cleaned up not deleted. Dv82matt 03:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment we set a precedent that if the underlying game, show, movie, book, etc., is notable so is a list of its "minor characters". Get ready! Carlossuarez46 00:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Is this really the first time this kind of thing has occured such that it could be called precedent setting? I mean there are tons of articles on video game characters. Anyway I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia has a somewhat broader scope than other encyclopedias. Dv82matt 02:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Now that I think about it the article should probably be renamed. Morrowind is a huge game with over 1000 characters and the article only lists a few of the most significant ones. Maybe it should simply be called "Characters in Morrowind" or maybe "Notable characters in Morrowind". Dv82matt 02:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 15:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shmoop

"May be in store" two years from now. Little but advertising here. Bjones 13:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Crystalballvanity. --lightdarkness (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be an article someone wrote about his dog, with some nonsense added to attempt to fend off the speedy deletion tag which was put there earlier. --Xyzzyplugh 14:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as NN-Bio. I've retagged it as such. The edit history shows the promised date as being 2467, then 2014, and finally 2008. Obviously false assertions. Turnstep 14:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy delete per above Bucketsofg 14:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Y2kevin

Delete Non-notable group of people, doesn't meet WP:BIO. Google search finds no mention of this group existing, all references to "Y2kevin" are to messages on forums by someone with that username Xyzzyplugh 14:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — Vanity or hoax. Feezo (Talk) 14:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Houlihan-Issa-Plonka - sounds like a personal attack. Utter rubbish. Waggers 16:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - this page was blanked by 141.158.20.2, I have reverted the blanking. --Xyzzyplugh 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Dont Delete!! I know these kids from seeing them around the state of Rhode Island....very talented and very unique humor. Obviously most people do not know of them so its not difficult to understand why you vote for its deletion, however being a former college roomate of one of the three stars, I felt I had to add a comment so it is not deleted.
  • Delete - If they someday become notable, fans can always add a new entry at that point -- 63.226.38.196 04:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vorgalian

Seems like original research. Definitely not notable. Google search turned up two instances, one in a foreign language. Esprit15d 14:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete original research, patent nonsense Bucketsofg 14:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Waggers 15:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Kukini 16:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated -- 63.226.38.196 05:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was irrelevant (article has been speedily deleted by User:Musical Linguist). --RobertG ♬ talk 15:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William James Evans

  • Delete What is it? seems like s/he is trying to make fun of someone. ILovEPlankton 14:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. neither notable nor encyclopedic. Bucketsofg 14:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Not a chance of any other result (see WP:SNOW). Even the IP address of the article creator says delete. All dissent comes from a sole vociferous supporter of the article. Closing now to (hopefully) avoid further disruption. kingboyk 10:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hugh Deasy

Delete. Disputed PROD nomination, so I brought it here. It's a vanity article (edited by User:Hdeasy, no less) with mostly genealogical information. Deasy's claims to fame seem to be 1) a self-published book and 2) a single political cartoon published in the 80s. android79 14:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity, not-notable. Bucketsofg 14:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Interesting life, but all the above comments still don't change the fact that Mr. Deasy does not meet WP:BIO. There are a couple of claims surrounding his work as a cartooninst made by Will314159 that might scrape the edge of WP:BIO, but they are not in the main article and they are not WP:V sourced. It is not "Wikipedia policy is to support budding writers and painters". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a place for professional or personal promotion. If Hugh Deasy has done something to meet WP:BIO guidelines (or does something to meet these guidelines in the future) he will deserve an article. It's not about being closed-minded, it's about having some sort of minimum standard for inclusion. (I added my opinion above below text to make it a bit easier on the closing admin.)--Isotope23 15:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (tagged by User:kingboyk; this is clearly a comment in favour of keeping). I am strongly opposed to this deletion. I only have time presently for a few comments. I reserve the rigt to return and expand and revise my remarks. Mr. Deasy is a unique individual because of his education, temparment, skill, and training. He is a Phd. physicisct with heart. His a clear author who has introduced obscure physics, including the opaque Heim Theory to the masses. Deletion of this page would be a needless travesty. It was very useful to me in assesing the credibility of the Heim Theory wikipedia article. I'm increasingly dishearteded of the small mindedness of some of the Wikipedia community. As my three legged labrador retriever Max increasingly communicates, it cuts down on his beach play time replying to all the B.S. that goes on here. Let's try to be more positive and help people do things,instead of trying to stop things.--Will314159 12:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)edit--user:Will314159 13:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
AFter having had to deprive Max of some valuable beach play time, I have composed this addition to my above written comments, to wit:
I feel there is a case for retaining Hugh Deasy, as not only is his book "Grannies" rather good and entertaining, but he is known in other circles. As a cartoonist he was quite successful in the 1980s in Ireland, with one fine political cartoon, reproduced in his book, making the pick of the year of Phoenix, which is the Irish Private Eye. So he is not only self-published – others have posted his cartoons. edit on cartoons as cartoons in these present times seem to be able to move the world--Will314159 15:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
While on the subject of cartoons 2 or 3 in Phoenix, dozens in 'Disarm', where he worked on the editorial team and discovered he functioned well in running up a quick cartoon to illustrate a 'breaking news' item. He probably could have done that on a bigger circulation paper - but astro-research beackoned. In 'Disarm' he had a running cartoon strip. Also, came 2nd in the Sunday Times competition for shcool-children to complete a super-hero cartoon strip -his entry was then re-produced in full in one of the 3 largest circulation newspapers of the time, the "Irish Press".
But of course he was not always kow-towing to the establishment, so the fact that he published cartoons in the Irish CND newspaper Disarm might not please the powers that be – could this be a reason for the move against him :-)  ? Speaking Truth to Power!
So he is not only a bit of a writer but an acknowledged artist – he has exhibited at ESOC as you can see from his home-page. He was also a bit of a child prodigy, winning prizes for his poems on Irish TV and Radio. Note that he is also planning to bring out a book on a science topic later this year – this time with a science publisher. The Wikipedia policy is to support budding writers and painters – if they are in that situation of being excellent but yet relatively unknown, then it is not fair to deny them even a small stub of an article, I take it that this is not really the issue at stake here, but more the supposed vanity aspect.
However, note that struggling writers must be pro-active in some sense or they will die in obscurity. On top of all that he is part of a small team controlling such key satellites as Envisat (major environmental data source), Integral (gound-breaking observations of high energy astrophysical objects) and ERS-2 (data from which recently confirmed the growth of ice in central Antarctica). So yes, I think this page should be retained, as well as the companion article on his book and the mention he gets in his uncle’s page.
If the problem is that he wrote that article, then consider myself the author of the Hugh Deasy article, and therefore that impediment is thereby removed. Max sends his felicitations.
the above comments have been relocated from the "Hugh Deasy" article Discussion Page.
Addition. I was led to the Wikipedia Heim Theory Article by the stupendous publlicity on Heim theory in 2006 due to the New Scientist and Scotsman article about the recent paper about the Hyperspace aspects and the Air Force taking the FTL aspects seriously. The talk pages turned up the name HDeasy consistently and Googling revealed his identity. He has revealed himself to be the most consistent and lucid elaborator of that theory. He is cogent writer and a PhD physicist and a working scientist. this is a rare combination. As a budding writer, illustrator, and cartoonist, that rare combination deserves a Wiki contribution. I plan to do a rewrite of the article in a few days.--user:Will314159 15:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not the case that Wikipedia policy supports articles on "budding writers and painters"; see WP:BIO and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. As for the allegations that I nominated this out of some sort of political motive: I'm an American and haven't the faintest clue about Irish politics. Lastly, setting aside whether the accomplishments you describe add up to any meaningful claim of notability, almost none of them are verifiable in any meaningful way. android79 15:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per above. Kukini 16:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vanity. Being somebody's nephew is not sufficient notability. There's a physicist by this name who is more notable, but I'm not about to create a page for him either. Slowmover 18:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops, wait a minute. Can we confirm the physicist is the same Hugh Deasy? It doesn't change my vote; I just want to acknowlege the error. Slowmover 18:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Per User:Will314159's comments this is the physicist Dr. Hugh Deasy...Couldn't find any independent confirmation of that fact though. --Isotope23 19:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
        • But it looks like the most visible thing he's done is write the Wiki article on Heim Theory Lots of self-promotion out there, though.Slowmover 19:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Clearly Vanity. I believe that he is the Physicist that you are refering to above. Although I am lead to believe (by somebody who claims to know him) that he has spent the last twenty years working at ESAs ESOC control center. In ESOC he works on very simple parts of a number of missions, all in a very minor role. I would also appear that the only person defending this page is the user Will314159. Looking at the edits that this user does shows a bit of a history of defending anything Hugh Deasy posts to the wiki. This, in addition to the rather curious way that the Will describes Hugh Deasy i.e. in the manner of an intimate friend (he does seem to know an increable amount of detail about him), and the writing style, which seems very, very similar to Mr Deasy's himself, I would rather suspect the Will314159 is a ghost account created by Mr Deasy to back up his own none existant claims.—This unsigned comment was added by 192.171.3.126 (talk • contribs) .

  • 192.171.3.126 resolves to the European Space Agency ESA in Darmstadt, Germany, the place of employment of User:Hdeasy and also the creator of the article. kingboyk 12:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is this rubbish above. It sounds like somebody writing an obituary for his favourite uncle. I also agree with the comment above that the depth of knowledge demonstrated by this defending user is very suspicous. The Pedant 13:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC) User's 3rd post to Wikipedia. --kingboyk 11:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I pointed a friend to this article as I thought he too would be amused by the tone & nature of the defense given above. A little bit of looking by him found that Will314159 & Hugh Deasy are know to each other from a Physics Forum (see link below), so it appears to be a case of a friends defence. The Pedant 15:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=45

  • Help! These gushing defences put me off quite badly. Delete Mustafa Bevi 15:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment These rebuttals and surrebuttals are well surrealistic. Either you are criticized for having no personal knowledge and therefore not being verifiable. Or if you have personal knowledge and can verify facts, then you are a friend and are biased. For those skeptical souls that think the aforementioned and here dissected Irishman Hugh Deasey on this St. Patrick's day is NON NOTABLE, kindly do a GOOGLE search on his name. then please report back the number of hits. Moreover, compare the number of hits to some of the Wiki subjects of the articles you have authored. And if those subjects come out with less hits, let's start nominating those less notable personalities for deletion. Fair enough? --user:Will314159 16:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As for the Gentleman, and I use the term loosely, that opines that I am a Hugh Deasy Ghost because of my writing style, first I wisht to thank him for the compliment and secondly I would point out that I have a USA IP and I believe on information and belief that Mr. Deasy is an Irishman, and bless him on St Paddy's day, working in Deutschland.--user:Will314159 16:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am working on a major rewrite of the subject page. While taking a break, i noticed most of the posters above are unsigned or ANONYMOUS. I too share with Slowmover, I see that from his information, a love for APL but have now discovered Maxima. I noticed he has authored numerous articles on minor actors in the OUTER LILMITS sci fi series. This brings up the problem of balance in Wikipedia. Stargate 1 has a portal with episode guides. We have an episode guide to all of the SEINFELD series. You can elucidate yourself on Babylon 5. But you have a problem with "Hugh Deasy." For me the context of "Hugh Deasy" is that he is the foremost popularizer of Heim Theory in the English Language. Heim Theory is tremondously important is that it is a brute force take the Bull by the Horns direct quantization of General Relativity. Heim quantized spacetime directly and used a discrete form of calculus to avoid the singularity. Unfortunately in his old age Heim started using mystical terms and became embraced by New Age Gurus. Deasy with his Physics knowledge and familiarity with Sring Theory and LOQ cuts through the BULL and gives a scientific assesment. Heim Theory has recently climbed to the news and is being taken very seriously by certain Aerospace circles. That is the importance of the "Hugh Deasy" article. To give this author the support he deserves for his tireless effort. Yes, he is a notable cartoonist and author and has other interests. But I have revealed my interest and my entry in the discussion. I wish the detractors would be as honest and not hide behind their anonynimity.--user:Will314159 17:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There is exactly one comment above from an anonymous, unsigned user. android79 17:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Click on some of those NonAnom links and see how far you get Android.--user:Will314159 18:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? According to the history, User:192.171.3.126 is the only non-registered user to have made edits to this page. android79 18:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know Android. You must be lazy as well as right down negative. As Wikipedians, too bad we can't project positively. Here's one for you. "Mustafa Bevi is a Wikipedian who wishes to remain anonymous." Click on Pendent, see how far you get. By the way, I haven't figured out how to make my moniker a link, Any "know how" would be appreciated. But you can google me and probably get 10,000 hits.--user:Will314159 20:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. Sign your post with 4 tilde characters (~) at the end and the wiki software will insert your username and a timestamp when it processes your edit. And please let's not make this worse by arguing semantics about what is "anonymous" and what is not. In Wikipedia, editors who don't sign in and contribute under a chosen username are considered "anonymous", even though their real-world identity may not be known. IP addresses can be spoofed, etc, but user logins are more reliably from the same person each time, so they develop a local identity here over time which earns them credibility. That's the point. Slowmover 20:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment thanks slowmover. To me anonymous is a person that has no I.D.-- one that cannot be contacted and hides behind a cloak. I think the two I named met the criteria. My tag is being displayed but I am not showing a blue link. I"ll try the 4 tilde's in lieu of the signature icon and see what happens. Heck, I"ll try both.Boy this ain't as easy as baseball. Will314159 21:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC) --Will314159 21:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC) edit--user:Will314159 21:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    You're just as "anonymous" as as Mustafa or I am. All we know about you is that you are from South Carolina and various other non-identifying personal details. No Wikipedia editor is obliged to reveal their real-world identity, and though some choose to, they are not accorded any special rights or privileges for doing so. As for me being "negative" and "lazy", please refrain from personal attacks. Instead of attacking other editors and their perceived motives for wanting this article deleted, focus on improving the article with neutral content backed up by verifiable and reliable sources, particularly for those facts that you believe make Deasy notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia based on the guidelines for biographies. android79 22:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Android79. I hope there aren't 78 other androids around. Please be accurate and more careful. I believe I stated I am from North Carolina. I am a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. We won the NCAA men's basketball championships last year. I'm pretty sure i put on the page that I am a lawyer and have a physics degree. However, unlike Dr. Pat Robertson, I do not use the Juris Doctor to refer to myself as a Doctor. They told us at Law School that confuses consumers. We North Carolinians are proud to refer to our state as a humble abode between two mountains of pride, the two mountains being Virginia and SC. President James K. Polk attended the University of North Carolina. Take Care.--user:Will314159 23:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry about confusing the Carolinas. Please keep commentary on this page on topic and relevant to the deletion discussion. android79 00:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Will314159 argues by stating the relevance of the Heim theory. Although not peer reviewed I think Burkhard Heim and the Heim theory belong into Wikipedia. The fact that a user contributed a valid article alone does not merit for a page about himself. This information can be put on the personal page of that user. The Heim theory additions made to the Hugh Deasy aricle by Will314159 make the article worse. The details about the Heim theory don't belong on that page. The link to the Heim theory page is enough; the duplication of this content is a bad attempt to make the article longer. Also note, that these statements are not accepted by the scientific community, this is not made clear in the addition. I don't think believe anyone wants this page removed for political or personal reasons. The arguments are typical for believers in conspiracy theories "they don't want the world to know about our theory, they want the truth to be hidden."
There are many Wikipedia authors who have written more and better articles and don't have a page about themselves. The Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies define which biographies should be inclued on Wikipedia. Anyone is free to set up a personal vanity page on a different web server.
I'm sorry that I'm writing this comment anonymously but I don't have an acocunt. I know I could create one and put in two lines of text like Will314159. As long as anyone can create an account without personal identification (which is a good thing), I don't think that will give me more credability. The activities by Will314159 were mostly defending the Heim theory. 84.167.147.190 12:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC) User's first and only edit. --kingboyk 11:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I posted under Will314159 becasue of Net anononymity but a google search reveals 36,800 hits, so I have been pretty active online, mainly in the veterans community. maybe, I"ll just post under my legal name. I have nothing to hide. i am a disabled combat veteran that earned the combat infantryman badge when I was 19 so I've paid my dues and come by my views honestly. i came back from War and earned a B.S. and Physics and a law degree. So i let all the Bull Crap and ad hominem attacks wash off me like water off a duck's back. Because the main entry is Biographical entry, the comments are necessarily personal but the detractors are a little bit too outrageously "pesonal," and a little too shrill.--24.179.98.1 13:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC) IP user states they are User:Will314159 so all future 'votes' from this user changed to 'comment'. IP address has no posts except to this article. Address resolves to the USA. --kingboyk 12:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Let's see what we can agree on. First, the rules: The subject article is a biography of a still living person. The criteria is notability. A google search result is evidentce. What facts can we agree on. This has turned into a lively discussion. There are many comitted and vociferous anonymous detractors. That in itself speaks for notability and being famous. Some of the criticisms are petty. They admit that Mr. Deasy is a "rocket scientist" but say he is a "minor" rocket scientist. They admit he is a cartoonist, but say he only has "one" cartoon. Others say the Wiki article is self published and a vanity article. The proponent says as a budding author, there is a certain amount of self-promotion, in any case the article has been rewritten by another, the cartoonist career is much more extensive, he is a published author. His Google hit count stands at 59,100. While it is not the quality and not the quantity of hits that is persuasive, the quantity is not easily discounted. Mr. Deasy has made a name for himself as the leading English speaking elucidator of Heim theory. It's the quality of the elucidation that counts here. Heim theory had been embraced by a New Age following. But Heim theory is a honest to goodness quantization of the metric of General Relativity by a creative invention of a discrete calculus equivalent to what is now called the finite method for Tensor Calculus. it takes a physicist to appreciate that and to put it in proper context and Mr. Deasy is the man that did it. He was and is uniquely qualified by his training, experience, skill, bacground, artistic background, to bridge this esoteric and obscure theory to the English Speaking World. To me that makes him notable and famous To appreciate that, you have to be more than a programmer, you have to have a physics & a liberal arts background. But the most telling argument of all for the retention of the subject article is the length of this page and the extent of it. Surely that interest engendered herein is the most telling for the retention of the subject article. Take Care!--24.179.98.1 15:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Can I suggest you put your name in double quotes when working out your Google hit count so that you don't unnecessarily over-inflate your ego. A Google on "Hugh Deasy" yields a mere 223 hits while the 59,000 is picking up lots of unrelated pages. And, if you really think Google hit counts are a good measure of fame, there are 29,800 for my name (with quotes) but no Wikipaedia entry (nor should there be). (Most hits for my name are online book stores selling a book I co-wrote). I think the page should be deleted because it seems quite clearly a vanity page and the only user other than Hdeasy in favour of keeping it has a suspiciously similar writing style (bar the occasional accidentally on purpose typo). —This unsigned comment was added by Opk (talk • contribs) . User's 2nd edit at Wikipedia --kingboyk 12:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. VanityCruft, Disgusting Sock'n'meatpuppet attack, someone close this before it starts spidering. Deizio 17:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's mostly just the same guy rambling on and on but not signing, as opposed to puppet attack, as my cleanup edits hopefully show. --kingboyk 12:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed, one vain author and one... disciple? Anyway, nice work Kbk, bye Deasy... Deizio 12:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The guy's clearly a nut.--62.52.92.225 18:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment From the anonymous person. Thank you for the advice about the Google double quotes. Always willing to learn. Took the Google hit criteria from the Wikipedia notability guidlines. as from user 62.52.92.225|62.52.92.225, I won't descend to your level. "Sticks and bones may break bones" but your viturerpitude won't and the comment clearly appllies to the "nut caller" above. Take Care cloaked in your Online Superiority. Imagine the epithets if we were talking about something really important like the Taba Accords or the Geneva Mideast Plan!--24.179.98.1 22:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Will314159
  • Comment It's all a matter of perspective when you come down to it. It's better to include a worthy article that to delete two unworthy ones. Here's an insight in the mindset and I will call him Bozo after the terms he used, in the mindset of the author of the "Strong Delete comment above written" I am all about Wikipedia. If you're reading this because you came across Deiz on AfD, just know that I love you. To Cruft! spreaders, indiscriminate inclusionists and anyone who rejects WP:CHILL, you can quote me: "Better Wikipedia through deletionism? You bet your sweet ass." Deizio 02:29, 14 " Take Care! --24.179.98.1 15:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Will314159
    • No it isn't a matter of perspective. It's a matter of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. This article fails to meet them (WP:BIO). Next! --kingboyk 12:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment First off, I'd like to point out that being the most noted pusher of an somebody elses idea (or theory, if you wish) is very nobel & should be encouraged, but this does not merit the inclusion of your own personal entry. As pointed out above, that is what the user pages are for. In refernece to the number of hits Hugh Deasy gets on google, the answer is 225 (not thousands, 225). Of the 225 pages you find that they are mostly links to entires in the wiki (created by the person himself), refreneces to his self published book (created by himself), his personal web page (created by himself), and references in physic group talk pages (again, created by himself). There is absolutly no merit for the inclusion of this page. A self published book, and a cartoon allegedly printed in a magazine thirty years ago are the only items that can be consided here. The support of Heim Theory can not. In the future, should it prove that Hugh Deasy's work in bring Hiem Thoery to the world has a lasting import to mankind, then somebody can think about including a page. Until then... Delete The Pedant 08:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV article on an nn figure, and vain too. --kingboyk 11:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable, vanity, non-notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Battling with "nattering nabobs of negativity" to use a hitsorical phrase is second nature and "no problemo." There is a lot of latent agression and spite quite unbecoming to a beacon of knowlege on this board but that is a horse of a different color. There seems to be a "legion de deleteurs" ready to spring forth and issue execution warrants on this board akin to the reign of terror. By the way, Googling a term in quotes does indeed act as a filter but deletes pertinent search results and is not a measure of notability or prevalance or famousness in the online community. I could have summoned and organized a " legion of includeurs" to counter the "deleteurs" but I chose not to. I preferred to draw the smallminded people out. The neutral comments are appreciated. The provocative and ad hominem comments belong to low class people unworthy of being associated with a great encyclopedia. . Take Care!--Will314159 17:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you'll find it's an encyclopaedia, not a board. Perhaps that explains the problem? Just zis Guy you know? 18:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Vanity, not notable. Nigelthefish 19:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- King of Hearts talk 02:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Van Spence

Yet another addition by User:Torshaw, copied straight from his local-interest book Terry Tales. This time it's not quite so clear cut but I think there's not enough notability or verifiability to justify keeping this article, even after a clean-up and rewrite. Delete Spondoolicks 14:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Reads like original research, not particluarly notable subject. Waggers 15:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep May require citation and cleanup, but appears to be a viable article. Kukini 16:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Doesn't appear to be particually notable. I'm also concerned that the text is a direct copy from a published book by the contributor. I hope User:Torshaw understands that he has licenced the text under the GFDL. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Let's not needlessly erase the history of Litchfield, Minnesota. Anyone who finds Litchfield suitable for inclusion will find its history notable as well. Anyone who uses the Litchfield article will find this to be useful and interesting, too. The town's history and historical figures are as notable as the town. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V, can't find any verifiable info on Spence, other than Shaw's book. Could be persuaded to change my mind if this is sourced though. Why would the suitibility of Litchfield for inclusion have any bearing on articles about persons of local interest, authors who have written about it, or their books? Cities, Towns, & Villages are all suitable wikipedia material, but there are hundreds if not thousands of people of local reknown who don't meet WP:BIO and thus can't really be considered candidates for their own articles. Pertinent info could be merged to a blurb in Litchfield if anyone cares to do so.--Isotope23 20:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That's my contention - I think that if a town is notable, its history, its culture, and its renowned denizens should be notable as well - as long as intelligent and unflawed articles are provided about them. I know it's far from being wikipolicy, but I advocate this view. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Waggers, appears to be original research and is non-notable. AndyZ 22:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think it was original research for the article - I think it was original research for the book that the article was based on - Terry Tales, which is also slated to die, it seems. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - article needs a lot of work; if significant rewrite can be done quickly enough to remove it's copy/paste heritage, making the entry more encyclopedic, entry seems be of value, even if subject may not be considered notable in the strictest interpretation of the rules. -- 63.226.38.196 05:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jobin Os

no googles that seem relevent for "Jobin Os", it's still underdevelopement (if it exists) so not a crystal ball reason, looks like a hoax. RJFJR 15:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, plus there's hardly any information in the article anyway. Waggers 15:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Hoax. Kukini 16:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - total blatent nonsense. Budgiekiller 16:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. 207.188.29.244 00:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - dito on nonsense -- 63.226.38.196 05:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Nigelthefish 19:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caitlin Corvinus

NN person. Delete. See also AfD:Germandria Bissonius. --Fang Aili 15:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:BIO says "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" should be included, but I'm not convinced there's enough renown or notoriety to justify this article. Waggers 15:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge comments with Karen Cashman, the athlete whose leg was saved by Corvinus. Otherwise, non-notable biography.  (aeropagitica)  16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete In light of comments below and studying the Karen Cashman article's history, delete unless verified.  (aeropagitica)  00:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Waggers. Name does not turn up in Google search (searched both "Caitlin Corvinus" and +"Karen Cashman" +corvinus) or Yahoo People Search, or Intelius search. Do not merge without WP:V. Esquizombi 20:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Part of ongoing vandalism to Karen Cashman (see that articles history). Dlyons493 Talk 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Part of ongoing vandalism to a lot of pages. keynes (talk · contribs) has been adding Caitlin Corvinus and Bunny Murphy into articles on everyone from Scarlett Johansson to Jake Gyllenhaal to the boy band Hansen. Fan1967 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 18:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jaws Unleashed

  • Delete as advertisement, NN, spam. Fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank for [39] is 499,350. Website is less than 6 months old. I've deleted the link from the Jaws (film) page concurrent with this nomination. Slowmover 15:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Kukini 16:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It may become notable, but it doesn't warrant an article yet. Waggers 16:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Clearly a notable upcoming game from a notable developer, with references to coverage from notable gaming publications. What's the idea - delete it now, make it again in May? It's not even POV. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam, adv.. --MaNeMeBasat 08:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm sure the software company would be happy to add this back sometime after it is released -- 63.226.38.196 04:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not yet notable. If it becomes so add it back. Nigelthefish 19:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 18:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Sally

This person seems to be on the threshhold of notability for Wikipedia. I'm forcing the issue for three reasons: (1) there are several claims made in the article that need citations, including one about the film Proof that should be in IMDb if it's true, but isn't there; (2) Wikiquote now also has an article on this person (which has also been nominated for deletion), using the WP article to support a notability claim; and (3) to get a current "temperature" on the WP community's feelings about professor notability. I'm hoping this review will encourage interested editors to improve both articles in order to convince the respective communities with verifiable, reliable sources for the anecdotes and quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - no particularly notable achievements in the article. Doesn't meet WP:BIO as I read it. Waggers 16:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, fails WP:BIO --TBC??? ??? ??? 16:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - eminent in the mathematics community. — Dan | talk 17:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep professors are as notable as, say, retired third-basemen. Especially eminent and award-winning profs at prestigious universities. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as above. Professional awards, involved in influential educational project outside standard teaching role, scores of Google Scholar hits. May not be as notable as Bulbasaur, Ewa Sonnet, or Blue Beetle to some, but hardly an individual whose notability should be denied. And it took me about 4 seconds to verify that he was involved in the film mentioned [40], which really makes me wonder, half seriously, if somebody got a bad grade in math class. Monicasdude 21:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - one of the more important professors at the University of Chicago, which is one of the five or six best math schools in the US. He is widely considered an innovator in the teaching of mathematics. He runs (and I believe started) an influential teaching program which trains high school teachers in higher mathematics. Because he is funny and charismatic, some of his former students have added amusing anecdotes to his article, which I believe is what is motivating this move for deletion. That doesn't mean he isn't notable; Richard Feynman is a good example of an eminent scientist who is also an amusing personality. Should we be trying to delete that page because it has a list of funny things that he once said? --SpaceMoose 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No, but Richard Feynman has copious reliable sources from which to cite material, even his anecdotes. So far, Paul Sally has none for these additions. Wikipedia has clear policy on verifiability. It would really help if some of the claims made that should have sources are given sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough for me. Fix don't delete. Paul August ☎ 05:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Math prof at U of Chicago for 40 years? Not even a close call. --Trovatore 05:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think if you look at the discussion on the talk page of the article so far, you will see that I am among the foremost of critics of the article that believe things should be verified and notability established and so forth. But I can't agree with your motivation for nominating this article for AFD. AFDs should be kept distinct from content disputes. If you dispute some assertion, AFD is not supposed to be a battleground for verifying some fact. Not to mention that the disputed facts are not what I would regard as essential to a claim of notability. The article claims he is a widely recognized math educator. This has nothing to do, for example, with whether he was the math consultant for the movie "Proof" or whether some anecdote about him is correct. It has plenty to do with the achievements and awards noted. In fact, my research into this has convinced me he is more than notable enough and not anywhere near the "gray" area that you would need to see where to draw the line. In addition, I suspect his research may be quite significant also, but I have difficulty determining this due to my lack of expertise, which is why I have prodded others on this talk page to supply the info. --C S (Talk) 07:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I apologize for making this nomination sound like it was primarily a content dispute by listing that reason first of the three that I gave, but as I said above, I had two others that led me to make this a general AfD instead of my usual talk page discussions. The possibility of an AfD had been raised twice already on the article's talk page, so I was hardly out of line to make it official. Frankly, I suspected it would pass, and the above votes seem to be confirming this. However, I saw no point in raising the content issue if the article was going to be deleted, so I waited until the consensus was strongly leaning toward "keep" to post the specific content argument on the talk page. Finally, Wikiquote, which rarely has more than 2 or 3 participants in its AfDs (still VfDs there), benefits greatly from Wikipedian input on debatable articles that have been nominated in both projects. I felt that this nomination would clear up doubts already expressed here, help Wikiquote in its efforts, and perhaps incidentally resolve the content issue, one way or another. I believe this was an efficient multiple use of this forum. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeff, for explaining the reasons more fully. I agree this has been a beneficial discussion. --C S (Talk) 20:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per discussion. linas 21:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep -one of the most notable math profs in the world Surmur 23:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was sent to redirects for deletion. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Medical Algorithm Project

this was a typo or confusion between medical and medication, there are medical algorithm projects and a medical algorithm article which should not get confused. DELETE Midgley 15:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. One lives and learns, thanks. Midgley 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yi Ping

Notability not clarified. No references given. Kukini 15:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 01:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonfable

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete NN Kukini 16:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable game --TBC??? ??? ??? 16:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep needmoney90 17:05 16 march 2006
    • Full disclosure - the above user is the original author of the article, and is the only major contributor to it. -- 12.106.111.10 19:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • More full disclosure - the above user's other contributions are found here; judge for yourselves... -- 12.106.111.10 20:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep pie12345 17:06 16 March 2006
    • This user's only other contribution was to vandalize] an article. Denni ☯ 02:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 137 unique Ghits says not much is happening here. Denni ☯ 02:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems to fit under the “something I made up one day at school” category. -- 12.106.111.10 19:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete* - Insufficient information to validate an article, provides no informatino about actual topic. I'm thinking of remaking the article entirely, so if I do I'll post it here Arkhiver 04:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete all. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germandria Bissonius

NN person. No such "Bissonian Institution" according to Google [41] (could have been a misspelling of "Bassenian", but even then "Bassenian Institution" yields about 280 hits [42]. This article is part of a circle of non-notable person articles created by User:Keynes, including Caitlin Corvinus and Bunny Murphy.

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Fang Aili 15:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Kukini 16:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 18:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is patent nonsense. --Lockley 20:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Esquizombi 20:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 23:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
comment if you look at
It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Iloveadama.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log.
's contributions, there are many vandalistic insertions of Bunny Murphy. Bucketsofg 00:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, maybe fictional person. Nigelthefish 17:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Icelandic nationalism

Delete The article as is, although, after the last edits, the text is mainly mine, contains no useful information at all. We need either to purge it or get a proper article with historical references to Nationalism in general vs. the Icelandic þjóðernishyggja which are not the same concepts. In order to deal with the topic one would need to compare nationalism and patriotism (both of which are covered elsewhere) and provide the history of the very few genuinely nationalistic "nationalistic" movements in Iceland. The only example I can think of is the extremely ineffectual Nazi Party, which did in fact exist, but was mostly the object of derision. Io 19:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm glad you cleaned and edited it, because I found it useful and interesting. Most of us who aren't Icelandic have no clue about any of this. I'll go with the "get a proper article..." option here. This doesn't need to go; it's a decent start. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It certainly could be better, but it's good enough to keep as a placeholder until a better article comes along.Thatcher131 18:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It reads like a dictionary entry, but it can certainly be edited into something interesting. --BWD (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
After three keeps against my own delete, am I in the position of wishing to erase an article, which probably owes most to me, against the wishes of other readers? Talk about irony. Cheers Io 22:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's just a dictionary definition. Þjóðernishyggja is merely Icelandic for nationalism as far as I'm concerned. It would be nice to have an article on the Icelandic independence movement though. --Bjarki 22:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rewrite: An Icelandic nationalism article would be great, but currently this is just a vague discussion about Icelandic vocabulary. Peter Grey 05:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bjarki. Pavel Vozenilek 18:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Mayfors Smith

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Non-notable local politician, of which there are many thousands in the UK. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - doesn't really meet WP:BIO. Waggers 16:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Nigelthefish 20:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planktum

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks like advertising, and barely coherant at that. Waggers 16:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete an advertisement for a future software effort, apparently. May be notable someday, but right now it's not worth the large amount of improving it would take. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Both not currently notable (just one more minor Linux distro) and possibly a copyright violation from the original spanish text found here [43] which then appears to have been poorly translated into English. -- 63.226.38.196 04:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

[edit] Ku'rapha

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

The result of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is apparently a hoax. - Eagletalk 16:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete if real, it's non-notable; WP:NOT a soapbox. Sandstein 16:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete This is a viable belief and plausible religion. There is no information contained within that would confuse or skew the intended audience's opinion on other matters. This article is not dis-information. It was carefully written to include the structure of what Mr. R.L.Davis is siting as his religion. This is not a hoax, as it does not question or change any current information known as fact. Thank you, Rev. Jason E. Brown
    • The fact that it does no damage is insufficient qualification for inclusion. It has to be notable Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. At the least, this is unverifiable. Based on the discussion below, WP:SNOW would seem to apply. --Kinu t/c 19:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC); amended 18:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE This is my belief. I Verify that is it true.

Ku'rapha is very real.

And to those say otherwise, try to explain that to myself and the others that meet at my ku'rapha home group gatherings. When we see lives changed daily because of the words and support of our spiritual brothers and sisters.

Yes, some people tell me that I can't believe something that they refer to as nonsensical new age crap.

But wasn't one of the reasons people came to america was to have the freedom to worship their God in the way they saw best, and is it so wrong that I want to share with others the joy that I found in Ku'rapha?

I don't want to press my beliefs on anyone. In fact part of Ku'rapha is equality, and the includes other religions and belief structures. Ku'rapha is about providing a different way of looking at the world. And providing support for those in need.

Thank you all for you time in reading this.

~R.L.Davis

  • Delete unless some strong evidence of verifiability and notability can be presented. --InShaneee 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete and myself stating that I believe this, does not make it notable??? I'm sorry but it seems like you are telling me that my beliefs are not valid. Early Christians were put to death for believing something that was "crazy", but look at Christianity now. Don't put to death what you do not understand. My belief is most defiantly valid, and the FACT that I believe it makes it so. ~ R.L.Davis (User:Rdsvn01) (Second opinion by this user. Gazpacho)
  • Delete, we don't let people create articles about their own deep thoughts. Gazpacho 22:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE: You say that, but could not the same be said of many of the other beliefs on this site? Besides... these aren't so much my "deep thoughts" as you call them, as they are the beliefs of a body of people. "religion is defined 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." My belief.... OUR belief is OUR religion. Thus making it Valid. and I'm sorry that you are unable to accept that validity. ~ R.L.Davis (User:Rdsvn01) (Third opinion by this user. Gazpacho)
    • Yeah, yeah, we get it, you don't want the article deleted. Show us where these ideas have been published in any form outside Wikipedia or your own web site, and where people have acknowledged the publication. This discussion isn't about "validity", it's about independent verifiability and encyclopedic significance. Gazpacho 22:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
        •  :DO NOT DELETE: I don't think that it's wrong for this to come up for discussion, but I do think it wrong that people say that it's not a valid belief when that are MANY people who belief this to be truth. I started a study group in late 1999, with a group a people who wanted to find the truth. And decided that the truth was everywhere and no where at the same kind. The name Ku'rapha came about because of our groups rituals of tattoos and piercing. Ku - Chinese for pain. and Rapha - Hebrew for healer. for in the pain of the Tattoos and Piercing, we found spiritual healing. not unlike many African tribes do. After much debate, we decided to write out the something to post it on our favorite internet website. Wikipedia.org. We thought that the Wikipedia community would be most open to us. and help us in our quest for global legitimacy. I pray you keep this Ku'rapha page up in Wikipedia's online database, in order to show others that it is okay to think for yourself. to question the things you've been taught growing up. For the truth to set you free, you most first know that truth. and how can one find the truth, if you do not question everything? you can't. You don't have to believe my beliefs to be the way to God or Enlightenment. Please Except them as OUR Valid beliefs. ~~ Russell L. Davis (User:Rdsvn01) (Fourth opinion by this user. Gazpacho)
          • Right, but how do we verify your claims? Is it unfair for us to ask for some way to verify what you say? You understand the need for verification, right? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Verify to me that the Angel Moroni came and spoke to Joseph Smith. you can't. All you can say is that 'some guy' said this, or 'some gal' said that. Am I not also 'some guy' who is able to make statements as well? The validity of those statements were made on someones spoken word. Now I might not be speaking these words aloud to you, but I'm saying them never the less. The religious belief of Ku'rapha is valid, and notible enough to be placed on Wikipedia. ~ RLD
            • The idea is not to verify the truth of your beliefs - it is to verify your claim that "many" people hold them. Sorry, I should have been more clear. Anyway, how many people actively follow ku'rapha? And can you verify that number, or some number like it? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
              • I don't know what a number will prove, being that you are so set on disblief. that and i can't prove to you the number. i mean, all i have in a word. and in my belief my word is enough. the strong stand against our belief shows that world really isn't as open minded as we believe it to be.... to answer your question on number. 4 groups ranging from 8 to 15 memembers each, and we're been growing fast.... so do whatever you want. delete, don't delete, it doesn't matter. i'll just repost this once we get our website up. and again.... and again.... i'll repost it add info... report it add info. until you stupid people are happy. i understand that the enemy was blinded the eyes of the unbeliever, and i understand that i can only do the work of a man. but nothing can happen outside the will of the Observer. so if this is the will of "o" i'll will accept it. ~RLD
    • Don't delete. Inspiring. Please allow freedom of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.154 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Per WP:V. I have no idea whether this is a total crock or not, but it's not verifiable, and if true must have a pretty small following. Fan1967 00:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete per above Rev. Po-Jay The size of the following should not be in question. The only question at hand is "does this purposely mislead the users of this reference tool?" The answer to this question is NO. It is an informative look into the Ku'Rapha belief. This is merely a start. There are followers of this religion. Remember, there is a separation of Church and of State. Our Constitution has ensured this. Based on this separation, law cannot declare someone's beliefs to be unconstitutional, unless they violate other people’s freedoms. This document provides no extremely controversial information. This document harbors no ill-will to other people or religions. This is merely an honest attempt to document a theology that is in its infancy. To delete this is to stifle R.L. Davis and his followers. Is it asking too much to allow this document to survive? I could spend a few hours and point you to many article within this tool that provide dis-information, so why kill an article with real merit? (user's only edit. Gazpacho)
Comment Wikipedia is not the government, so the constitution is irrelevant. The only relevant questions for listing in Wikipedia are: Is it verifiable? No. Nobody except the person or persons posting here have ever heard of it. Is it notable? No. Same reason. That's all. (By the way, this is at least the third unknown religion this week.) Fan1967 02:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
all religions are "unknown" until someone makes them know. i don't know about those other two, but this one is very real. ~RLD
Response It may well be very real (the other two also, or at least one of them). However, it's not verifiable and not notable. Do you really believe there should be an encyclopedia entry for every belief that has a few dozen (or few, or a few hundred) adherents? Fan1967 14:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Response Yes, I really Believe it. Besides, there is so much more Trivial information on Wikipedia than this entry about a REAL religious belief. Also, there is the Heaven's Gate (cult), with only 39 Members and they are on here (yeah, i know they were a bit "crazy" but that's not the point). I don't agree the number of members as reason not to list a religion. Even Jesus Christ only started out with 12 followers, granted Wikipedia wasn't around then, but I think you made my point about number members not being the real factor. ~ RLD(User:Rdsvn01)
  • You seem to keep concentrating on the fact that your belief is "REAL". Wikipedia does not have a rule about "real". It has rules about verifiable and notable. Heaven's Gate was in every newspaper and on every broadcast outlet in the world. You have been documented or reported where? Fan1967 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you want to Verify it? You are most welcome to join one of our meetings. There are many people there who are more than willing to talk to you about Ku'rapha as our combined faith. When are you going to be in Phoenix, AZ? You can join us for a 3F group. (don't worry, our 3F groups are just so we can invite our friends to an event that doesn't cause them to feel uncomfortable. So you can meet us and see that it is very much real, That way you can be a "VERIFIABLE" source. But, Po-Jay already did that for me. I'd Like to note that Po-Jay isn't an active Member of Ku'rapha. But he has joined us for a few 3F groups. (fyi: 3F stands for "Fun, Food, and Fellowship", and 3F groups are a great time for Ku'raphites and Non-Ku'raphites alike)... Myself and a fellow Brother are currently working on a Booklet/Track. If you'd like, I could send you a copy, via US mail, once it gets back from the painters. Your call on that one. ~ RLD (User:Rdsvn01)
  • Please read the policy on verifiability. Also, it would help to pay attention to what constitutes a reliable source for verification. I am not a reliable source. Neither are you (no offense) or Po-Jay. Fan1967 18:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • So you want me to send you the booklet? I don't have any ONLINE sources. but I have prints ones. And besides... back to the example of Joseph Smith, "All you can say is that 'some guy' said this, or 'some gal' said that. Am I not also 'some guy' who is able to make statements as well? The validity of those statements were made on someone's spoken word. Now I might not be speaking these words aloud to you, but I'm saying them never the less. The religious belief of Ku'rapha is valid, and notable enough to be placed on Wikipedia."
Something else, are telling me that if i just go out and make a webpage and put ku'rapha stuff on it, that would be a reliable source of info. a Published Webpage? if so, that's pretty ridiculous, but i can do that...if that will convince you. ~ RLD (User:Rdsvn01)
  • You didn't actually read the policies, did you? Fan1967 18:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes... so what i understand is that you will NEVER believe me, or NEVER agree for this document to be placed on Wikipedia.
Side Note. We are currently in the process of filing the paper work for The Ku'rapha Brotherhood to have a non-profit organizational tax ID number. once that goes through, i still don't you all will leave it up. the US government isn't considered a "reliable source", you know with the whole "weapons of mass destruction" never being located in all..... yeah, some reliable source they are. :) ... Point is, I'm just going to accept that you are just a close minded person. and i feel sorry for you. I'm done arguing the fact that it should not be deleted. I still feel that it should not be deleted, but i accept that I'll never convince you. ~ RLD (User: Rdsvn01)
This deletion is nothing personal against you or your religion - Wikipedia has fairly well-established guidelines about notability and verifiability. Verifiability requires published sources of some kind - click on this link: WP:V. The policy is non-negotiable - it's not meant as an insult against your religion, it's meant to protect Wikipedia and make it a more reliable source. Please try to understand that this is nothing personal against you - you seem like an impassioned person with strong beliefs, and that's admirable. It's just that until your religion is better-established and has published sources that document it and its membership, we can't include it here without violating the consensus rules of the community. Personally, I can promise you that when your faith gets recognition in any sort of established media source that meets WP guidelines, I will vote "keep" on any article you make about it. That's a promise. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete I also struck invalid votes (repeated and anonymous). In your last comment, do you mean "Do not delete as per yourself"? - Eagletalk 03:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks but that's a bit confusing. Gazpacho 06:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know about that, Eagle. I don't think Gazpacho and Po-Jay are the same person. i mean, i know Po-Jay, he is a good friend of mine. but i don't know Gazpacho. so i think you might be mistaken in that they are the same person and that Gazpacho was quoting himself. ~RLD (User:Rdsvn01)
  • Do Not Delete: I've heard of this and practice it myself. - --Hawkeye216 19:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey, Hawkeye... I'm not sure who you are, but i'm sure you know how to get in contact with me. Thanks for the words. Let me know who you outside of this forum. Hope to see you at the Next 3F group. ~ RLD
    • Then please provide information to meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. --Kinu t/c 19:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • yes i have... many times over now, but the rub still remains. it states that the article needs "credible references" and "credible sources" but never defines what "credible" is. I consider myself credible, thus making me a credible reference and/or credible source. It also states that "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources," but never does it say that it NEEDS reliable published sources. Though still "reliable sources" is defined by having some credibility to it. now going back to what i stated before, i consider myself CREDIBLE. Whether you wish to accept that is up to you, but in no way violates the "Reliable sources" or "Verifiability" policies set forth by Wikipedia. ~ RLD (User:Rdsvn01)
    • SIDE NOTE: how long does this process take? i mean, when will it be deleted or not deleted? i grow weary of this argument.
    • ... which argues in favor of Kinu's WP:SNOW argument. My guess is there is zero chance of this article being kept. Fan1967 22:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- seems unverifiable mumbo jumbo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.231.26 (talk • contribs)
    • Do Not Delete(like you don't already know what i want)... I think that the Moron Church is full of "mumbo jumbo", but that doesn't keep people from believing it that church's teachings. You say that Joseph Smith's meeting with the Angel Moroni is "Vefifiable" but he was the only person who was there. and none of you have ever spoken with him. i'm here now, telling you that these are my beliefs, and that mine and my follower's beliefs should be aloud to be heard. and left for others to read about. if that's what you call "mumbo jumbo", so be it. ~ RLD (Fifth opinion by this user. Gazpacho)
      • Russell, until you come up with sources for the existence of this religion, other than yours and other users' say-so, you are wasting your time. Gazpacho 02:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't really see much point in continuing the discussion. According to Russell's myspace blog ([44]) he's having fun with this. Fan1967 02:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete per above Rev. Po-Jay Okay Gentlemen, we are splitting hairs. While it is true, this is being discussed outside of the "Wikipedia" confines, it by no means should give anyone the impression that it is a joke. This is a serious topic. I find it very entertaining that a website such as this, would even question the validity of that which cannot be validated. This is a Theology Gentlemen. R.L. Davis' Theology has as much right to be here as any other. I will tell you something else that may confuse or infuriate you... I am an Ordained Minister and according to YOUR requirements to prove validity, my nod counts as validation. Should I present you with the Doctrine of my Ordination? I can very easily do so. I find it so hard to believe that a tool, such as Wikipedia, that has historically not "always" been exactly factual, cannot let an religion document its existance. I am not a practicing member of this Ku'Rapha, but I totally support it's motive and physical existence. Let this be the end, my brothers... I will leave you with a re-itteration. I am a Reverend and I say it is valid. That makes it valid, according to your own rules. BTW- I am Rev. Jason E. Brown (re:earlier posting) as doctrinated on my papers. (Sixth opinion by same user.)
    • Please just read this: WP:V. That's wikipedia policy. This is nothing against your religion, and it's nothing against your personal credibility. It's just that we need a reputable published source documenting your religion and its membership. As I said above, if you ever get such documentation, I will happily vote "keep" next time you make an article about Ku'rapha. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE!! do you realize that you are asking RLD to prove all ov the worlds religions! he stated that it is based off of all beliefs. so here is the thought- untill all of you jackasses can prove that Jesus really did rise form the grave and Moses really prted the Red Sea, and spoke to a burning bush and can proveid this proof and its not hearsay. you have no proof of your beliefs eother. lets face it thats all they ar is your beliefs nothing more.being that i am a trans-channeling intuitive medium, and my guide is a Pharaoh from ancient Egypt and has first hand knowledge of the MISSinterpritations of the bible, here is a clue- its symbolic NOT literal- it was the REED sea he alledgedly parted not the RED sea. my advise to all of you re-read EXIDUS and do it with an open mind.68.225.200.180 13:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Prince Pharaoh

Again, this is a misunderstanding. We're not asking him to verify his beliefs - we're asking him to verify the existence of a religious organization created around those beliefs. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


We've already established this article and AfD is a joke (and an unfunny one at that), as well as a WP:POINT violation, per [45]. WP:AGF has gone out the window. Please don't continue to feed the trolls, and just let the closure process take its course. --Kinu t/c 19:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Last statement... sorry.... here is the deal, Ku'rapha is my belief. And it is very real to myself and others.... but i totally agree with the fact that there is NOT enough information to have it placed on Wikipedia. it's just that i enjoy to argue. even when i know i am wrong, and will lose. you all will be seeing ku'rapha again as a entry... BUT i will be prepared with more "reliable sources" to back myself help. and when that time comes, i hope to see you all here again. Thank you all for the great time. And sorry for causing all this so called unfunny joke. (which i also disagree on ;] ) so until we all meet again. good-bye ~ RLD (User:Rdsvn01)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus - Liberatore(T) 20:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milton mapes

another non notable band Gator (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.Gator (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but move to correct capitalization. They are on AMG [46] which confirms that they have 3 releases on 2 apparently notable labels. A cursory glance at the google results suggests verifiability ([47] etc.) --W.marsh 17:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If it's on AMG, it's always notable enough for inclusion. That AMG review of their second album is a classic of AMG badness. Johnny Loftus is one of the all-time top 5 worst reviewers on that site, easily. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep They are a continually active, nationally touring band. What do they have to do to be a "notable" band? Bands are increasingly using small labels and doing more DIY promotion, and I think they are a great example of that process.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mimi breslow

Delete as non-notable, non-verifiable. This article is literate but evidently describes a film project which is not complete. Neither Mimi Breslow nor her filmmaker get significant Google results.--Lockley 17:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Yup, seems pretty made-up. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find any good sources talking about this either... the only results on Google are WP mirrors (and one newspaper story which mentions a different Mimi Breslow). Would change my mind if good sources are found. --W.marsh 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom unless some cited points of notability are provided. —GrantNeufeld 16:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent Kersting

I can find no evidence to back up any of this article. All searches come back to references to the Wikipedia article. Ben W Bell 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Either a joke (95% chance) or unverifiable. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the author can find some evidence. --David.Mestel 18:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not verifiable. Like Mr. Smith Sr. Jr. I find this highly suspect. --Lockley 18:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete this incorrectly titled page. W.marsh 05:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John WI Brown

This is almost certainly a vanity page. The subject's notability is questionable. Was raised as a speedy delete, but does not fit speedy delete criteria. DLJessup (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete meets db-bio criteria IMHO.Gator (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but not speedy. He doesn't seem to me to be important enough for a WP article, but I think a case could be argued either way. --David.Mestel 17:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge his bio into The Daily Buzz. I was ready to delete, but then I found that this seems legit and the show is syndicated to 139 stations around the US. (Brown profile) NoSeptember talk 19:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per NoSeptember. What's with the double letter middle initial? Thatcher131 19:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The individual in question actually replaced the article text of John W. Brown (a union organizer who apparently was important enough to have a Liberty ship named after him) with his own info. I spiked that, and he recreated the page as John WI Brown. Once the AfD has been resolved one way or another, we should probably move his article to John W. Brown (newscaster) or something like that. — DLJessup (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I won't judge whether Brown's notable enough or not - however, merging his info into the Daily Buzz article maybe shortlived - although nothing's been officially announced, I've heard that he may be leaving the show soon. TheRealFennShysa 20:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity page Nigelthefish 20:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert 00:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The power of many: how the living web is transforming politics, business, and everyday life

Delete A single non notable book from an author with very few responses through Google. No edits since its creation Tyhopho 17:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley 19:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Grandmasterka, I stand corrected. This book is legit. I've expanded the article accordingly and change my opinion to Weak Keep. --Lockley 20:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 15,700 Google hits is more than a few. Seems notable. Needs to be renamed for proper capitalization. Grandmasterka 20:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Apparently notable. I've also corrected capitalization, if that was fine... WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It has 10 reviews on amazon and a decent sales rank. Seano1 19:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bunny Murphy

Nn biography. Could not verify any information, not even that a journalist named Bunny Murphy ever existed. Text seems implausible: born in 1840s, died in 1960? Mangojuice 18:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Probable hoax. Bucketsofg 18:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Esquizombi 20:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax, WP:BIO. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as obvious hoax. There were Hollywood movie stars until the 1910's 70 years after she was born. Capitalistroadster 22:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Part of ongoing vandalism by user Keynes Dlyons493 Talk 23:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TerraColor

As the article creator and also developer of the product mentioned, reconsidered that this may not be appropriate from NPOV standpoint. An outside party can re-create this in the future if interested. If not an issue, maybe it can stay.Earthstar 18:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not quite Speedy G7 because others have edited.Slowmover 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat Eye

Delete vanity page San Saba 18:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn, vanity, unencyclopedic Bucketsofg 18:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:MUSIC and it is a possible copyvio from [48]. Bands are encyclopedic though. kotepho 16:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, vanity --Francisco Valverde 09:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, vanity, completely unencyclopedic
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlestown Square

Delete not notable enough for inclusion in WP San Saba 18:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Bucketsofg 18:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, if it had any real info I'd suggest to merge it into Lake Macquarie or Hunter Valley, but it really doesn't have enough useful/notable info to bother, there are thousands of shopping centers the world over with no particular significance to anyone but those who shop there. -Dawson 19:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 03:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Testability

  • Delete -- it's been marked "Move to Wiktionary" for 6 months now, and nobody seems to have taken any notice -- Gurch 19:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As per Jon Awbrey this is an important logical concept. It has already been expanded enough for the Move to Wiktionary tag to be removed. Seano1 18:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, merge possible though, of course. W.marsh 03:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Hutton

Delete fails Google test San Saba 19:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with Bala's Museum since that seems to be the substance here, if any, and there's already a page. --Lockley 19:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect per Lockley. Samaritan 10:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Not notable. Nigelthefish 19:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 02:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Noise (band)

Delete on grounds of apparent self promotion and questionable notability

  • Revert and keep. This article was about a completely different band, and had its entire content replaced by Stoyve (talk · contribs) (see edit). The other band seems more notable. - Rynne 19:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Reverted to previous non-worthless version. --Kinu t/c 19:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep unless someone wants to contest the notability of the current band version.--Isotope23 20:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Reverted version. --InShaneee 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ban the guy who turned an article about an genuinely good group (try "firebird" and "love without sound" from their '69 album) into some quasi-vanity crap. Okay, maybe not, but he'd deserve it. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Proper Version --Irishpunktom\talk 00:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kanar

Delete RL RPG played by only a handful of ppl in one local - not notable San Saba 19:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable clubcruft; at best this is WP:VSCA. Apparently this article was created on 2004-07-28... I'm glad someone finally caught it. --Kinu t/c 19:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linda Jackson-Hutton

Delete vanity page San Saba 19:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep, vanity not grounds for deletion, and nominator doesn't challenge notability. Monicasdude 20:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is NN, self-promotion, and/or vanity. Bala is a very small town in the Muskoka tourist/vacation region of Ontario. The most notable thing about it is that Goldie Hawn once had a vacation home in the area. Running a tiny local museum and piggy-backing on the visit of a famous author is not notability. Slowmover 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --InShaneee 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even designing a commemorative plaque doesn't bring it over the notability threshold. Dlyons493 Talk 23:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to Bala's Museum. Btw, the Kee to Bala would so be encyclopedic. Samaritan 10:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Polack

Delete as non-verifiable and likely hoax. This article's content, edit history and author's history all mark it as a hoax/joke/shaggy dog story/Pollack joke. Not verifiable on Google. It is linked from article Vincent Kersting, another article submitted in the deletion queue above. --Lockley 19:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not verifiable. fails Google and dogpile.com test.--Macrowiz 20:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious joke Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —GrantNeufeld 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 08:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 03:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan State University student riot

Delete not notable San Saba 19:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep It is definitely WP:V; CNN et al covered it pretty extensivly when it happened. It also had some long term effects in the state of Michigan as laws were later passed to expel and bar anyone convicted of participation in a riot from all public universities in Michigan. The article itself is rather poorly written though and makes no strong case for inclusion or importance. I actually witnessed this incident (well part of it anyway) and to this day one of the funniest displays of idiocy I've ever seen is a drunk college kid pick up a canister of tear gas that landed by him to throw it back at the police; thus burning his hand AND getting a big dose of gas in his mouth and eyes as he yowled in pain. I can't really say Wikipedia is any richer for having this article but I'm invoking WP:IAR for a keep. Needs a rewrite though.--Isotope23 20:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: If there were any salvageable information in here I would say transfer to wikinews. However, this one sentence is not worth keeping. --Hetar 22:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Significant event warrants an entry. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: 10 000 people doing almost anything would be notable (assuming that is the right number - there has to be some minimal verification of something like that). One sentence is better than no article at all. Peter Grey 05:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 10,000 is the official estimate [49].
  • I rewrote the article and sourced it.--Isotope23 18:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Michigan State University. ---Dana 03:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks good now. Calsicol 16:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it was defiantly new worthy and lead to a new state law. Seano1 19:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Heh, anything to make MSU looks bad =) __earth (Talk) 07:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of celebrities thought to have ADHD

  • Delete. This article is inherently NPOV and completely without merit. --Macrowiz 19:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Macrowiz
  • Delete. As the page itself says, this list is not verifiable. --Lockley 19:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia:No Original Research Esquizombi 20:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ever-changing and speculative. --BWD (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Macrowiz. Slowmover 22:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Extreme delete "Thought" to have ADHD??? Not only WP:NPOV, not just WP:V, not just even WP:NOR, but potentially libellous. Alba 23:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since WP:NOT a load of bollocks. Well, mostly not anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - an article with actual factual celebritieswith ADHD would be interesting, but, this is unsourced speculation.--Irishpunktom\talk 00:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hyperactive Delete per WP:NOR. Eivindspeak! 00:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • ADHDelete, unverifiable speculation. GrandmasterkaImage:Blend Flag.jpgImpart wisdom 03:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thought by whom? Complete POV Original Research page of no merit. David | Talk 11:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unverified speculation. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 08:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raiffeisen Observation Tower

Delete fails Google test San Saba 19:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete same reason. --Macrowiz 19:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obscure. Gazpacho 22:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It exists ok - see the links in the article and de. wiki [50]. There is some precedent for keeping these towers see Krawutschke Tower which seem to be part of somebody's pet project. Dlyons493 Talk 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep we have plenty other articles on this type of thing Jcuk 01:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 junk by Jimfbleak. Proto||type 13:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shower night

Delete not notable San Saba 19:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, lacks any WP:V sourcing.--Isotope23 20:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Isotope23. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & probable hoax (just like "movie night"). Slowmover 22:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete one time happening--216.8.170.186 22:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion (per A3 - no content) ---Obli (Talk)? 20:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mazokilla

It's pointless. DuctapeDaredevil 20:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asiantown

Alexa rank of 83,357. Fails WP:WEB. Daniel Case 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commie robots

Good work on the page, but unfortunately bands with a single demo that are about to release their debut albums do not meet the standards of WP:MUSIC. Text is a little too promotional as well. Daniel Case 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 06:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boatfax

This company does not appear to be notable; the creator of the article appears to be identical to the founder and CEO listed in the infobox. Henning Makholm 21:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, pure promo of nn company and products. Daniel Case 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is just advertising. Weatherman90 22:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The original author User:Haythorn recently added a {{delete}} tag above the AfD box, which makes the article speedily deletable under WP:CSD#G7. Henning Makholm 22:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Die famous

Only signficant Google hit is this "cult fashion" designer's MySpace. Vanispamcruftisement. Daniel Case 21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Also creator has same name as article. DJ Clayworth 21:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable fashion line.
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 08:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origami lad's superhero society

non-notable webcomic with only one 'issue' in existance (and even that wasn't there when the article was written). Delete --InShaneee 21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: The link to the comic's website reveals no comics. Only a brief message that includes, "I'm Dockerz, and I write this crap." The comic (if it exists at all) is nn, per the author's own admission on this article's talk page, "As a webcomic, it deserves to have a page for itself, even if it is not notable." Surely wikipedia does not need an article for every web comic in existance, especially not one that is considered "crap" by its own author. --Hetar 21:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom. -- Ned Scott 09:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 08:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Nigelthefish 16:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koyla (restaurant)

Hi - non-notable, unsourced topic. Rama's Arrow 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Abstain -- AFAIK, the restaurant has been razed by the BMC as it was an illegal. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep per above. --Gurubrahma 10:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - It has been razed down. I have added a reference and some more text. I think it can stay. Ganeshk (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I guess, only because it was knocked down because it was illegal. -- mmeinhart 03:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hmm. I guess I'm having difficulty seeing why this should be retained, guys. It is (/was) a run-of-the-mill restaurant that was closed down... why (and how) would we write an encyclopedia article about it? Of what significance is this establishment to history, to the world, or even to the country or state (or even city) in which it once existed? WP:ISNOT a random collection of trivia or a database of news cuttings. It is (or aims to be) an encyclopedia, with well-researched articles on well-studied/reported items. I'm leaning delete, but will be glad to revise my opinion if I'm missing something here. Very kind regards —Encephalon 02:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete tons of buildings are demolished because they violate various laws. Many are condemned, for example. That does not make them notable. If an article about its owner (who appears notable for being a member of parliament) ever gets written, it might deserve a mention in that article, but a redirect would be out of order, being as it is a very unlikely search term. Not notable enough for a dab at Koyla either. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedied. --Golbez 22:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travis Reininger

Has already been speedied twice under A7, but re-created. I'm bringing it here to see whether the community at large considers this person notable. He is an umpire in minor league baseball, which IMO does not meet WP:BIO's criteria for sportspeople. He also (allegedly, no source has been provided for this) won a car and money on a television game show, which is not even contemplated at WP:BIO. My vote is speedy delete (again) for nonnotability. Angr/talk 21:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as per CSD:G4 and A7. —LrdChaos 21:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. Weatherman90 22:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. What's wrong with keeping pages like this on the site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.117.238.194 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Stop the afd right now and speedy I dpn't why this is being considered and i don't have a clue how this survived speedy. Reposted content, nn-bio, completely a waste of wikipedia space. J.J.Sagnella 22:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom.--Adam (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article claims that he is an umpire in the World Baseball classic and won $10,000 on Price is Right. While these are assertions of notability, neither establishes notability. However, if he were to continue to work as a high profile umpire, notability may well be established. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete- textbook A7. Reyk 00:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mars photos

I suggest deleting this badly formated image gallery. It is certainly not an encyclopedia article. Rmhermen 21:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. The only way the article could be kept, is if some organization was applied. The photos are just scattered about. Weatherman90 22:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this belongs in another wiki. Don't remember which. GrandmasterkaImage:Blend Flag.jpgImpart wisdom 22:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to commons - integrate into commons:Mars. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Disorganized and with no supporting text. I'm not sure what the point of moving this to commons is. These images are readily available from NASA. Denni ☯ 02:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The point of having galleries like commons:Mars is to make it easy for people to find relevant images on commons, for inclusion in the many wikimedia projects. This is one of the reasons that commons exists, to host pages like this. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Disorganized and with no supporting text is my point. It would be faster and probably easier for me to go directly to the NASA site and find the image I wanted (knowing it to be PD) than to browse through this dog's breakfast of unannotated images. Denni ☯ 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki anything relevant to the commons. Ingoolemo talk 22:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Deleting this page will not remove any of the images from Wikipedia. I have added transwiki tags to some of the images - one at least doesn't qualify. I would appreciate help with this. Rmhermen 03:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Close enough article on commons, and is not needed here. ~Linuxerist L / T 04:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Maybe show a couple of the more interesting pictures on Mars, but this "gallary" type page is what Commons is for. --Kinkoblast 02:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Obvious attack page on a random teacher. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Kiek

Delete due to lack of relevance to any useful subject

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 empty. Just zis Guy you know? 23:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Konstanty Jerzy Maria Czartoryski

Fails to assert any notalibity whatsoever.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 02:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cdigix

Putting this up for deletion as advertising. Article does not appear to claim notability as per WP:WEB, but I'm bringing this to AfD to allow debate on this point (so that would be a delete from me unless convinced otherwise). Petros471 22:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes. JIP | Talk 06:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like advertising to me. Ehurtley 08:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ummm...weak keep if rewritten so as not to look like an ad, and if some citations are provided to substantiate their claims. Duke University and 50 campuses subscribing to the service may indicate that there's more to this than some start-up trying to get their name out. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 11:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes both WP:WEB and the mor appro WP:CORP as there are numerous newspaper articles which have the company as a subject - most of which appear to be non-press releases [51]. Seems to meet the common sense criteria as well (per Mr. Bugwit). Kuru talk 05:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
And yes, it really, really needs to be translated away from "ad-speak". Kuru talk 05:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kuru. Cleanup appears to have progressed already. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greenhouse, Lund

Non-notable student accomodation, home to 50 students. Prod tag removed by User:213.80.27.34. -- Cnwb 22:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic, too. GrandmasterkaImage:Blend Flag.jpgImpart wisdom 22:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • delete Non-notable student housing. Nigelthefish 17:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave this article alone! This is not a student hall as such, but can be viewed more as a student nation, the same as Kalmar Nation or any of the other nations in Lund —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.177.173 (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 no consensus delete (we make mistakes...). – Sceptre (Talk) 14:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of virtuosi performers

  • Delete There is too much POV and original research, and people are just adding names of musicians they like, and it is getting out of control. Amalozemoff1 22:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but only for people who normally perform solo and are promoted as virtuosi. Gazpacho 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is what categories are for. "Virtuoso" is a somewhat debased currency in these days of marketing hype, in the end it's best to debate it one by one in the articles rather than in this unsourced and therefore unverifiable list. Just zis Guy you know? 23:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep categories and lists are different things that do different jobs Jcuk 01:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was going to nominate it for exactly the same reasons. Deltabeignet 05:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and JzG. --CrypticBacon 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 08:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but post clear criteria and trim down. Seano1 18:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Such an article is inherently POV, especially with the term "Virtuoso" being thrown around so easily these days. To prevent people from adding their favorite lead guitarist or whatnot, it could be less painful to instead create a pre-19th century list, since it is objectively easier to see who went down history documented and remembered as a true virtuoso. If that even makes sense. Nezbie 19:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fatally POV. One person's "virtuosity" is another's "pointless noodling". --Fire Star 14:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was BJAODN and DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quiet Study Activities

  • Delete as NN, possible advertisement. Links to NN website [52] with no Alexa ranking. No references to claimed title activity can be found. Slowmover 22:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, it's just self-promotion. Shrew 23:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as complete bollocks. Possible BJAODN candidate. Just zis Guy you know? 00:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN! Here comes a paper missile JzG! -- Samir (the scope) 01:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: self-promotion, advertisement, complete bollocks, BJAODN, etc. etc. --RFBailey 16:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 08:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Platonism and Christian Cosmology

As the author states on the talk page, this entry is purely original research and a personal essay. Harro5 22:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete a shining example of the deleteable - nn, vanity, original research, personal essay, user claims a copyright on the material, totally unwikified, and the user actually attempts to add a poem of his own composition and holds back only because of formatting issues... Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete deep thoughts bordering on nonsense. Maybe the author should try submitting this to Social Text. Gazpacho 23:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete which is too bad, because this might be an interesting topic for a well-researched article. JoshuaZ 03:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete It's a copyvio and was speedy-deletable as such. dcandeto 04:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as copyright issue. Plus I don't see a connection between Plotinus and Neo-Platonism, and there really isn't any such thing as Christian cosmology. Peter Grey 05:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 08:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete See above, rinse, repeat. Nigelthefish 14:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Red English Bulldogges Association & Registry

Good faith effort by uninvolved editor to consolidate links entered by a spammer, but this association seems to consist of 4 people representing 4 kennels, and the registry seems to exist only to sell dogs by these breeders. 207 google hits, all of which are self-placed ads. Fails WP:CORP - Trysha (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom - Trysha (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a decent kennel and they have good info and appear active in the fighting dog breed area SirIsaacBrock 23:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Per nom Nigelthefish 15:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Seems to be an advert for the Bulldog spammer's site. --TeaDrinker 03:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James E. Hearn

Don't think he's a notable academic. Looks like he's an audio engineer with a couple of famous clients who teaches at a music college. Google reveals 31 hits [53], not all about him. Just don't think he's notable enough per WP:BIO and don't think he passes the professor test. -- Samir (the scope) 23:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sympatico

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

The result of the debate was Speedily userfied which is what I should have done in the first place. Just zis Guy you know? 00:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Reichert

Tagged as nn-bio, but notability is asserted. Just zis Guy you know? 23:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You messed up somewhere in the process, but I think it's fixed now... — Mar. 16, '06 [23:25] <freakofnurxture|talk>
I clicked the AFD helper button form the History page - a mistake I will not make again. Bah! Just zis Guy you know? 23:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, since it's caused us so much troule, and since the guy really doesn't seem notable. — Mar. 16, '06 [23:29] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Delete. Autobiographic. Asserts notability only "with[in] the circle of ICC critics" which even if true does not make him an encyclopedic topic. Henning Makholm 23:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
So now as well as screwing up the AfD helper, I missedd the fact that I should have userfied it. Probably time to call it a day. Just zis Guy you know? 00:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regressive Rock

Neologism. From an earlier edit - "The term was coined by chronic web-user Revamp although it has not come to any great proliferation of usage due to his lack of access to the mainstream media". -- Cnwb 23:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete with thanks to the creator for making the decision so easy. Just zis Guy you know? 00:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nominator. —Encephalon 06:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete this content, the people interested in the merge can of course persue that. W.marsh 05:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tracey Philips

Tagged for speedy, contested. Notability is asserted. I still would not know her from a hole in the ground, but I suspect some people might. Just zis Guy you know? 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete First of all, if she's the daughter of Wade Phillips, there are 2 "l"s in the last name. The external link leads to a non-existent page. The only Tracey Phillips or Philips on IMDB in the last 20 years ([54]) has one credit as "Dancer at Cheemo's House" in "Gun Shy" (2000). Looks pretty non-notable. Fan1967 00:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Wade Phillips. I removed the speedy because there was an assertion of notability. She deserves a mention in the Wade Phillips article. -- Samir (the scope) 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Mergeas per above. Kukini 17:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. The dude with the scope is right. :-) It asserts notability. Further, whatever information on her that is independently verifiable is better placed in Wade Phillips, where it will enjoy better context. I think a redirect would be suboptimal, however; the name is very common, and I'd be inclined to keep the page free for a useful future article (novice editors can get very confused by a redirect to another article when they are trying to create a page). This is however a relatively minor consideration, and a merge+redirect wouldn't make me swear off Wikipedia :-) —Encephalon 16:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. WP:POINT, WP:WEB, WP:SNOW. kingboyk 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hattrick

Delete. Fails the WP:WEB, just like Sokker and Popomundo did. Deallus 23:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • User's only edits have been regarding this AFD. --kingboyk 18:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Why the deletion? Hattrick is a growing community, not a dissapearing, not yet.Henrik 8:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete article is very well written and has no problems other than slightly failing notability standards. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:57, 16 March 2006
  • Speedy keep'. Alexa 1,200, vast numbers of Googles including fan and knockoff sites. I suspect WP:POINT. Just zis Guy you know? 00:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- Nearly 800,000 users clearly makes it notable. Reyk 00:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Easy keep --Irishpunktom\talk 00:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JzG and Reyk. Eivindspeak! 00:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Nearly 800,000 users globally, hundreds of fan-sites and offsite discussion groups (over 40 on Yahoo! groups alone), dozens of third-party applications written for it. Definitely notable. Bastun 01:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Deallus is just envious, because his beloved sokker has only some 10thousand users and is not noticeable. This is pure envy!

  • Keep. Comprehensive article on a notable topic. Denni ☯ 02:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see why we must delete it. It's a usefull information page, also the article is well writed. --PET 02:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep: This is upcoming article which will be good in some time.

  • Keep per Bastun. JoshuaZ 03:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Good article and they even have their own comprehensive wiki site. --Jmbox 04:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Just keep it. --TurboDaan 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bastun. Goblin_insane 09:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This game has like 800.000 players. If this game must go, so must loads of MMORPGs and FPS's and i really don't see why such a splendid dictionary like wikipedia shouldn't tell about these things. Hoopak 9.38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep By Deallus's reasoning just about every article on online gaming should be deleted. You don't delete an article that relates to a 800k strong -and growing- community and with the activity that surrounds the place as per Bastun. --Djakdarippa 10:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep WP:Point making nom MLA 10:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Easy delete WP:Point does not apply here, WP:WEB does however apply here, as this wikipedia page is nothing more than an advertisement for a browser-game which makes money on site advertisement. More users = more money, therefore this should be an easy delete. —This unsigned comment was added by 84.202.102.76 (talk • contribs) . User's first and only edit. --kingboyk 18:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
U-huh. So in what way does a site with an Alexa rank just outside the top thousand, 800,000 registered users, millions of Google hits, thousands of inbound links, multiple related forums and fansites and several dozen third-party add-ins fail WP:WEB? Just zis Guy you know? 11:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert 00:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Schneidermann

No vote, but I would like to have some feedback here before I decide whether to delete this article on the Interlingua wikipedia. -- Dissident (Talk) 23:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Tentative keep. While the editing pattern surrounding this article (particularly the dumps to other wikis of a basic stub) do look rather like astroturfing, I think the French wikipedia article (fr:Daniel Schneidermann) looks like he's sufficiently notable (writing for two very notable newspapers, appearing on TV, a number of books published). That said, I'd feel more confortable if a proper French-speaking wikipedian could verify my understanding of the FR version. I'd certainly suggest this article have the "FR wikipedia has better article on this subject" tag on its takpage. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete its very hard to say since neither the article nor any of its sources give any actual indication as to who this guy is. therefore, delete as unverified. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the article needs expanding, great google search[55], plus imdb has a little bit on him[56]. And the french article looks good.Eivindspeak! 00:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would think that being the television critic for a mjaor newspaper like Le Monde (for a decade or so) and publishing nine books [57] would qualify him as notable, even though he's no Air Force Amy. Monicasdude 00:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Monicasdude. Capitalistroadster 04:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerned Christian Parents

Non-notable and self-serving Carlo 23:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Phrase returns only 279 google hits, many not refering to the group. JoshuaZ 23:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete vanity/ad. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Under 300 Googles, with Wikipedia top of the list. I spy WP:VSCA. Just zis Guy you know? 00:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Looks like most (if not all) of the Ghits are about some concerned Christian parents, but not this group. Fan1967 02:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm... Who? What? Where? Delete Ted 06:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 08:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Wroe Golf Course

This course is about as insignificant as a golf course can be. It is par 64 course aimed mainly at beginners so there is no chance it will ever hold a tournament of any signficance whatsoever. Category:Golf clubs and courses needs populating, but with articles about places like the great courses with red links in the Golf Digest article, not articles like this one. Delete Osomec 23:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Osomec 23:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • keep - I don't see a problem with inclusing this. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There are around 30,000 golf courses in the world. This is one of the least important. When I click on a link in one of the subcategories in Category:Golf clubs and courses I want to find an article that might enhance my knowledge of golf. This doesn't - it might as well be made up. It is a simply a directory style entry. I want to see all the golf categories well populated one day (I'm the biggest contributor to them) but not filled up with random clutter that makes it harder for people to identify worthwhile articles, and makes random clicking full and pointless. No one can derive any possible benefit from reading this article - even in the locality only a minority of people will be interested, and they probably won't learn anything from the article.Osomec 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If your problem is with categories, redo them. I do think there is a good argument for having this piece included. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom (nn, advert?) Bucketsofg 00:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I can't delete a golf course article based on a POV criteria like we should only have articles on "the great courses". If we are going to go down that road, why not just keep articles on the "great" universities, or the "great" highways, or the "great" towns, or the "great" football players, or the "great" stadiums? Why not make things simple and only have articles on films that have won academy awards, or scientists that have won nobel prizes, or hall of fame athletes? Everything else is just getting in the way of the random clicking, right? Well I hope we never go down that road. Life is made up of the great and the less great. This course must be important for the people who play on it and the local economy. Furthermore, this nom speaks like he owns the golf category and that he should be the one to decide what is worthwhile to be included. The editors who submitted the info did not see it as pointless, or "random clutter" and I'm satisfied that these editors are treating these courses in keeping with wikipedia standards. Therefore I see no grounds for removal. -- JJay 01:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per JJay Jcuk 01:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Are golf courses the new schools? JoshuaZ 03:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. We don't need 30,000 golf course articles. 300 would probably be closer to the mark. Ryder Cup venues, major championship venues, regular venues on the major tours should make the cut. Any others would just get in the way of the stuff worth reading. Scranchuse 14:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There are 100+ courses like this in metro Atlanta. Creating an article about each of them would be bad for Wikipedia. Golfcam 17:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ReeseM 01:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Calsicol 16:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by DakotaKahn. -- JLaTondre 03:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruby Moon (CLAMP Character)

  • Delete - Name of article isn't consistent with other related articles. Content has already been moved. Suggestiong deletion to save database space, since this would otherwise just be a superfluous redirect. Crisu 23:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Page appears to be blank... Batmanand | Talk 23:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy delete. this page appears to have been a redirect. nobody would ever need a redirect in parentheses. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rutland County Golf Club

As with the one nominated above, this is a golf course of the utmost insignficance. It just clutters up the English golf courses category, which should only contain courses which have staged significant tournaments or are notable in the history of golf course design. Delete Osomec 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • keep - maybe make a new category for Majors' English Golf Courses, but, I don't see a problem with having this article included. needs expansion. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as per previous article. Jcuk 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reasons already given on the other golf course noms on this page. Information is not clutter. -- JJay 01:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it isn't notable. It isn't even old (founded in 1992). JoshuaZ 03:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. We don't need 30,000 golf course articles. 300 would probably be closer to the mark. Ryder Cup venues, major championship venues, regular venues on the major tours should make the cut. Any others would just get in the way of the stuff worth reading. Scranchuse 14:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence it is interesting or important. My golf club is more important and well, it isn't important at all. Golfcam 17:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ReeseM 01:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Calsicol 16:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brampton Heath golf course

A completely random entry for a municipal golf course of no conceivable interest to anyone who doesn't play there. Category:Golf clubs and courses needs populating, but with articles about places like the great courses with red links in the Golf Digest article, not articles like this one. Delete Osomec 23:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn, advert? Bucketsofg 00:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I can't delete a golf course article based on a POV criteria like we should only have articles on "the great courses". If we are going to go down that road, why not just keep articles on the "great" universities, or the "great" highways, or the "great" towns, or the "great" football players, or the "great" stadiums? Why not make things simple and only have articles on films that have won academy awards, or scientists that have won nobel prizes, or hall of fame athletes? Everything else is just getting in the way of the random clicking, right? Well I hope we never go down that road. Life is made up of the great and the less great. This course must be important for the people who play on it and the local economy. Furthermore, this nom speaks like he owns the golf category and that he should be the one to decide what is worthwhile to be included. The editors who submitted the info did not see it as pointless, or "random clutter" and I'm satisfied that these editors are treating these courses in keeping with wikipedia standards. Therefore I see no grounds for removal. -- JJay 01:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Every vote on here is based on a point of view, including yours. Scranchuse 14:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A municipal golf course "important to the local economy"? It probably has about the same turnover as the average fast food joint. ReeseM 01:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • and again....Strong Keep Jcuk 01:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete There is nothing notable about this golf course. JoshuaZ 03:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. We don't need 30,000 golf course articles. 300 would probably be closer to the mark. Ryder Cup venues, major championship venues, regular venues on the major tours should make the cut. Any others would just get in the way of the stuff worth reading. Scranchuse 14:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Way too unimportant. The article makes no mention of any tournaments that have been played there. Golfcam 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ReeseM 01:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Calsicol 17:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I had trouble finding the appropriate inclusion guidelines for a public golf course. Doesn't appear to be notable, but would prefer if the decision was less arbitrary. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


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