Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Recommend just merge & redirect to List of shock sites as a compromise. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consumption junction

Non-notable website. Rmhermen 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect/merge to/with Tubgirl. --SYCTHOS^talk 00:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Royboycrashfan 00:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB, nomination. --Jay(Reply) 02:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pn, FloNight 02:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pn, Majora4 05:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 05:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 06:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with List of shock sites.  (aeropagitica)  06:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 07:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain, but in contrast to most of the other websites that appear on AfD I've actually heard of this one. Hynca-Hooley 16:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like an ad. --Krashlandon (e) 21:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Merge / Redirect to List of shock sites, otherwise it'll be recreated. Deiz 21:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not sure what makes it non-notable. --badlydrawnjeff
• Keep, it's a prominent internet site. --AdamTierney 1:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 22:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known site. — Adrian Lamo ·· 23:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with List of shock sites. JeffBurdges 16:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with List of shock sites. Ewlyahoocom 17:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RexNL 17:02, 6 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 23:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Mallin

Vanity, reads like a resume. Unsure as to whether the person is notable enough for an article. Fightindaman 00:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Vanity, lots of dangerous redlinks. Exists accordingly to google but barely, no evidence of being close to WP:BIO. Begone this RedlinkCruft. Deiz 00:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Non notable. --Jay(Reply) 02:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio FloNight 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

DON"T DELETE - THere are six pages of Google entries on Dan. He is doing many things to give back to the state of Minnesota. He and is partner have started a business plan competition called the Minnesota Cup. Last year was the first year. It has a $1 million endowment, sponsorship from The State of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota and Wells Fargo. There where over 600 entires from 48 counties in the state. Year two will be announced in March. All sponsors are back and there will be even more. They are extending the utility to help more companies that are not on the "Venture" track but more lifestyle or "SBA" track. Theres is a civic group called the Itasca Project. http://www.theitascaproject.com/ Dan has been asked to lead the Small Business efforts and will be rolling out a major public service initiative addressing those needs in Q3-06. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-09%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=%22dan+mallin%22+minneapolis I just did not know what I was doing from a Wikipedia entry. I have edited it down and with your help will make it an acceptable entry. Help me but don't delete. US285188

• Delete As per nomination, non-notable biography. Seeems like a resume or personal advertisement. Has all the hallmarks of a vanity page. --Wingsandsword 03:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Still no evidence of being a notable businessman. If he's involved in notable organisations, perhaps the organisation should have the article. Otherwise it looks like vanity.Average Earthman 06:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He has worked for a number of notable companies, but that does not make him inherently notable. Cnwb 06:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable business bio, WP:BIO refers for criteria. The article reads as a corporate biography from an Annual Report.  (aeropagitica)  06:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn bio. --Terence Ong 07:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-vanity-bio Computerjoe 08:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Gad, what an inflated sense of importance. --Calton | Talk 13:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable bio. Will tag as such if not already done. Ifnord 19:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sorry, I agree, no affirmation of notability achieved by the article -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 22:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete: The article is biased and the person is not even that importantOsbus 23:04, 1 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 23:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mashton

The page is nonsense. It started as an initial nonsense sentence (Mashton sounds like mash tun), and was added to with somewhat incorrect information about brewing. BrendanH 00:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn nonsense.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with the key words being: "The word is not widely used." --Jay(Reply) 02:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as protologism. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Master Jay. JIP | Talk 06:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Master Jay's comments.  (aeropagitica)  06:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Master Jay. --Terence Ong 07:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Brewing. A mash tun article wouldn't be a bad thing, I don't think, but it needs to be spelt correctly and be better written. Hynca-Hooley 10:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Hynca. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 22:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Master Jay -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 22:39, 1 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 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korean Liberal Democrats

Listed as prod, for which I was tossed something pretty close to violating NPA. However this article has been up for a while and not even the good folks on the busy English/Korean board have heard of them. No assertion of notability, no evidence of existence... Nothing but WP + mirrors on google. Hoax / fantasy. NorKorCruft! Delete Deiz 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. can't find them. it's not easy to speculate what the exact original korean name may be, so hard to search in korean. only thing close is United Liberal Democrats, a south korean political party. Appleby 01:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because its out of thin air. --Jay(Reply) 02:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiable evidence emerges of their notability as a group. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. Grandmasterka 06:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable through Google, lack of sources, references, citations or external links to demonstrate notability.  (aeropagitica)  07:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 07:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom --Krashlandon (e) 21:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unverifiable. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 22:42, 1 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 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internetdiary

This page appears to be an advertising page for the commercial link at the bottom, disguised as an attempt to describe a purportedly general term. A Google search doesn't readily turn up any use of the word "internetdiary" that doesn't relate to the linked company. Also problematic are the other edits made by Kernowman and 81.99.43.37 (evidently the same person) to other pages to add linkspam and promote "internetdiary" as a generally-used synonym for "online diary" or "blog"; I can't find a single edit made by a different person that uses this word. (If you agree that this page should be deleted, we should also revert these edits.) –Sommers ^(Talk) 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not to mention that after subtracting the advertisement fluff, the article is simply "internet diary" - more of a dic. def. than an article. How many "red car" or "blue toaster" articles do we need? --Jay(Reply) 02:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. After looking at related edits, it looks like a clear case of linkspam to me. --Elkman - ^(talk) 03:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nomination. --Wingsandsword 03:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as likely WP:VSCA. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 22:43, 1 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. Bad-faith nomination. android79 01:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harlan_Ellison

Fails notability criteria; just another partisan godless hack. Sam Tindell 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep apparent bad faith nomination from a user whose only other edits were to nominate someone else's userpage for deletion in an apparent attempt to get the user banned. The article claims this subject is an award-winning published author who worked with Isaac Asimov. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:23, 1 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. Ifnord 18:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borden Grammar

Delete. Article in it current form is a childish hoax. However, I am nominating for AFD rather than {{prod}}ding because I feel there shouldn't be an article on the school at all. That decision requires consensus. Superm401 - Talk 01:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I've removed the unverified and false info. You can see the original version. Superm401 - Talk 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: Non-notable and is essentially nothing more than a link. --Hetar 01:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  {{sofixit}} Silensor 01:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this empty SchoolCruft. Deiz 01:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, plenty of verifiable resources are available to expand this article about an English secondary school. Silensor 01:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Funny you should assume there are plenty of verifiable resources, funnier yet you should assume anyone will bother to expand this pathetic little article. Chances, my friend, are bleak. Denni ☯ 01:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Even though the school in question lacks famous alumni, or a sex scandal for that matter, deleting it would set a sour precedent, leading essentially to the deletion of all school "SchoolCruft" articles on Wikipedia. --Jay(Reply) 02:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And this would be bad because...? Denni ☯ 01:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this school and article are important to the community served Yuckfoo 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my unwavering deletionist view towards unremarkable grammar-/middle-/highschools. -- Krash (Talk) 04:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SCHOOL. Royboycrashfan 05:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Sittingbourne, otherwise it is yet another of the literally tens of thousands of school articles that will sit here year after year unedited except for the occasional bit of vandalism. What's the point of recreating the WWW? Average Earthman 06:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it ceratinly seems a decent little article now, as opposed to the version the nom saw. Turnstep 06:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I am pro-School. Cnwb 06:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable corporation. — Adrian Lamo ·· 06:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Article now tidy but are there any other factors for notability that could be mentioned?  (aeropagitica)  07:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --Bduke 07:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Jcuk 09:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all schools are worthy of inclusion.  ALKIVAR™ 09:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per consensus achieved at WP:SCH, as article now fulfils criterion for a high school. Proto||type 10:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Proto. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as page is now much better, and precedent requires that we keep all school articles (though I may disagree). -- Mithent 16:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Pepsidrinka 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable. --Krashlandon (e) 21:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as it meets WP:SCH criteria. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 22:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Why not just create one "how excruciatingly boring am I" article and redirect all schools to it. That way, every school gets to be recognized with an article which tells the whole world exactly what wonderful and unique qualities it (doesn't) have, and Wikipedia saves space. Win-win! Denni ☯ 01:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. If we are going to judge articles by their entertainment value- as the user above seems to suggest- huge sections of this site would have to go, including most of our coverage of Canadian villages. People need to look beyond their limited POV frameworks and embrace the idea that wikipedia can be more than a print encyclopedia. It can serve the interests of a broad section of mankind. I happen to like articles on schools and this article is off to a good start. It can and will get better over the years. -- JJay 10:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, schools are notable. --Terence Ong 15:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, schools are notable. Piccadilly 17:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as it meets the inclusion criteria set forth by WP:SCH. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, good school article. Kappa 12:35, 6 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 WP:CSD A7 mikka (t) 03:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Binnali

Vanity. Non-notable Joelito 01:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 02:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - CSD A7, nn-bio. The entire article is made up, only one google hit for the name, and I doubt all that nonsense about Space Jam and Flubber. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:30, 1 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 nomination withdrawn. Ifnord 18:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francisco Montes Reina

This appears to be copyvio, straight from the book listed on the page. Other than that, I can't establish any sort of context, or figure out who/what the article is referencing. I'm not even sure that this person exists. The picture on the page is copyvio and slated to be deleted. Francisco Montes Reina was orignally {{prod}} but was removed by author, so now it's going to AfD where it can run and be free and play in the fields with other questionable articles. Isopropyl 01:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per what he said. --Jay(Reply) 02:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find anything in English on the guy. Article fails to establish context, importance. -- Krash (Talk) 03:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Chairman S. | Talk 03:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 05:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Might be a notable bullfighter but I can't find anything in English to determine this. Google search brings back 84 hits for the man; excluding this page, they are all in Spanish. This could do with an expert's appraisal for a notability vote.  (aeropagitica)  07:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, maybe move; he has an article on the Spanish wikipedia, as Paquiro. David Sneek 12:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I think we need to find someone who actually speaks Spanish to look into this more. I am not qualified for this. Isopropyl 13:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - big name in bullfighting. Hes on Google, not bad for an old Spanish guy. Defunkier 13:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, more notable than Pokemon characters no one will remember in 150 years. Monicasdude 15:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article claims notability and the version in the Spanish edition appears to indicate that he is of some significance as a bullfighter although there is a notice at the bottom of the page which I can't read. Assuming that isn't the Spanish equivalent of an AfD notice, I support keeping and cleaning up on the grounds that he meets WP:BIO as a professional sportsman of some note. Capitalistroadster 17:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I replaced the picture; there was a portrait of him at commons, so the image copyright problem is no longer an issue. About the notice at the bottom of the Spanish page: "esbozo" means "stub". David Sneek 17:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per David Sneek. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 19:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per David --Colonel Cow 19:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster, et al. Hall Monitor 22:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep he seems legitimate per WP:BIO. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 22:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per all above. However distastful his occupation, he seems to be somewhat notable in his line.... Jcuk 00:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 15:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep please important bullfighter Yuckfoo 00:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Sufficient context has been established, and the article has been expanded from a book summary. As nominator of this AfD, I withrdaw nomination. Isopropyl 16:07, 4 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 per WP:SNOW. howcheng {chat} 22:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Killer List of Videogames

Non-notable per WP:WEB Garglebutt / (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Oh boy... This user is trying to legitimize his work on his already existing AfD on Video Game Museum (see the exchange after the dashed line). While I also support the keeping of VGM, KLOV (also home of the International Arcade Museum) is cited in far more legitimate circles than VGM, including The Onion A/V Club (cited every week in its "Games Of Our Lives" retro-game review section[1](see photo)) as well as many other print media sources. This little crusade of Garglebutt needs to end. Bobak 02:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a citation of KLOV from Newsweek, calling it "the IMDb for players" [2] Bobak 02:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Puhlease! Don't try to guess my motives just because you disagree with me. At the very least the article needs to be expanded if the web site is indeed notable. I see Wikipedia becoming a collection point for POV web site reviews. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I hope your motives are really honorable Gargebutt, but if you scheduled VGM and KLOV for deletion, why not mobygames? Does the look of the site inflict on your judgement about the site being notable? Because Mobygames looks more professional yes, but it's the worst one out of these 3. ReyVGM 12:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't need to guess your motives, Garglebutt, your edit history on this issue is all the proof any third party would need to see that you're unable to separate your personal issues with a person from your irresponsible lack of knowledge on the topics you've recently nominated for deletion. But don't just take my word for it, see below. Bobak 15:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Definitely notable website. -- Krash (Talk) 02:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no justification for the article's deletion. Reycount 10:45, 28 February 2006
• Strong Keep. Millions of visitors to this site monthly. [3] --Mmeinhart 04:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very important article for the arcade community. AyrtonSenna
• Keep. I'm not an arcade enthusiast, but from what I've seen on the site, it looks like a solid reference. --Elkman - ^(talk) 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.

(Revo 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

• Speedy keep per the above.--み使い Mitsukai 05:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Alexa rank is only in the 50,000s, but the website seems to be the leading authority for an enthusiast community. Grandmasterka 07:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A mention in Newsweek easily establishes notability. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Discordance 14:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable website. Nigelthefish 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ReyVGM 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, very valuable resource, a decent chunk of Wikipedia's arcade info comes from KLOV. --Interiot 18:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The layout isn't so great, but the content is definately notable. Also KLOV has been around since the dawn of the interweb. --Flipkin 18:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Perfectly legit website and notable enough. --Krashlandon (e) 21:26, 1 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 lack of consensus, defaults to keep. Ifnord 18:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clown conservatory

Delete. Vanity advertisement for non-notable institution. 400 Google results.[4] -- Krash (Talk) 02:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Who cares how many Google hits a topic gets? Google is not a reliable indicator of notability. BrianGCrawfordMA 02:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. But it's certainly worth looking at those Google results. Nothing that I would consider a secondary source. 60 students in the last 5 years? -- Krash (Talk) 02:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete promo. It is even not a "institution": it is a program at Circus Center, San Francisco, probably a one-man operation. mikka (t) 03:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete promotional. Ran an edit count on oc 43 total edits since September of 05', all related to clowns...hmmmm --Mmeinhart 03:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• If we had an article on the Circus Center, I would vote to merge this with it. However, as there isn't, I vote to delete. Capitalistroadster 03:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 05:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Reeks of spamvertising. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Although this is just a programme in a circus school, it might well be one of the few clown studies programmes in the world. Just how many places are there where one can go to study the art of Clowning? It seems quite a rarified thing to do. If there are only a few schools of clowning then perhaps they could be collected together on the Clown page or other related article?  (aeropagitica)  07:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. NEA grant recipients are presumptively notable, and this institution is obviously notable in its field. Monicasdude 16:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Clown conservatory" is not an institution. mikka (t) 17:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete I'd suggest a keep an article on the Circus Center and a merge of the basic information on this article but there currently isn't one. MLA 16:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per MLA. Redirect it to a new article on the Circus Center. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 19:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Monicasdude, at least until Circus Center is created. Powers 21:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Monicasdude's reasonable argument. — Adrian Lamo ·· 23:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per monicasdude Jcuk 00:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Monicasdude and, oddly enough, (aeropagitica)'s reasoning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep although I'd personally like to see the .com links disappear. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 00:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable in its field. How many other clown schools do we have articles on? Possible upgrade to an article about the center. Kappa 12:33, 6 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 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assemblage_point

Delete This has the appearance of an advertisment. The names seem too close to be coincidental, and the site link and book link seem likely to be closely related to the author's benefit. The coloured light stuff is quackery, but that of itself is not suggested to be the reason for deletion. Midgley 02:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nonverifiable, probably hoax or new quackery. mikka (t) 03:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to some kind of shamanistic magic/general page. --Krashlandon (e) 21:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic. Some googling shows this term meaning different things, so it would be best defined within the particular teaching (e.g. Castañeda/Don Juan). This article also looks like an ad for a particular new age teacher. Fan1967 22:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the particular new age teacher has a close resemblance in name and geogrpahical location to User:Whaleto whose whale.to site overlaps in content. I might have been too vague to start with. Midgley 23:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above, also I note there's been no noteworthy editing since the day after it was submitted, and it's only been edited by the submitter, not counting copyedits/formatting and the AfD. Michael Ralston 06:18, 2 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 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler's sexual orientation

Very close to an attack page, and if the references the article uses stand for something, it is very likely unverifiable. Delete Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Attack page/POV fork. — Mar. 1, '06 [03:02] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Delete. WP:POVFORK. -- Krash (Talk) 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Chairman S. | Talk 03:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mmeinhart 03:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 03:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no sources provided and the article suggests that little reliable information is available. Capitalistroadster 03:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite from the ground up, but keep. — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All information on the article is either properly cited or comes from other parts of wikipedia. 132.241.245.49 05:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, especially if the content comes from other parts of wikipedia. Mike _{(T C)} 05:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Adolf Hitler's medical health. The information seems to be accurate (a number of sources I've read are consistent with the points made), but simply putting it in an article by itself makes it an attack page. It's not a legitimate topic by itself, and simply insulting Hitler won't undo anything he did or make Wikipedia better. Peter Grey 05:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Seems similar to Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation, as a POV fork. Is the subject sufficient to warrant an article to itself; couldn't it be mentioned on Adolf Hitler if required at all?  (aeropagitica)  07:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as with all similar articles.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all POV forks. Proto||type 10:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Adolf Hitler's medical health. And (aeropagitica), no, Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation is absolutely not a POV fork. Melchoir 10:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and Baden-Powell's orientation MLA 12:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The Baden-Powell article has huge differences in quality and history. Please don't confuse them. Melchoir 21:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Info is already on Adolf Hitler's medical health, no need for new article. Crumbsucker 13:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Adolf Hitler's medical health (last paragraph doesn't appear to be present), this topic is not sufficient for its own article. -- Mithent 16:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per others. There are many differences between this article and the Baden-Powell article --Colonel Cow 19:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep those advocating merger with medical health are advocating their POV that Hitler's sexual orientation is a health matter. We have lots of subsidiary pages of Hitler, his beliefs, writings, family life, his vegetarianism (which some might also argue has something to do with his medical health). His sexual orientation is encyclopedic and those who advocate merging it with his health should reconsider whether that's how WP does (should) regard the matter. Carlossuarez46 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, my merge vote is not meant to imply that sexual orientation is a health matter. I think both articles' titles are inadequate and misleading, while their actual content is similar enough that a merge makes sense. Melchoir 09:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Important topic that should be covered and this is a good start. Those calling this an attack page or POV fork seemingly have no idea of how we cover Hitler here. -- JJay 13:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 15:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, highly notable and much-discussed topic. Kappa 12:31, 6 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 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Best Actress winners by age at win

Listcruft, of trivial use. Might be merge-able with List of Best Actress winners or somesuch. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Academy Award for Best Actress. Although that article contains the same list (minus the age, which I don't know why anyone would care about), I rather like how this article formats the list into that table. As it stands now, the list in the other article is a colder-looking thing. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • On closer inspection Delete. The table here is all out of order. Too much burden to merge. Would make a strange redirect, too. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• A touch of merge, then delete. The oldest and youngest winners should be mentioned on the main list if not already. Otherwise, this is listcruft. Marskell 12:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this serious ListCruft. Deiz 19:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge oldest & youngest winners per Marskell, then delete the rest. --Lockley 20:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No need to merge the Tandy/Matlin info; it's already in the Academy Award for Best Actress article. Powers 21:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Powers. Pavel Vozenilek 01:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not needed. --Terence Ong 15:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Good, interesting list. Piccadilly 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not needed to cure cancer or bring about world peace, but more interesting than 952,131 of Wikipedia's million articles. Scranchuse 21:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, very good list, helps answer the question of what age actresses are when they receive most critical acclaim. Kappa 12:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a relevent article. I find it interesting to know who was the youngest person to win Best Actor, afterward I looked up this article with the same reletive interest. The Filmaker 21:36, 6 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 EDIT, or no consensus if you prefer. -Splash^talk 22:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novostroika

del. An article obviously written by a Westerner who doesn't know Russian language (probably based on a newspaper article written by a similar ignorant). In Russian language "novostroika" simply means "new construction"/"new construction site", without any alleged relation to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and hence the term bears no specifically "Russian" flavor. mikka (t) 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:V. -- Krash (Talk) 03:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Name is incorrect but text isn't at all useless. So move to Post-Soviet residental construction or smth like that or incorporate to another article that I don't know of but do not delete. --Irpen 05:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The text is useless in its primitivistic form, especially for such a general topic you suggest, to cover problems, changes (eg in financing and techniologies) and developments. Not to say that "post-Soviet" is radically different in, say, Estonia, Russia, and Turkmenbashistan. You may want to start from simpler things, such as Evroremont. mikka (t) 08:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Note that article was created by User:Mno, who is fluent in Russian (and Ukrainian), and who was born in Kyiv. Slight query of the good faith of this nomination. Possibly move to another name as per Irpen. Proto||type 10:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Something makes me thing that he is not quite so fluent. Nomination is solid good. I've been using this word for 55 years now. Also suggestion to look in to any Russian dictionary. mikka (t) 18:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Not arguing with Mikka about the term, just want to say that user:Mno is indeed fluent in Russian nd Ukrainian and is indeed a Kievan. I corresponded with him by email in Russian. He made a mistake all right but the article is worth something. So, I'd still move it with all due respect to the nominator. --Irpen 19:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Google image search makes it look like the term is used to describe apartment buildings [5], but I also found this claiming that the term is Mongolian in origin. I'm kind of inclined to doubt the credibility of that claim based on the other Google hits, though. ergot 16:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment to all comments. "Novostroika" is "new construction". Period. It can be new factory, dam, apartment building block, office building block, a whole new town. mikka (t) 18:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I will say that you are free to do as you wish. The topic does have a lot of issues. However, I would argue that what I originall wrote was giving a relatively accurate view of the subject after the mid-90s. I was wrong in not mentioning that a literal translation is "new construction". Sure, remove the second paragraph, and rearrange the first. The last paragraph comes directly from the Russian Governments television report in the news on RTR. In response to personal attacks that I don't speak Russian, I do. Thank you to Irpen for pointing that out. I was born in Kiev and do speak both languages fluently. Such personal attacks without any proof whatsoever should be considered as proof to question the attacker. (Ironically, part of the original nomination was lack of proof.) mno 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK I made mistake about the knowledge of Russian by the contributor. It was simply beyond my understanding how a Russian native speaker would write Новостройка is a term used to refer to Western-style apartment buildings, which is so obviously wrong. It is just like to write "Russian poetry is a term used to refer to literary works of Alexander Pushkin". But the key phrase from the article is "The most, and usually only, difference is the fact that there were constructed more recently".
    • My reasoning behind this now that I think back over it, is that I wanted to emphasize that they were not necessarily better than the old buildings. You are right, the most important point has to be that it simply means new construction, and perhaps ideas from the rest should be moved elsewhere. :) mno 21:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This says it all. If one wants an article about Residential construction in Russian Federation, it must be way better than that. There is no big deal for the original author and those who support him, to salvage what is salvageable from the text, do a little bit more google search and start a new, decent article for an important, but missing topic. A single RTR news report is not enough. Also, please don't forget to list the sources; see wikipedia:Verifiability. Not to mikka (t) 21:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, there is even no Residential construction in wikipedia at all! Even Construction article has no such section. mikka (t) 21:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just to add: I generally do not just publish something and let it be there. I always ask for comments from others indirectly by announcing my articles somewhere. Perhaps announcing it only on the Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements was not enough, considering the breadth of this article. There was no response from anyone, and now there is the motion to delete the whole article. Why not instead cut it to make it what is should be? As some others pointed out, there is some text there that could be scalvaged. Regarding RTR: of course, it's not enough for the whole article, but it is proof, regardless. mno 21:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. (from another native Russian speaker). The usage of the word "Novostroika" I am most familiar with is to refer to the areas of the cities containing mainly apartment complexes, usually built in the last 20 - 30 years. Often these areas are very different from older parts of the city. The word existed (with the same meaning) even before the collapse of the USSR. Not sure if it deserves a separate article in Wikipedia. I removed the mentioning of the collapse of the USSR from the article, so it should not bear on the decision to delete or to keep the article Vlad1 01:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Vlad. I think that since now we have significant attention on this article and topic (which is actually a very backwards way to give it attention, but that is partially my fault, too), I would like to propose that we not delete the article but rather work on it to make it viable. Maybe split it into several sections or articles. If you still feel that you don't want to have the original article visible through the history, then I guess that would be OK if we delete and then recreate it. However, I don't see any point to this, as I'm sure there are articles that have had a lot of incorrect information in them not be deleted but rather changed, with the history still there. mno 03:25, 2 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 00:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rancho Santa Fe Homes

This article appears to be just an ad for a real estate agent. The article isn't linked to anything and is listed as a dead end page. Elkman - ^(talk) 03:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Obvious ad, without even a decent attempt to pretend otherwise. Fan1967 03:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, that's about as blatant as it gets. Kuru ^talk 04:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per others. Metamagician3000 05:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious ad. — Adrian Lamo ·· 07:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spamverty goodness. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' Advert. Unencyclopædic in tone, scope and content.  (aeropagitica)  07:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. --Terence Ong 09:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this embarassing SpamvertVanityCruft Deiz 19:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisment. --Lockley 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh please. It's already violating about five policies. --Krashlandon (e) 21:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as advert (or quasi-advert?) There isn't anything unifying about these houses other than that they're all massive (in size or cost). OhNoitsJamie^Talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 after rename. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian raid on Gotland

Article was speedied out of process as a copyvio. I don't see the original online. Restoring and listing at AFD. - EurekaLott 03:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• No vote yet. It probably is about something notable. I see why someone got the idea it might be a copyvio: reads like prepared text with zero context: doesn't mention the year, or name the war this happened in. Smerdis of Tlön 03:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is 1917, so WWI. Doesn't go out of it's way to hint that.Kuru ^talk 05:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• I went ahead and added a bit of context, and several wikilinks. Unless someone knows for certain this is a copyvio, I'm inclined to keep it; if worst comes to worse, the context paragraph could be a new stub. FWIW, this Russian Navy site confirms the battle, but suggests it was in 1915. Will go with that date. Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the Smerdis of Tlön version. It's much less likely to be copyvio in the new form in any case. MLA 16:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A battle on the shores of a neutral country is unusual enough to be notable. Henrik 20:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the revised version from Smerdis. I'm confused by why this is called a raid on Gotland, rather than a battle at Gotland. But whatever. --Lockley 20:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Rename. Pavel Vozenilek 01:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to something like Action of 2 July 1915 in line with Category:Naval battles. The skirmish is mentioned by Naval-History.net as taking place on 2 July 1915. Green Giant 02:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Smerdis of Tlön 22:21, 4 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 00:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cedric Chamouille

New Caledonian swimmer. I don't think his PBs are good enough to be notable. He is currently 30 yrs old, so he could theoretically be competitive if he was good enough. Here are his PBs

• 100 m freestyle: 52.02 (would be ranked 400+ in 2005;WR is 47.84 by Pieter van den Hoogenband)
• 200 m freestyle: 1:58.78 (about 325+ in 2005; WR is 1.44.06 by Ian Thorpe)
• 100 m butterfly: 58.27 (about 480+; WR is 50.40 by Ian Crocker)
• 200 m butterfly: 2:05.71 (about about 370+; WR is 1.53.93 by Michael Phelps)

The rankings are 50m Long course from www.swimnews.com . They list 25 swimmers on each ranking page, and if ten people have the same time, the next guy is 2nd, even though 10 guys are faster than him, so the ranking isn't as good as it might numerically seem.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep pending confirmation of their notability. Bobby1011 04:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - 37 google hits, when you include " ", then only 2, one of which is the wikipedia article.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Blnguyen. Doesn't seem notable or conclusively verifiable. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 09:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)" Belatedly. Capitalistroadster 09:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Proto||type 10:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. feydey 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not close enough to international standard. The "Pacific Games record" sounds good but as it's a redlink I don't see anything notable here. Deiz 19:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, as per others Henrik 22:12, 1 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 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Shattock

Delete Not notable biography. Dose not fit under WP:BIO, the closest is "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" Royal Blue 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. For someone who supposedly "placed valuable information in the hands of the very people who had the power to change the course of Zimbabwean history forever," the name gets surprisingly few results in a search. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 11:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if this person had a considerable influence on Zimbabwe in the very recent past, there would be some evidence of it MLA 13:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no hits at all in the database of the African Studies Center means something. — mark ✎ 16:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 18:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 13:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio dripping with vanity. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:07, 2 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 06:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southern slave driver

Delete. This article has no real content, and the subject matter is unclear. It appears to have been copied from another source, but none are cited. akendall_(talk) 04:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy A1 and A7. Royboycrashfan 05:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A1/7 as per Roy.--み使い Mitsukai 05:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: A1, A7 per Royboy. Notability not asserted, no context. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:42, 1 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 since it's been comprehensively rewritten during the AfD.[6]. There seems only to have been one revisitation by the earlier editors so deleting this would only result in a relisting at DRV. -Splash^talk 22:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Calontir

This is a "kingdom" in the Society for Creative Anachronism. I notice none of the other "kingdoms" have their own wiki pages, and SCA has its own Wiki. I can't find a specific part of WP:Notability that this violates but I think it does in spirit; also WP:V. Thatcher131 05:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The article has now been completely rewritten and I would request that the closing admin take that into account. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 07:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 05:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep/Cleanup. Very week keep/expand Keep as improved. Contrary to nominator's statement, I see that the "kingdom" of the Outlands also has its own wiki page, but that page is much better than this one. I think that the problem here is not so much of notability and verifiability (these folks are nothing if not verifiable) as it is that the planned & linked content in the article isn't particularly encyclopedic. Worse yet, there are a number of other articles linked here such as Hirth of Calontir and Iren-Feran that absolutely do not warrent individual Wikipedia articles even if they arguably would belong in this one. Is it likely this is a copyvio from some SCA Wiki? Crypticfirefly 06:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding the Outlands kingdom pages. I also agree that the sub-topics do not warrant individual articles; most of them were prodded by another editor. Thatcher131 06:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that you were being remiss, only that the article has little content. Crypticfirefly 06:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't take offense. Thatcher131 06:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete (as nothing to merge). Does not warrant an article of its own. Average Earthman 06:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 13:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- SCAcruft. Belongs somewhere, but not on Wikipedia. Haikupoet 03:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Work In Progress: As the Deputy Kingdom Chatelain, one of my duties is to try and build an online resource that newcomer's can go to for information about the Kingdom of Calontir. Unfortunately, I'm the only one working on this project and this will be a work in progress for quite some time...unless I can get the Kingdom Webminister to spend some time on this as well. As for the award pages that people are commenting as "not being necessary"...there is discussion currently taking place if it would be beneficial include a list of past recipients or not (SCA names only of course). If this project is deemed unacceptable by Wikipedia, then by all means delete the pages. User:Giudo

I suggest you compare your project with the page for Kingdom of the Outlands. The Outlands page basically says, we're a club, here's a bit of our history, here are links to our activities and websites. Wikipedia is a not a free web host and it is not a substitute for your own web site. Also, the indivdual articles on awards and other internal kingdom business really do fall below Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and are written in a very silly way, as if they are things in the real world. I suggest you rework the main article in your user space WP:USER and then recreate it here when it's done. To keep it from being speedily deleted, note on the new article's talk page that it is not a recreation of a deleted article but a substantial rewrite. Thanks for contributing. It does take a couple of tries to get the hang of it. Don't give up. Thatcher131 14:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge all the sub-articles into the main article, and delete them. Keep the main page. DJ Clayworth 17:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. --Neigel von Teighen 17:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete local chapters of most groups (SCA included) are not notable. Carlossuarez46 21:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. "Kingdoms" in the SCA aren't really "local chapters" in the way you're thinking of them; the Kingdom of Calontir encompasses about 40 local SCA groups in five states. I can't find membership details for the kingdom as a whole, but the local groups I'm familiar with have numbered at least 50-100 people so that would put it at 2000-4000 members. The kingdom listserv received 896 messages last month [7] from 173 distinct people [8]. Each SCA kingdom has its own history, customs, events, royalty, traditions, and awards, as distinct from the SCA as a whole. Calontir also hosts the Lilies War every year, a camping event that lasts over a week and draws about a thousand people [9]. Whether you think the SCA is goofy or not, I think that a group of this size ought to have a Wikipedia entry. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 07:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you and Guido can collaborate on a rewrite. That info is very much along the lines of a real encyclopedia entry but was not included in the original entry, nor based on the outline would it be. Nearly all of the Kingdom info (traditions, awards, customs, etc) should be on its own web site, which it already has. The Wikipedia entry should say when you were founded, what area, how many local chapters, describe the most notable events (like the Lillies war) and then direct users to other sites for detailed information. See the Kingdom of the Outlands for what I think is a better example.Thatcher131 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Article has been partially rewritten. It is much more Wikippropriate now, and hopefully comprehensible to non-SCAdians. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep 297,000 Google hits shows that subject is indeed notable, and the alleged verifiability isues are easily remedied. The SCA is an extremely notable sub-culture. Other than some neologisms which the average reader may not understand, I see absolutely no justification for this article to be deleted. WeniWidiWiki 07:39, 7 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 makes is to a reasonable consensus to delete; AGF says that the nom is the subject and that can help the consensus along, although not make the decision for us (usually). -Splash^talk 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mehmet Serkan Apaydin

I do not want to be listed in wikipedia and am not a contributor to the existing contents. Someone outside my knowledge has created an article about me. Mapaydin 05:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 05:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Metamagician3000 05:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking at it again, the person concerned is approaching the borderlands of notability. Still, I can't see evidence of anything that has yet had an influence, such as solid publications. This looks to me like a career that will be notable, if all goes well, but probably isn't there yet. I could understand the subject of the article being slightly embarrassed by it at this stage, if that is the situation - there are a lot of other people with promising careers who don't yet have wikipedia articles - but that's not the reason for my view. Metamagician3000 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I can understand his wishes, but now that he does have an article, we can't remove it because he doesn't like it. It has to go by its merits, and I appreciate your taking the time to clarify that you are voting by the merits of the article, rather than the alleged request of the subject. — Adrian Lamo ·· 07:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep wait, what? back it up. The article asserts notability, and seems to support it well. This article won't be deleted on the say-so of one user claiming to be the subject of the article. — Adrian Lamo ·· 06:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if sources are provided. The subject appears to be notable, but the claims need to be verifiably referenced. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Google Scholar reports 24 citations for academic papers, which may well be sufficiently notable so as to keep the article.  (aeropagitica)  07:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, looks notable enough, but more sources needed. --Terence Ong 09:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article asserts that it's about a smart fellow with a lot of research assistant and undergrad level accomplishments. However, that's not notability. Calling the Professor Test into consideration, this guy isn't even a Professor. The most notable comment is about getting the bronze as part of the Turkish team in the International Olympiad of Infomatics which is a redlink in the article. Being a research assistant even if it's in a notable area is not notability - there are thousands of research assistants. I haven't done any research outside of the article to look for notability but the arguments presented in this AfD seem to suggest that the article itself asserts sufficient notability and I cannot see that to be the case. If the Google Scholar type research finds sufficient notability, I'll change my vote to keep. MLA 10:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MLA. Will possibly get an article one day, but at the moment a lot of people at a similar level get deleted. JPD (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MLA. Not notable at present. Thatcher131 15:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Persons notable for achievements in science and technology tend to be involved with people and projects which are also independently notable - the redlinks here undermine such claims to notability. I agree with MLA. Deiz 19:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MLA and Deiz. Research associates working on an otherwise notable project are not notable in themselves, though some PIs might be. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I seem to recall a recent policy regarding subject of an article requesting deletion of that article (but I can't locate it). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Adrian L. Monicasdude 04:51, 2 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 00:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Via Paxton

This was proposed for deletion, but I have brought it here. Not so much that I want it to be kept, but because I'm not sure that deletion would be uncontroversial, since we have many similar articles. She has appeared 14 times in Score magazine and Voluptuous magazine and once in Mamazon. She has also appeared on the websites of Score and Voluptuous. She has had parts in at least two pornographic movies and has had one movie that is just about her, with her name in the title. Usually only performers with a fair amount of notability and significant name recognition with fans have such movies, at least when the movie is produced by a major studio. I give the article a weak keep. -- Kjkolb 05:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the above (I feel it would be too weird to say "per nom"). Royboycrashfan 05:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Per nom. Metamagician3000 05:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn titty model. Proto||type 11:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All titty models are notable per WP:TIT. Uh, I mean delete as non-notable. Marskell 12:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete probably one of the most recognizable "busty" models out there. I'd heard of her before this AfD and I'm not even a "Biguns" afficiondo... but then again I know alot of pointless trivia. I think she is too marginal in the realm of adult entertainment to be truly notable though.--Isotope23 14:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Marskell. Monicasdude 16:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless somebody can find the "journalistic coverage, independent biographies or extensive fan clubs" that Wikipedia:Google test requires for pr0nstars to be considered notable. I'm at work right now, so I definately don't want to go looking for that kind of stuff. ergot 16:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not WP material. If interested in the model use the internets. feydey 17:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable within the genre. Plenty of precedent. 23skidoo 01:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep reasonably notable (138,000 Google hits). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Check out the section of Wikipedia:Google test headed "Non-applicable in some cases, such as pornography". ergot 15:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously has an audience. Kappa 12:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as notable as other models that have articles here. JayMan 20:09, 6 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 withdrawn (see history) — Adrian Lamo ·· 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Mehmet Serkan Apaydin

Delete Mapaydin 05:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this even necessary? If an article is deleted, redirects are also deleted as per WP:CSD R1. Royboycrashfan 05:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not how a nomination is withdrawn. ;) Royboycrashfan 06:15, 1 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 00:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The betterthanbest entmap2

Article about a single map of a computer game. Wikipedia is not your webserver for gaming content or an index for every fanmade gaming map out there. PROD tags removed without comment by author twice, so I consider AfD notification to have taken place. Sandstein 05:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unencyclopedic fancruft. Royboycrashfan 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious fancruft. Heck, it's even signed. JIP | Talk 06:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Royboycrashfan. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 06:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic gamecruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable gamecruft. — Adrian Lamo ·· 06:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, gamecruft. --Terence Ong 09:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 14:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a game programmer's notes. --Krashlandon (e) 21:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encylopedia entry, just unrelated info for a gamer. Thefuguestate 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ewlyahoocom 10:02, 5 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 00:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Wrestling Forum

Non-notable, vanity, self-promotion, and doesn't even provide any information on the subject. Peter Grey 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 05:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Metamagician3000 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. --Royal Blue 06:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:VSCA for website which fails WP:WEB; speedy if possible (i.e., lack of context?). --Kinu ^t/_c 06:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanispamcruftisment. --Terence Ong 09:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom --Krashlandon (e) 21:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom Thefuguestate 23:26, 1 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 Ntoskrnl; counting the few explicit votes on all others, no consensus to delete. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ntoskrnl

Non-notable Windows system file. Wikipedia isn't a technical how-to or an indiscriminate collection of information; see WP:NOT. Sandstein 05:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 05:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• I am also nominating the following pages for deletion for the same reason. The original author removed the PROD tag without comment on most of them.

• Ntbooydd.sys
• Bootsect.dos
• Hal.dll

Sandstein 05:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. Royboycrashfan 05:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete or possibly merge with Windows NT. It's hard to make a case for notability for an individual file (which is ntoskrnl.exe, not ntoskrnl), especially one that is never manipulated by users/administrators. Then again, there is one for /etc/init. Peter Grey 06:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It's "/sbin/init", not "/etc/init". — A.M. 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Shows just how important the init article is! Peter Grey 22:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd be a bit happier with this if the Unix/Linux equivalents were nominated for deletion too. Otherwise, it's systemic bias. Unix is cool, Windows isn't. (I use both, and have done for over a decade). Why should we delete an article on "the core executable file in control of every Windows NT based Windows Operating System" and not "the program on Unix and Unix-like systems which spawns all other processes"? --kingboyk 13:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In principle, I concur with kingboyk. However, we shouldn't keep one non-notable article because other non-notable articles have also been retained; otherwise we would have to Keep all AfD nominations or Delete all the fancruft related to Pokémon et al. Each article should be judged on its own merit. At any rate, you are free to also nominate /etc/init etc. for AfD. Sandstein 14:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm well aware your first argument (it's a sound one) and of course I'm aware that I can nominate init for deletion :). What I'm really saying is: take a step back. Imagine this is the article about the Linux equivalent. Would it be deleted? I don't wish to nominate init*, which makes it hard for me to support the deletion of Ntoskrnl. *init could use more encyclopedic tone and I will tag it as such. --kingboyk 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Another comment: The article, in its current form, just describes the name of the file, not anything technical about what it does, so having a separate article is not really serving any purpose, at least not yet. The difference is that Unix administrators are expected to know what /etc/init does, Windows administrators do not deal with ntoskrnl.exe. Peter Grey 15:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• True enough. Let's nominate init too, as a janitorial action to widen the debate. "Wikipedia isn't a technical how-to" may apply there also. --kingboyk 15:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding Hal.dll, Strong Keep: That file is the Hardware abstraction layer of Windows NT, so it plays a central role in Windows portability. Peter Grey 15:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Regarding Bootsect.dos, Keep: The file has a somewhat visible role in the boot sequence, so I think it would qualify as notable. (By the way, I hope none of these are copyvios.) Peter Grey 15:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Init. --kingboyk 15:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• I have now noticed that there is already the article Windows NT Startup Process, which in turn links to many (but much better written) articles in the same vein as the ones I nominated, including Ntoskrnl.exe, of which Ntoskrnl is a (probably unintended and pointless) fork. Since these earlier articles do appear to be encyclopedic (and not only how-tos), I change my vote to merge Ntoskrnl and weak keep the rest. Sandstein 17:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Ntoskrnl and Ntoskrnl.exe to Windows NT Startup Process. Good find! As for the others, some sort of consolidation would be desirable, otherwise I'm torn between a weak delete or a weak keep :) --kingboyk 17:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge — A.M. 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Kingboky. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. This could potentially be a stand alone article, but right now this stub resembles a dicdef & the info will be better in the broader context. As a side-comment: there is a fine line between "janitorial nomination" and WP:POINT. I think the init AfD was handled well, but I don't know if the nomination was really the best way to encourage helpful discussion. --Karnesky 06:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable windows system file. Possible merge. Kappa 05:50, 4 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 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramfire

The article itself claims that it's a neologism; see WP:NEO. Sandstein 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism, almost a Protologism. It seems to not pass WP:NEO--Royal Blue 06:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, never heard of it. Even if it was more widely used, it'd just be a redirect to Memory leak. Average Earthman 06:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The term RAMfire was coined by Corey Edwards in February 2006. WP:NEO was made for this one. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism comments above.  (aeropagitica)  07:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 14:24, 1 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 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Jones-Nerzic

Delete, being head of humanities is probably not enough importance to require an article WU03 06:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - could be vanity, definitely isn't notable MLA 11:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 14:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no evidence of notability. --Lockley 20:44, 1 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 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entmod

Some guy's modification to Half-life. Also see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The betterthanbest entmap2. Delete as non-notable fancruft. JIP | Talk 06:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as gamecruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gamecruft. --Terence Ong 08:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 14:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable gaming article. — Adrian Lamo ·· 23:27, 1 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 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entmap

A term for Half-life maps requiring Entmod (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entmod). Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The betterthanbest entmap2. Delete as fancruft. JIP | Talk 06:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as gamecruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gamecruft. --Terence Ong 10:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gamecruft.--み使い Mitsukai 14:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable gaming article. — Adrian Lamo ·· 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Metamod if at least a little bit notable, otherwise Delete. Ewlyahoocom 10:02, 5 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

The result of the debate was No consensus. On a strict vote-count, I see 11 deletes and 5 non-deletes. I also see two invalid votes for merge (I call them invalid because they said "Delete all and merge". I simply counted them as "Delete all"). As such, this is right on the keep/delete borderline. I would highly recommend either merging them into one article or holding another AfD and letting everyone know that you can't delete and merge. In any case, it doesn't require an AfD to merge articles. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No consensus, default to redirect to Digimon X-Evolution. I changed my mind after going through the first dozen of these articles and truly seeing no content beyond what's printed on those little cards. I'm applying my admin's discretion and making the "merge" votes into "redirect" because there's nothing to merge. That way, the content (what little there is) is still in the article history. I'm highly tempted to just delete the lot, but the delete consensus isn't quite high enough for that. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agumon X and a bunch of others

Delete. we don't need a whole other page just because "X" is on the end of the name. if anyone wants, just make a list of Digimon who are x-antibody types in the Digimon X-Evolution article. Even the 'mon that were major characters in the movie don't seem notable enough to have their own article. so far I'll only list the "x-mon" articles with no additional info on it so nothing merge-able is lost. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason as mentioned above (please note, only "x-mon" articles that have no additional information are being considered right now. meaning, if the article has additional notes I did not include it, so those notes could be saved / merged or whatever.) -- Ned Scott 07:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Leomon X, WereGarurumon X, WarGrowlmon X, UlforceVeedramon X, Vademon X, Tylomon X, Thundermon X, Syakomon X, Starmon X, SkullMammothmon X, Seadramon X, Scorpiomon X, Salamon X, Rhinomon X, Pteramon X, PrinceMamemon X, Plesiomon X, Otamamon X, Okuwamon X, Nefertimon X, Monochromon X, MetalTyrannomon X, MetalSeadramon X, MetalMamemon X, MetalGreymon X, Megidramon X, MegaSeadramon X, Kuwagamon X, Kokuwamon X, IceLeomon X, HerculesKabuterimon X, Hagurumon X, Guilmon X, Growlmon X, Greymon X, Gotsumon X, Gomamon X, Goldramon X, War Greymon X, Gesomon X, Gazimon X, Gatomon X, Garurumon X, Garudamon X, Gabumon X, Ebemon X, Dobermon X, Crabmon X, Chaosdramon X, Cerberumon X, BlackWarGreymon X, Betamon X, Beelzemon X, Mantaraymon X, Mammothmon X, Mamemon X, Allomon X, Rosemon X, Togemon X, Palmon X, Lillymon X

I removed UlforceVeedramon X and Kokuwamon X from this bundle for the sake of getting what we can deleted with less resistance. probably still should be deleted, but that will be a different discussion at this point. -- Ned Scott 11:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. "X-Digimon" are still seperate dgimon. - plau

that does not earn them their own article pages. compare a number of these articles with their non x versions, and you'll see almost identical articles. how on earth is that acceptable by any standard for wikipedia? again, note that I did not include any of the x articles with additional information in this list. -- Ned Scott 10:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Melchoir 10:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as horrendous fancruft. Merge all additional information on these... whatever they are... into their non-X counterpart article. Sandstein 10:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom but Merge a bit per Sandstein. I'd suggest not merging everything, and instead possibly adding a note of their existence to the list of evolutions that are in the non-X versions of the article. Happy to be corrected by anyone who knows something about this subject. MLA 10:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If content is merged, an article cannot be deleted. It must be made into a redirect to the article the content was merged to in order to preserve the history. -- Kjkolb 10:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yup, I didn't really mean Merge in the traditional sense I meant make a note on the non-X versions but got caught in an edit conflict and didn't explain properly the second time around. MLA 12:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Proto||type 10:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per mon, I mean per nom. If there is any relevant information it could be merged to one "X Digimon" article or whatever. Hey, mon. JIP | Talk 12:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Listify and delete redirect. (since X-digimon do not already have a specific section in List of Digimon, and they'll have to be unlinked anyway.) Circeus 13:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. --Terence Ong 14:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. These are variations of these Digimon (even if they class as different), and if they warrant mentioning, this should be done on the base Digimon's page because there's nothing else to say about them. I strongly disagree that all Digimon/Pokemon are worthy of articles anyway. -- Mithent 16:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect all. Redirects are cheap. Punkmorten 21:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge all. Fancruft. --Fang Aili 22:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand what there is to merge. I specifically choose articles with no additional content, thus nothing to merge. the only thing to "merge" is the fact that the digimon has an x-version, which really isn't a merge at all. Not only that, but I don't think there were x versions for most of these digimon in the movie, making most of the articles speculation towards an x-version. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Delete or redirect. --Fang Aili 16:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. I would say merge with their standard Digimon counterparts, but what is there to merge? They're stubs. Horrible, evil stubs. Steelix 06:02, 2 March 2006 (EST)
• Delete all We do not need both the X version and their no-X counterparts. Leroy Jenkins 07:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It doesn't make any sense to include the X Digimon in the Digital Monster X-Evolution movie, as most of them don't even appear in the movie. Although the X Digimon articles undoubtedly need some more work to incorporate further information, the X Digimon are different Digimon from their normal counterparts, having (sometimes drastically) different appearances, different attacks, and in some cases, different types. If any action is to be taken other than revising and adding on to the articles, it should be to merge them with their non-X counterparts (with redirects). But definitely not a delete. Shining Celebi 23:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Shining Celebi. Kappa 12:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, the original Digimon don't have much information themselves. Merging these would eliminate excess fancruft articles, but retain the information. Gflores ^Talk 18:38, 7 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 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repunit (factors)

It's a list of factorizations of numbers. A few people, somewhere, do apparently care about these, but even so this should at best be moved to WikiSource. —Blotwell 09:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There is a link to a larger table at repunit. If it is kept, move it to Factors of repunits or something like that. JPD (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Repunit contains more information and has a link to a much more comprehensive list than this. Kcordina 13:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do move to Wikisource. Where it takes trivial effort to have Wikimedia independent of outside sites, why not? Septentrionalis 04:37, 2 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. Maybe BJAODN material...Maybe not. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Floom

Blatant Neologism ~ Booyabazooka 09:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, forced internet meme's never work anyways... -- Ned Scott 10:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, yes, neologisms are the suck. Proto||type 10:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, complete internet tosh. Isn't even in Urban Dictionary.Hynca-Hooley 12:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "To repeatedly scream floom with a minimum of 5 screamings and a maximum of 67". Yeah, right. JIP | Talk 12:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, protoologism which will surely never catch on. -- Mithent 16:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like the work of some bored college students. (which it most likely is) --Krashlandon (e) 21:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for two reasons: the obvious WP:NFT, and also the fact that nowhere in the article does it actually say what it means. Very close to patent nonsense. Haikupoet 03:58, 2 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 00:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actors from both Babylon 5 and Star Trek

Extreme listcruft. Even for a hardcore Babylon 5 fan like me, I can see no rhyme or reason for this article's existance. If this serves some sort of purpose, then why not Actors from both Seinfeld and Friends or Actors from both Bonanza and The Simpsons. Gibberish. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, needless list, a list such as this is not content. -- Ned Scott 10:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a list which is not needed on Wikipedia, listcruft. --Terence Ong 10:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, mental listcruftiness to the extreme. Proto||type 10:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete bad listcruft. feydey 12:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If we keep this article im starting Actors from Star Trek and Seventh Heaven. Mike _{(T C)} 15:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Mildly interesting to a fan of both series, but more suited to something like Memory Alpha rather than WP in order to receive a greater and more receptive audience.  (aeropagitica)  18:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Rarely have I seen such Outrageous ListCruft. Deiz 20:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft.--Isotope23 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What we need is a giant, humongous, colossal grid with every TV show ever on both axes, and then a redlink in every box to an article like this one.  ·  rodii  ·  22:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As a B5 fan, I have to say that if you're interested enough in both shows to want to know this, you probably already know it. — Adrian Lamo ·· 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OK I know DS9 and B5 fans had a rivalry, but there's no need to list people who appeared in both shows. What's next, Star Trek and Quantum Leap (there's a bunch)? 23skidoo 01:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep it to one 'verse. And R.I.P. G'Kar/Tomalak. -- Grev 03:35, 2 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. pschemp | talk 20:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brighton Road

Page seems well meaning but the road appears to lack enencyclopedic merit. Claims of notability have been promised, but not (yet) delivered. I'm prepared to withdraw this, but not without some reasonable evidence of notability. Sorry, Ben Aveling 09:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Although new, this article is not bad now and can only improve over time. As one of the longest roads in London it is an obvious keeper. -- JJay 09:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. Articles on Longest roads in London are considered notable, and many London roads are notable. --Terence Ong 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep at least as worthy of an article as many of the other roads with articles. JPD (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, formerly a Roman Road, asserts notability, not roadcruft. Proto||type 10:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Terenceong - the AfD on Longest roads in London was a good one. Major roads are notable. MLA 11:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as 6.4 miles is not exceptionally long and the only other reason for having an article about it is that it is in London. The main street of a small to medium sized city is more notable, but we don't have articles about them. -- Kjkolb 12:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this seems like a notable road. JIP | Talk 12:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The AfD on 100 Longest roads in london was no consensus, not keep. And even if a list is encyclopedic, that doesn't make every member of the list encyclopedic. There are probably tens of thousands of roman roads, and probably hundreds of thousands of major roads at least 6.4 miles long. Is every such road notable? If not, and if this road is actually notable, please explain why. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Wow. Are you guys voting keep actually saying you want a seperate article for every different name that a given bit of road goes by? If we must have road articles, why not merge them into the main article on the road? This just seems.. I don't know, incredibly crufty? Wikipedia is not an address book. Delete unless some remotely reasonable reason for including this specific stretch of road as a seperate article can be given. Friday (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• We have an article on Brighton Road because it is one of the longest roads in London. Period. That is standard practice for road articles, which many voters here, who work on road articles, fully understand. Following your logic, we should delete Broadway (New York City) because we have an article on U.S. Route 9. Or maybe it's the reverse. Furthermore, since you seem to be arguing for a merge, and have even gone so far as to place a merge tag on the article, why vote delete? That just seems so incredibly inconsistent. Roads have a curious habit of changing names or becoming known under multiple names. See U.S. Route 41 and Tamiami Trail. In answer to your question, yes we must have road articles. Why? Because we are trying to provide people with the information they need. Wikipedia is not an address book- it's an encyclopedia. On a side note, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using derogatory slang to slam editors that are merely trying to expand the contents at wikipedia. -- JJay 19:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yet again, I see AfD is dominated by faulty logic. You are not comparing like for like. A UK equivalent of your first comparison is A40 and Oxford Street, and your second the naming of the M25 as "London Orbital Motorway". Because Brighton Road is on a par with neither Oxford Street nor the M25, your argument fails. I object to your branding of this as "trying to expand the contents at wikipedia" (sic), when perhaps instead of junk like the names of individual streets in London (in case you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia is not the London A-Z, nor is it a guide to genealogy or local history), perhaps you might want to try some activities which would actually contribute something worthwhile, welcome, and (more importantly) necessary. Take a look at {{opentask}} or WP:MEA. 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.28.195 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'd rather work on road articles. But take a look at Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. -- JJay 20:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • When did wikipedia stop being a guide to local history? Kappa 12:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Local history can be encylopedic, but not all such is. Bascially, it needs to be significant somehow - a particularly notable piece of local history, that has more than local interest. We keep being told that this road is notable, but really, I think we need more details of that so that we can understand why the road is more significant than so many other roads. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't see that wikipedia can pretend to be a comprehensive encylopedia and not tell me about the history of the areas it covers. Kappa 13:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per JJay. Not my leg 19:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per JJay. Jcuk 00:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep please the road is historiclly important. Yuckfoo 20:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. OK, this stuff gets a little "crufty", but it's a decent-quality brief article for what it is, and keeping it doesn't hurt anything. *Dan T.* 04:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per JJay. Kappa 12:22, 6 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. About 60% delete, 63% counting the nominator. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University Hall (Bristol)

Dormcruft. Built in 1972; no assertion of anything extraordinary. Melchoir 10:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Awesomely impressed with the 8 minutes between creation and the AfD nom, also. Normally I would query it, but this is never going to be notable. Proto||type 10:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What, too slow? Melchoir 10:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. Work faster! :) Proto||type 16:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn dom. --Terence Ong 10:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Question. What is it that this article lacks that other Halls at Bristol have? It really does not make a lot of sense to look at articles on Halls at X in isolation. Some of the other articles are better than this one, I agree. I think this should have been given more time. 8 minutes is far far too short. Also note that this Hall is linked on the Bristol University article with a link that differs from this title. --Bduke 11:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The question is not "what does the article lack" but "what does the Hall lack". And that's notability. As for the other Halls, Hiatt Baker has already been redirected, and rightly so. And if/when this article is deleted, I'll be nominating Badock Hall next. Melchoir 21:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • For that matter, Chantry Court and Woodland Court should expect a similar fate. Melchoir 21:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a dorm would have to be exceptional to warrant its own article, as their nature is to be non-notable. They are like post offices, houses and apartment buildings, if they simply perform their function, they are not notable. -- Kjkolb 12:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed. Unlike Oxbridge Colleges, these have not historic or unique identity, and as such are nn. Batmanand | Talk 12:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Batmanand. This is about as nn/student cruft as you can get. --kingboyk 13:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into University of Bristol Obli (Talk)^? 14:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable University dorm. The article is descriptive rather than mentioning notable elements of the subject, should there be any to mention.  (aeropagitica)  18:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but improve. Several points.
  • Halls of residence of often more than "Dorms" with a function of just offering accommodation. They often offer tutorial support, provide rooms for senior members, a link between students and those senior staff members, and they play an important role in the social and sporting life of a university.
  • To Melcoir. Yes, Badock Hall is the next worst, but what about the two older halls where the article includes some history and architectual details. Are the older ones notable?
  • Merging to University article. There is already a brief table. More details would unbalance the university article. If you want a merge, I suggest merging all Hall articles to Bristol University Halls of Residence similar to what was done recently at University of Exeter Halls of Residence.
  • The question of Halls of Residence, particularly in the British and Commonwealth countries, as opposed to the USA, needs to be thought through carefully and not done piece meal. I have suggested to Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities that they consider all the issues, but they do not seem to be active.
  • Students going to university want good NPOV information on Halls of Residence, not just the advertising POV material from the university itself. Of course that means we have to write good articles, but it does not mean we have to delete them just minutes after someone starts the article. --Bduke 21:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wills Hall is borderline in my mind; Clifton Hill House is notable for its history. Obviously there is a continuum of notability for residence halls, just like any other category. This Hall is at the bottom.
• Merging to one article is an excellent idea.
• Wikipedia is not a consumer guide. And you know what, often an article needs to be nominated as quickly as possible. Otherwise we waste the time of everyone who edits it without suspecting the inevitability of its fate. Melchoir 22:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say "Wikipedia is not a consumer guide"? However, I also do not think that is what I was suggesting. I was not suggesting anything about value for money. I was suggesting that information is usefull and that is why people turn to encyclopedias. --Bduke 22:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My problem with that argument is that all information is useful to somebody. It doesn't say "Wikipedia is not a consumer guide" anywhere, but I think it's a reasonable reflection of our values. We don't have an article on every nursing home for the sole purpose of helping people decide where to put their parents. We also don't have an article on every university residence for the sole purpose of helping people decide where to put their kids. Melchoir 22:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Bristol University. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect - article reads like a prospective students brochure. Oxbridge colleges are academic institutions in their own right forming a kind of federation, whereas University Hall is a creature of the University of Bristol. Plus Oxbridge colleges are separately represented on the University Challenge television programme but never seen a hall of residence submit a team. Green Giant 02:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per WP:BAI -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 10:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per arguments above. This is a good article and helps round out our coverage of student residences. -- JJay 13:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Samir says. Dormcruft is specifically mentioned in Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas for a reason. Friday (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay, failing that merge into a list of halls. Kappa 12:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Dormcruft. There is a VfD precedent to delete dorms, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jester Dormitory, though I can't see myself the exact content that was deleted there. The one keep vote there isn't factually correct. In addition, if a dorm was notable, Jester Dormitory certainly would be, as it is enormous. At the very least, merge this one into Bristol University; when the deletion precedent I just mentioned was recreated some time later, someone simply redirected it to the main university page to save the hassle of another AfD. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 16:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment and question. Coming from the UK and Australia, I dislike the term "Dorm", rather than "Hall of Residence" or "College", but I do not understand the US system. So I have a few questions - Do US dorms provide anything other than housing for students? Are Faculty (to use the US term) associated with a dorm? Do dorms compete against each other in sport? Is there any academic support (e.g.tutoring)? If the answer to these questions (or even most of them) is "no", then dorms are not like Halls of Residence and the comparision is not valid. --Bduke 21:18, 7 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 00:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John McGuirk

Vanity article? Smitz 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per me ;) Smitz 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, smells like vanity to me, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 10:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. At first I thought that it would be about the soccer coach from Home Movies. -- Kjkolb 12:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep, press coverage like [10] indicates subject meets notability criteria; low-end notability is notability. Monicasdude 16:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, notability aside, article needs work. It has no references and needs wikification. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 18:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A university student who briefly worked for a political party. While he may well become notable enough for an article one day, that day has not yet arrived for mine. Capitalistroadster 21:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is nn, does not meet WP:BIO; the independent press article cited above does not impress me as meeting it. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 23:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Though there is some press coverage, it's not for a terribly significant event. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable vanity piece. Chairman S. ^Talk 05:23, 4 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 and redirect to The Karate Kid, Part III. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dynatox Industries

Company appears not to exist. Terry Silver appears not exist. The article makes no sense mcwiggin 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• delete and/or merge with The Karate Kid, Part III. It's a fictitious stub, which may have not been noticed by mcwiggin... but it still shouldn't be it's own article. -- Ned Scott 10:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fictional and hoax. Not very sure about the topic, but anyway never mind. --Terence Ong 10:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Merge to movie article, then delete Kcordina 13:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to The Karate Kid, Part III, per Ned Scott. Comment: Terry Silver, mentioned by nom, should be merged to The Karate Kid, Part III as well. - Rynne 17:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Merge if necessary. James084 14:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:15, 4 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. The sources presented do not appear to satisfy our guidelines, and several of the "keep" recomendations that are based upon notability are thus unverified. At least two "keep" recomendations are given with the caveat that notability appears to arise from vanity press alone. Given this, the delete outcome is a matter of sources. This is without prejudice to a new, rewritten article that has reputable third party sources that indicates notability beyond what is indicated here. - brenneman^{T}{L} 00:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: this and one other AfD were "double closed" by two admins. After discussion, the agreement was that this close would stand.
  brenneman^{T}{L} 04:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graham Maxwell

Vanity article, has no purpose to be a valid resource on people wanting to know about the persons life. Purpose for being there is to support the link, which is original internet research, as claimed by its author on the talk page. Ansell 21:26, 1 March 2006 Please note that on 06:31, February 28, 2006 Mushroom deleted "A. Graham Maxwell" (copyvio), which is about the same person. MyNameIsNotBob 13:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this unsourced and POV article doesn't sufficiently verify notability MLA 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity page - simply a collection of his quotes. If he's notable, then the page needs to be about him, not what he's said Kcordina 13:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please Explain. Take a look at this page for Billy Graham: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham. There are sections for achievements, quotes and controversy. Why can't Graham Maxwell have the same? Dr. Graham Maxwell is a more notable Adventist figure than Desmond Ford, who is listed in Wikipedia.

There is no chance that Graham Maxwell is a more notable figure than Desmond Ford. You are wrong to class him in the same level of notability. Ansell 06:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that Dr. Graham Maxwell should be honored for his contributions to Gnosticism, pantheism, moral influence theory and New Age theology. -Perspicacious 22:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If this is so then why are you so anti all of these theories and wanting to put your POV on all of your contributions relating to this person. Ansell 06:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity page, and quotes are nn. --Terence Ong 13:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep, conspicuously notable religious/evangelical figure. So fix it. Monicasdude 16:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  What evidence do you have to back up this conclusion? Ansell 07:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but definitely re-write: This needs to become an actual encyclopedia article that references the quotes, not a collection of the quotes themselves. Maybe the quotes could be put in Wikiquote but this needs to be a bio article... —Wknight94 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced vanity of dubious verifiability. Unremarkable. POV problems too. -- Krash (Talk) 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. A quick google search seems to indicate that A. Graham Maxwell's theories are are known and seriously discussed by Adventists (e.g., forum convo), which speaks for some notability. Still, I can't find any indication of exactly how notable he is—his publications appear to be from a vanity press—hence the weak qualifier. If the article is kept, a full rewrite for encyclopedic content is necessary. - Rynne 16:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Rynne, Maxwell's book, "Can God Be Trusted?" was originally published by Southern Publishing Association, Nashville, Tennessee, which is a publishing house owned and operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. --Perspicacious 11:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The forum Rynne quoted has been conclusively found to be vanity by Perspicacious as he is Eugene Shubert, the overwhelming major contributor (and possibly website owner) to the forums. Ansell 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, per Rynne, article needs a lot of work. The lead section has a lot of POV and the rest is just quotes. The one given reference seems dubious. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 18:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; unsourced except for vanity press publications, regardless of discussion on above-mentioned forums, which are associated with him and as such are incapable of being used as a source.  RasputinAXP  c 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, it is true that Maxwell is known with in Adventism. I am concerned though that the user who started this page will be unable to refrain from editing this page to their own POV and as such the article will never be encyclopedic. -Fermion 21:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep. The first thing I'd like to say is that I've already added four powerful references to the article A. Graham Maxwell. Compare that to the six references supporting the much longer article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventists (two of which are mine).

Second: If someone is interested in expanding the article by writing on the upbringing of A. Graham Maxwell and his early life, they are very welcome to do so. Realize, of course, that many people are only remembered for their life's work and goals, not lesser experiences. Joseph Goebbels is known best for being Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

At least for me, I am more interested in those details about Goebbels. And while some persons don't want to see evidence documenting the "final solution," I don't mind someone making a Wikipedia article out of it.

According to everything I know, the only encyclopedic significance of Graham Maxwell is the schism he has created in the Seventh-day Adventist church:

"A faction in the church rejects the historic Christian belief that Christ died vicariously for our sins and accepts, instead, the controversial theology of A. Graham Maxwell." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventists

This is undeniable. --Perspicacious 03:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Perspicacious, most of your arguments make little to no sense. The quote from the Seventh-day Adventist page is one that you put there, and thus cannot be used to justify your case. -Fermion 06:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep:, but only if someone rewrites it so it is a good entry. Jabencarsey 07:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article gets its size from the unnecessary quote from [11] which does nothing to tell the reader in an encyclopedic manner. More info may be found here -- Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Perspicacious, you can not simply quote something you wrote, and the say it is undeniable. That is beyond reasonable. MyNameIsNotBob 09:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

NotBob, before my response was edited by someone else, I had many bulleted statements. My separate bulleted remark, "This is undeniable" applied to the entirety of my response and I meant by it that every detail of my response was factual and true. --Perspicacious 11:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Each bullet point represents a vote. You can only have one vote, putting more than that means we have to disregard your contribution to the voting process as you have not followed the standard method. Ansell 22:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• A Comment That Proves Indisputable Notability: Here is a great quote documenting why A. Graham Maxwell is a notable figure: In reference to Christ's atonement and the Division of Religion at Loma Linda University, David P. McMahon wrote, "In this department are those who repudiate the historic Christian doctrine of the substitutionary atonement in order to embrace 'the moral influence theory.' In fact, the moral influence theory has widely permeated West-Coast American Adventism. It has such a stranglehold on the church's principal financial base that the leaders of the church appear paralyzed and frightened to touch it." David P. McMahon, Ellet Joseph Waggoner: The Myth and the Man, p. last. - In the cited references, Maxwell admits that he is accused of teaching the moral influence theory. --Perspicacious 12:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could you please explain in more detail Maxwell's contributions to the moral influence theory (either theologically or in relation to its spread in the Adventist Church)? Or even better, add that explanation to the article? I can't tell how the two are related, since moral influence theory is not mentioned in the body of Graham Maxwell, nor is Maxwell mentioned in Atonement (Moral influence view). If moral influence theory is Maxwell's claim to notability, the connection between the two must be made much clearer. - Rynne 16:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I am very happy to comply. Thank you Rynne for that wonderful request. It gave me an excellent idea. I need to write a section for the article called Graham Maxwell's Contribution to Theology. I now see what I have to write as being divided into three parts: A. Graham Maxwell's contribution to

1. Second Century Gnosticism

2. Medieval Moral Influence Theory

3. The New Age Interpretation of the Cross

I expect to have time to complete this task this weekend. Hopefully, I can finish it before the censors decide to delete the entire page. --Perspicacious 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that wikipedia is not a democracy. It also is not censored. Please do not confuse this process with censorship. Ansell 23:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nonesense page. Article's subject is of minimal influence. Wikiothius 06:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC) -

How do you know that? --Perspicacious 23:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the same way as he does simply because I can't find any non-Eugene Shubert/aka. User:Perspicacious references to him that actually specifically say he contributed something major to any part of adventism. Combined with the fact that you can't provide these, obviously, widespread issues to us in terms that we accept as encyclopedic influence and significance, means that someone else who is not deep into adventism will know, or ever care, about these issues. Wikipedia needs to be interesting to people in 100 years time as well. Ansell 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This page does not meet WP:BIO. Woldo 08:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You're joking. See this category: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." Graham Maxwell's book, "Can God Be Trusted?" was acclaimed as the denominational book of the year. http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/10.html The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a big denomination. -Perspicacious 23:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Try to assume the good faith of other editors. I doubt Woldo was kidding around when he made this comment. I admit believe that the article doesn't exactly prove on its own that it meets WP:BIO MyNameIsNotBob 03:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

As per MyNameIsNotBob, the main article does not in itself prove that it meets WP:BIO Woldo 08:05, 6 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. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 16:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rife_plasma_lamp_devices

unverifiable rubbish probably an advert for the devices and if it belongs anywhere at all would be as a sidebar to Royal Raymond Rife and his quack Rife Ray and incredible microscope Delete unencyclopaedic rubbishMidgley 11:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Royal Rife. Hynca-Hooley 13:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, the search "Rife machine" comes up with a lot of Google results (in which it is used generically and in reference to the original), so it might be a notable type of quackery. If kept, perhaps it should be moved to Rife machine. -- Kjkolb 13:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Hynca-Hooley. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:25, 2 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 00:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian_rogers

Delete this disambig page obscures the other disambig page Ian_Rogers (capital R) Rogersidrkw 11:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ian Rogers or Delete if we don't redirect to dabs MLA 12:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a search will send you to the right page automatically and having it show up as a redlink in an article will alert editors to its misspelling. If kept, it should be redirected to the disambiguation page. -- Kjkolb 12:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Terence Ong 13:51, 1 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. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joy Basu

Article written by the subject's son, as mentioned by the writer himself in the article (compare with the user page). Delete as vanity. Turyabasu 12:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• If you are going to nominate my article for deletion at least take some time to learn WP mechanics! Anyway, Keep. Loom91 12:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 13:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There is a legit Indian celebrity by this name ([12], [13]), but it doesn't seem to be the same person that this article is about. Compare "Joy Basu" Sunetra, which yields no hits other than this WP page. Rewrite as an article about the other guy? ergot 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unable to verify notability. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I decided to add some rationale to my Keep so I striked out my vote at top. About verifiability, there is a link at the page and about the play, it is only likely that a Bengali play performed only at Kolkata will have no mention on Google. The Google can hardly be taken as the index of all Truths. The movie site clearly mentions Joy Basu, so I can't see how the notability is not verifiable, unless you say that writing the script of a movie and a play being regularly performed by a prominent theater group of a large metropolis does not count as notable. About the other Joy Basu, I know of him. If someone does write an article about him sometime, then both should be kept on different pages and the current Joy Basu page serve as Disambiguation as is standard practice for several people with the same name. Loom91 12:06, 2 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 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-cannibalism

There is much discussion on the talk page about whether the topic is real or not. The article is mostly unverified, other than a link to another Wikipedia article. I'm bringing it here so other editors can help evaluate this topic. Abstain currently. Joyous | Talk 12:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the article doesn't actually have any genuine content. The content that is currently displayed has nothing to do with what the article purports to be about. There are allegations of bad faith editing on this article but I am not able to see whether those allegations are correct or not. If some future article on examples of self-cannibalism in nature were to be developed, it would have nothing to do with this one and none of the information here would be relevant. MLA 12:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: the Armin Meiwes case, which the article gives as an example, did not involve self-cannibalism, it was about apparently consensual cannibalism. Unless it has actually happened, and perhaps even if it has or does in the future, I don't think that it deserves its own article. -- Kjkolb 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • On the part of Bernd Brandes in the Armin Meiwes case there was self-cannibalism or atempted self-cannibalism.--Royal Blue 13:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, I didn't consider that, as it was not very successful and the main thing was him wanting to be eaten. -- Kjkolb 06:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the cannibalism article, as more information has been found. -- Kjkolb 06:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (and redirect) in to Cannibalism as a sub section (between Modern cannibalism and Historical cannibalism incidents might be good). --Royal Blue 13:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Cannibalism. I also believe there are references to self-cannibalism in popular culture (or at least some old books), that should be listed, but I can't seem to remember the book. Obli (Talk)^? 13:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Cannibalism. --Terence Ong 13:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Do people actually do this? It sounds bogus to me. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 14:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into cannibalism as per the above. I remembered there was a Stephen King short story about self-cannibalism, and after a bit of digging, I find there's an article. Yay. It was called Survivor Type. See Survivor Type (Stephen King). Mention that in this new section. Proto||type 16:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Self-cannibalism, or autophagy, is documented mainly in survival situations, rather than "choice" (i.e. a euphemism for psychiatric disorder) --MacRusgail 18:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - While likely added as silliness, there are I suspect enough real instances of the phenomenon to justify and article, as well as fictional examples that could be included. I threw some things in, but I'll try and do what I can to make it look better later if I have time. Шизомби 08:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - There are disorders that result in self-cannibalism, such as Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, a disorder that causes autocannibalistic self-mutilation. Article should serve as a over-view of real causes and instances in both humans and animals, as well as fictional treatment of the concept. - CNichols 03:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the last 3 votes. Article needs to be improved, and can be. It won't be if it's not there. GRuban 16:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve.--Jyril 18:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The inaccuracies that were introduced into this article are no reason to delete it. I certainly think it can be improved, and some good work has already been done since the Afd nomination. - Nzd (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; I would have said delete to the AfDed version, but the article is now much better. Melchoir 22:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:57, 3 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 pwn3d (delete). Mailer Diablo 00:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quarryists

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a webpage for internet game clans. feydey 12:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn guild vanity MLA 13:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kcordina 13:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. 99.999% of all gaming clans are inherently non-notable. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 14:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete! Encyclopedia defined as the "Sum of All Human Knowledge"...If not notable, certainly known by humans. Also philosophies are interesting for other clans?--User:Huo_Ma_Ke 1 March 2006
• Delete as clancruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all gamer clan articles, this one included. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:08, 1 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 12:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The_Unconditionals

Delete - vanity, self-publicity, not of general interest Minirof 12:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete-nowhere near satisfying WP:MUSIC, no real assertion of notability. Hynca-Hooley 12:49, 1 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 00:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H.O.B.E.F

joke/hoax JPD (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is not for stuff made up in school one day. Hynca-Hooley 12:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per the above MLA 13:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)</small

MODIFY - Hi, i am the creator of this article and have noticed a significant oversight made when writing. H.O.B.E.F is a 'Tongue in Cheek' rating and collection of articles that appears in many University newspapers and Orientation week publications. I do agree that this information is required to maintain relevance. Regards

Delete - a joke passed around a few University newspapers is still not encyclopediaworthy, whether it points out it's a joke or not. -- Aim Here 13:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as per WP:NFT. --Terence Ong 14:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, WP:NFT, likely one-shot joke. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable; Wikipedia is not for stuff made up in school one day.  (aeropagitica)  18:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, and hoax. Cnwb 22:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A Google search totally fails to verify this. [14]. Capitalistroadster 22:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for stuff made up in university one day. --Canley 04:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. --Roisterer 08:05, 2 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 00:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WONDERFUL P.I.s

Does not appear to pass guidelines for inclusion. Neither Author nor first novel listed in article appear on amazon. brenneman^{T}{L} 12:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Can't find any evidence of an author named Anthony Rupert or any of the books on Google. TimBentley 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:31, 2 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Rainbow (and the redirect RADIO RAINBOW)

This page was created by User:PERSBUREAU AZP, whose sole contributions have been to litter every pirate radio article s/he can find with references to "Radio Rainbow". One moment s/he is claiming that the Radio London organisation are behind the 'venture' [15] (highly improbable, by the way), another moment that it is Ronan O'Rahilly and Radio Caroline [16], [17], [18]. There's no apparent notability for this station, a Google search is mostly fruitless. It seems that it only broadcasts at weekends, if at all, and - strangely for an 'offshore station' there's no photo of their vessel to be found (by me at least). Delete both. kingboyk 13:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now. I'm willing to let this article stand for now because Radio Rainbow may possibly have some notability. Unfortunately the current article makes alot of unsubstantiated claims (i.e. Secret Service jamming; offshore broadcasting). If these claims are not sourced soon they should be removed. Also author should be warned about spamming links to Radio Rainbow around to other Pirate radio articles without sourcing his or her wild claims.Abstain pending further investigation (see below).--Isotope23 18:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm extremely surprised to see you voting Keep after just debunking the article on Talk:Radio Rainbow, but there we go :) He has been warned, but I just spotted that the talk page was edited by the same name in lower case (User:Persbureau azp). --kingboyk 18:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Upon some further investigation, I withdraw that keep for now. There are quite a few uses of this name out there in the world. There is an Afropop station, a defunct streaming clubmix website, A yogi webcast, and a plethora of gay pride stations, all using the name. Furthermore, a quick check finds evidence of other pirate & clandestine sites using the same name: [19], [20]. These are apparently talking about 2 stations that are different from the one referenced in this article, one run by an Irish and one dedicated to Ethiopian issues transmitting from Germany. Still, some of the info from the article seems to be taken from these sites. The only other evidence is the blogspot site, but that isn't really evidence at all. I say all sorts of crazy stuff on my blog; that doesn't make it true. All of this is nudging me away from a Keep. Even if this station is demonstrated to be true, how is it any more notable than the dozen other stations/websites using the name?--Isotope23 18:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• My findings were similar, but a few days or weeks ago (I've been dealing with this nonsense on the Caroline article for some time). This seems to be quite specifically about an offshore station, and I still keep wondering "where is the bloody ship?!". Radio Caroline's Ross Revenge had a 300ft antenna mast, it was quite hard to miss :) --kingboyk 18:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Would be notible if some evidence could be found to back up its claims, aside from its own sources. --InShaneee 23:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no WP:V evidence of claims.--Isotope23 21:00, 2 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 gamma sterilised (delete). Mailer Diablo 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Gamma Society

Was tagged for Speedy, then Prod'd, which was removed, so here it is. A secret society about which little is known and nothing can be verified shouldn't have an article. Smells like a hoax. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Sh. . . don't tell anyone. Just delete it secretly. Unverifiable and, as noted, could be a hoax. Logophile 13:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it with Gamma Rays!...er, fire.--み使い Mitsukai 14:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and per Logophile do it quietly. As stated in the article: "TGS is said to have only sleeping members..." No need to wake them up.--Isotope23 14:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Of course, this just proves how powerful they really are. Thatcher131 14:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 15:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's so secret that even Google can't find it. Accurizer 15:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. feydey 17:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. If their members are all asleep, at least they won't come in and sock the discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Have you guys checked the sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.17.229.129 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment The book exists (ISBN 0760762767) but the on-line information does not mention this society. The web site is in Swedish. Accurizer 00:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• The Swedish website is an encyclopedia which doesn't even appear to have an article on the topic: I keep coming up with Vasco da Gama and "Chamber Orchestra." No sale. Delete with prejudice. --KJPurscell 07:35, 2 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 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darkism Studios

nn company, likely a hoax. Article originally a {{prod}}, then bumped to {{db}} speedy, then back to {{prod}}. Additional information from original prod follows:

Non-notable "company". From what I can gather this is simply a few teenage kids who have teamed up and made a hanfull of mini games in Game Maker and set up a website at a free host to promote them (so not an actual company at all). As far as I can tell this fall hopelesly short of Wikipedia notability critereas.

Highly recommend speedy. み使い Mitsukai 13:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. In no way notable. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 14:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. joshbuddy^talk 15:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 02:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Completely useless. Not a hoax, because the "company" seems real, though it seems more like an informal high school club. Still, the article is useless and plagarizes the about page. Recommend speedy deletion. --Safdiugbawkjfgvc 05:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. WU03 02:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 02:22, 6 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 recreation of previously deleted material. Postdlf 14:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rafitropolis

This page was previously speedy userfied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafitropolis. I don't see any way to speedy delete it as a repost, so it has to come back here. Needless to say, it's hopelessly unencyclopaedic. Stifle 14:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. How the hell did this survive the first time? o_O--み使い Mitsukai 14:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• I'm speedy deleting it. The vast bulk of the AFD votes were to delete outright, so the preservation of the content in the user page was a mere courtesy. Regardless, to "userfy" means to delete from article space, hence the deletion of the redirect after the move. Postdlf 14:32, 1 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 redirected, no need for further Afd on this. Friday (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CJ Marren

CJ now wrestles under the name JC Williams. I have created an article on JC Williams, so there is no need of having an article on CJ marren anymore Jc williams 14:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If anything, the above AFD article should be redirected to the new one. The fact is, however, that the new one not only does not establish notability, it reads strongly like NPOV vanity and probably should be speedied unless notability can be proven.--み使い Mitsukai 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Boldly redirected to JC Williams. This AFD can be closed now.--み使い Mitsukai 15:08, 1 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 00:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gracie

Memorial article about a 6 month old dog. An earlier speedy as a non-notable bio has been contested, so it has been brought here. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a memorial. In addition the article has issues with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources as the only available source is a personal website. --Allen3 ^talk 14:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As the author of this article i assume i shant be taken objectively, however- Gracie was not just a dog. She was a cultural symbol and a tool for parvo awareness. I believe the speedy deletion as a bio did not take these facts into consideration. I shall attempt to address the other issues, but that is the reason for my reposting. User: Coinman

• Comment. If this is the mascot for Parvovirus why don't they link together in anyway? joshbuddy^talk 15:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I guess I get concerned when a Google search for ""caught being cute" gracie", which should bring up results for the "infamous" posters or at least something about the campaign, yields only 2 results, both the user's only source. Heck, a search for "gracie parvo" brings up more results for other dogs than for this one. --Maxamegalon2000 16:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails Google Test. Hynca-Hooley 16:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Aparently not even the only Gracie to die of cannine parvo [21]. This seems nn bio to me. joshbuddy^talk 16:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO since there isn't a WP:PETS. This is the 3rd poochie AfD I've seen in a couple of weeks. If these sorts of articles increase, maybe we need to discuss animal notability criteria. If perchance this is kept it is in dire need of cleanup.--Isotope23 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as rather unverifiable, and likely non-notable per a pets extension of WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Im deleting it- as i cant verify sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.68.212.240 (talk • contribs) .

• I was kind of disposed to overlook all the delete votes until I read the article. Cultural symbol? All I could see was that the culture was one family, perhaps even one person. Delete.--KJPurscell 07:41, 2 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 Gerry & the Pacemakers. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Pacemakers

Yet another unnotable, unreleased film with a grand total of zero google hits. —Xezbeth 14:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Allen3 ^talk 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, apparent hoax or home-movie vanity. Friday (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gerry & the Pacemakers. Or delete. Or create a stub about this old 1920s Clark Gable classic: [22]. -- Krash (Talk) 17:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. exolon 00:49, 2 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 Deleted by Geogre with summary Unsigned, undistributed, myspace. -- JLaTondre 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wireless (band)

Prod tag removed. Appears nn. Sending here for review. Monkeyman^(talk) 14:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Found nothing in the article or on the group's website to indicate that the group meets WP:MUSIC. --Allen3 ^talk 15:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn band page. — joshbuddy^talk 15:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious delete (unless article is expanded with verifiable facts to establish significance). Would have been a valid speedy, I think. Friday (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crzrussian 16:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: A7 as no notability assertion per WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:34, 1 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 redirect to Einstürzende Neubauten. howcheng {chat} 22:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Einstuezende Neubauten

Dead-end article, lemma mis-spelled, existing article with correct lemma QEDquid 15:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not redirect to correctly spelt article, then? Hynca-Hooley 15:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Boldly redirected to Einstürzende Neubauten - therefore, done. Please close this AfD, nice Mr (or Mrs) administrator. Proto||type 16:16, 1 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 withdrawn — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Init

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR

Janitorial nomination following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ntoskrnl. "Wikipedia isn't a technical how-to or an indiscriminate collection of information; see WP:NOT." may apply here also. No vote from me at this stage. kingboyk 15:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this can be withdrawn now. There's a clear keep concensus. As I said it was a janitorial nomination to stimulate some debate and focus minds at the other AFD. I maintain that the article is something of a howto (it even uses the dreaded "you") but the {{tone}} tag addresses that issue. --kingboyk 21:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep: An important and somewhat visible element of Linux/Unix boot. The article still needs the clean-up, though. Peter Grey 15:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although the article could still use some cleanup (i.e. increasing its relevance). Without Init, you wouldn't have a running system; you'd just have a kernel sitting there doing nothing. --Elkman - ^(talk) 16:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Definite keep — This is neither a technical how-to, nor an indiscriminate fact. The init daemon is a key component of UNIX. — RJH 16:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep — the article is not at all like a how-to, and the topic is notable. — A.M. 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, yeah. --maru (talk) contribs 20:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• technical keep, as sufficiently relevant to be non-indiscriminate and useful to readers. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:18, 1 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 00:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One middle finger

Delete. It seems to me that this article has no verifiable facts, does not at all contain a link, and most likely is a vanity page for the band created by this Poomunger character. Robotshuffle 15:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to The finger. Proto||type 16:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN band, joke page: "The information on this page may be completely incorrect." - Rynne 17:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure garbage. Send it where it belongs. --Krashlandon (e) 21:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy (A7 - band). One album apparently completed. Claim that they are signed (with no releases) to Sugar Shack Records appears to be false, as they are not listed on the label's website. Searching for the band with a qualifier ["One Middle Finger" "Burnham On Sea"] provides a grand total of 15 unique hits. -- Saberwyn 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Chairman S. ^Talk 05:24, 4 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 00:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilton Mall

This article is full of unverified information about some mall. There's nothing to indicate any significance of the mall in question, it just exists. Most of the article content consists of a list of stores. Wikipedia is not a phone book. Friday (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There are an awful lot of malls in Category:Shopping malls in New York that just exist. (Not to mention all the other states which I didn't examine.) Where should the line be drawn? Thatcher131 16:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's sorta what Afd decides, isn't it? Personally, I don't think we need to worry too much about where to draw the line- we let our sources draw that line for us. If reliable sources aren't saying much about this mall, we won't have much to say about it either. But, for those that want a firmer guideline, we do have WP:CORP for inclusion of companies. I see nothing in the article to indicate the mall company meets the guidelines. (The guideline more or less says what I'm saying- it depends on reliable sources to establish significance. ) Friday (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As stated on the article's talk page, I think that there is enough here that a reasonable article could be built including historical information, etc. my default action would be to label it as a stub and move on. However, I would not vote against deletion. cmh 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The nom should know that we have tags for unreferenced content. Article contents can also be improved through editing. Participants here should see Category:Shopping malls in the United States for some of our excellent mall articles. Wilton is not "some mall" for the folks in Saratoga Springs, New York. Of course, Saratoga is just "some town" that just "exists" and maybe we just shouldn't talk about it at all. -- JJay 20:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What is notable about the article that merits an entry in an encylopedia? While Saratoga Springs, New York is a nice place to vist or stay in, that fact alone does not make the mall notable. The fact that other articles may be similar does not mean that this article is OK. The significance of the mall could be noted om those articles or it may be that no one has really looked at the article to see if it belongs. Vegaswikian 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs work, but this is a valid topic for an article. RayGates 22:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, important to the economy of the northern portion of the greater Albany, New York region. Kappa 12:12, 6 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 deleted as copyvio by me. Chick Bowen 05:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mareco Broadcasting Network, Inc.

Delete Advertisement for radio stations written in first person BinaryTed 15:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notable, but needs to be rewritten BADDLY. Possibly copyvio too since it reads like a station bio off a website. Mike _{(T C)} 15:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right. Found this page which appears to be a word for word copy. I'll apply the appropriate copyvio tags. --BinaryTed 20:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Apparently this isn't the first time article in question was flagged for copyvio... it was flagged on Feb 20 and stood for 8 days until an anon IP reverted to remove the copyvio template without making any substantive change to the text. I went ahead and put the copyvio tag back on, however since this apparently already gone past 7 days without action it should still qualify for deletion. --BinaryTed 18:55, 3 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 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Action Battlefield

• Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 16:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination; all but the most exceptional game mods are non-notable. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nom is violating WP:Point, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/True_Combat:_Elite. That said, Delete --Mmx1 23:06, 1 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 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azure Sheep

• Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete An ok mod but not notable. Nigelthefish 13:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 16:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination; all but the most exceptional game mods are non-notable. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment : This nomination was made as part of a WP:POINT. Nlitement is upset over his article being nominated for AfD as unnotable, so he is nominating several other mods as AfD in retaliation. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I've played and completed this mod, and DAV was quite well known by any fan of Single Player Half-Life mods. However, I don't really think this is a notable mod. The only truly notable single player half life mods were Poke646 and They Hunger. There may be a few more, but Azure Sheep just doesn't cut the mustard. - Hahnchen 15:32, 3 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 00:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield 1918

• Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 16:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination; all but the most exceptional game mods are non-notable. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nom is violating WP:Point, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/True_Combat:_Elite. That said, Delete --Mmx1 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination Jedi6 00:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep BF1918 is far from beeing unnotable. It's one of the biggest Mods for Battlefield 1942. W++ 14:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yep, BF1918 is a very large mod for BF1942. Sorry, but you're wrong on this one.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment : This nomination was made as part of a WP:POINT. Nlitement is upset over his article being nominated for AfD as unnotable, so he is nominating several other mods as AfD in retaliation. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, definitely notable. I never played it myself, but I do play Forgotten Hope and the BF1918 seems to be the second most popular out there. Halibutt 21:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very notable. Ive never played it either, but from what I hear this is a very popular mod second only to Pirates and Forgotten Hope. The Raven 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the keep voters who seem to know what they are talking about. Kappa 12:10, 6 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 00:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield 40k

• Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a notable mod. Possible vanity page. Nigelthefish 13:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 16:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination; all but the most exceptional game mods are non-notable. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nom is violating WP:Point, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/True_Combat:_Elite. That said, Delete --Mmx1 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination Jedi6 00:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is indeed an unnotable mod. W++ 14:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete- It's either BLATANT copyvio or blatant vanity. "our mod?" Read the page just a bit. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I know these are WP:POINT nominations, but apart from the Firearms one they're pretty good. - Hahnchen 15:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also

• Comment : This nomination was made as part of a WP:POINT. Nlitement is upset over his article being nominated for AfD as unnotable, so he is nominating several other mods as AfD in retaliation. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:07, 3 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 00:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield Dogfight

• Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 16:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination; all but the most exceptional game mods are non-notable. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nom is violating WP:Point, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/True_Combat:_Elite. That said, Delete --Mmx1 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination Jedi6 00:36, 2 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 00:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield Interstate 1982

• Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 16:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination; all but the most exceptional game mods are non-notable. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nom is violating WP:Point, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/True_Combat:_Elite. That said, Delete --Mmx1 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination Jedi6 00:38, 2 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, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield Pirates

• Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a notable mod. Arrrg. Nigelthefish 13:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 16:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination; all but the most exceptional game mods are non-notable. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nom is violating WP:Point, see [[23]]. That said, Delete --Mmx1 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination Jedi6 00:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete? Was a notable mod for some, was most original by far. Shipyard 14:20, 3 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BrainBread

• Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSS...er, Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 16:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nom is violating WP:Point, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/True_Combat:_Elite. That said, Delete --Mmx1 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination Jedi6 00:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Was the first major mod to establish the zombie genre for HL games. Is very widely played.

• Comment : This nomination was made as part of a WP:POINT. Nlitement is upset over his article being nominated for AfD as unnotable, so he is nominating several other mods as AfD in retaliation. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: First major multiplayer zombie mod for HL --HashiriyaGDB 04:11, 6 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, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Life

• Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete""" Per above. Nigelthefish 13:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nom is violating WP:Point, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/True_Combat:_Elite. That said, Delete --Mmx1 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Because Counterlife is a single-player mod, it will be very difficult for Alexa rankings to prove notability. However, Counterlife was the FIRST sub-mod, that is, a mod of a mod (in this case counter-strike). It was also one of the first mods to take an online game and bring it offline. Notable for it's innovative yet simplistic features. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment : This nomination was made as part of a WP:POINT. Nlitement is upset over his article being nominated for AfD as unnotable, so he is nominating several other mods as AfD in retaliation. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I know of this mod, and whereas it attained some coverage in the HL and CS community, it never took off. - Hahnchen 15:28, 3 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enemy Territory Fortress

• Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nom is violating WP:Point, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/True_Combat:_Elite. That said, Delete --Mmx1 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not a run-of-the-mill unreleased/beta mod played by two people. =) ETF has been published, actually finalized nowadays and, as far as I know, also got some media buzz (a Slashdot article, at least). It's widely played, too, unless it suddenly died down or something while I wasn't looking. I'll try to find some other media mentions if possible. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I touched it up a little. Probably needs more work. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm changing to Keep or failing that Merge to Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (or Team Fortress). I was first a little bit skeptical about the nom's claims elsewhere that this has 20 players, but looks like that while there's tons of servers, almost all are empty and there was like 30 players. Egh. So, er, it did die down. However, the mod itself is notable enough for a mention in an article; I'm really not sure if it's notable enough for an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• • 'Keep or Merge as per Wwwwolf. 15:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swatjester (talk • contribs)

Keep

.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epic Hero Cycle

Band is non notable joshbuddy^talk 14:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. Crzrussian 15:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Well, they say that every hero needs background music. However, I don't think these guys are in charge of that department. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 16:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not your promotional vehicle -Quasipalm 03:04, 2 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 withdrawn — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firearms (computer game)

• Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This was the number 3 mod after CS and TFC for halflife 1 until DoD came out. It was on contract with valve for distribution with all new HL cd's I believe starting with game of the year edition. It was featured in PC Gamer magazine. Won mod of the year from PCGamer and runner up game of the year for 2000. Do a google search, and you'll come up with hundreds of hits. Go to forums.worldatwarmod.com, and you'll see a huge following on the Firearms section there for it. Did the user do any research at all before listing this, or is this a WP:POINT? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This mod was among the most enduring Half-Life mods ever created, and still has a following to this day, nearly eight years after first being released. It also features a very innovative bipod system that I have yet to see used in another game, which allows bipods to be deployed at any point on a map. MrFiend497 05:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Whoever believes Firearms is an unnotable mod must either have a very short memory or not be aware of the facts listed above. Firearms was one of the premiere Half Life 1 mods and even today, eight years after its initial release, a strong player base supports it. Firearms is also the innovative game that brought the reinforcement (AKA, ticket) system, in game parachutes, a massive inventory of armaments, and true to life firemodes into computer games. Valve themselves offered to purchase Firearms during its prime. The only thing unnotable about this game is how interested the generic Counter-Strike player is with it. Natrapsmai 23:55, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies Sorry, I didn't check into the article very well. As you see, the most played Enemy Territory (3rd most played FPS) modification got AfD'd (the article itself is good) because someone thinks it's unnotable. Yes, and I'm talking about people who don't know a tiny bit about games making useless bullshit into the deletion talk. I provided them with: magazine scans plus referance to two magazines featurin the mod with a full text and files included on a DVD, over 8 external communities and fansites, several leagues and clanwar meeting channels on Quakenet, number of players (300-400 at any given time, also taking to notice that it's the first _test version_ with irritating bugs which haven't been updated for over a year now! (0.49 will come out at the end of March, so you, as honorable gamers, know what would happen then - people haven't forgotten this mod; never, I haven't, I just don't play because it hasn't been updated, and oh-oho-ho HOW MANY players like me will come back when the new update hits download servers, with tons of improvements - take the number of players registered at the forums: 2000, so how many players do register at the forums? Maybe 50-60%, so it's your move now to decide its notability)). So, per their manners in handling notability, I decided to quickly check up some _definitely_ unnotable mods for BF/HL/etc and listed them all for AfD (if True Combat: Elite is actually worth an AfD, then why wouldn't they be?). The thing is, that I didn't really read the articles and thought that 11-14 total AfDs from a very large list of mods wouldn't bring up so many "bad targets", but I was wrong. I'll remove the AfD. Apologies for this. --nlitement ^[talk] 16:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the AfD from the page per the original poster's decision. I'd advise the original poster to remember not to make a WP:POINT. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no reason not to WP:AGF. I don't think the nominator was trying to make a point or be disruptive -- they probably just didn't know whether it was notable, and now they do :)

— Adrian Lamo ·· 21:31, 1 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 both. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propertycasting and Travelcasting

These articles are advertisements joshbuddy^talk 21:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - insult to Wikipedia. Not only do the talk pages admit they are adverts, but the author has simply copy-and-pasted his own website/s. -- RHaworth 22:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete for ad and copyvio.--み使い Mitsukai 16:39, 1 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, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Great War (game)

• Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• It could potentially be merged into List of Battlefield 1942 mods, but it's not very notable and so non-encyclopedic. I favor delete. — RJH 16:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nom is violating WP:Point, see [[24]]. That said, Delete --Mmx1 23:05, 1 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 01:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campsie City Reds

Delete. Gang existed for two years, non notable Crzrussian 15:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Campsie Reds" - 1 hit on Google.

"Campsie City Reds" - zero hits. Crzrussian 16:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• nn, tone sounds more like someone pining for their alma mater than an article on a gang. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 16:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: doesn't Google, maybe not even real. --djrobgordon 16:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 19:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and unverifiable per nom. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A Google search came up with nothing on this group. [25]. A search of Australian media indexes came up empty as well. The article appears to indicate that they were minor criminals participating in shoplifting and other petty offences. Could possibly be speedied as non-notable organisation. Capitalistroadster 23:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Well, actually, it's not obviously nn, so speedy would probably no be appropriate.Crzrussian 13:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. --Roisterer 08:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 23:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)" .Capitalistroadster 23:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Capitalistroadster. Cnwb 00:19, 4 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, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Happy" Virus

Somehow, this article does not seem to fit in with the rest of the encyclopedia. It reads sort of like an editorial, an informative report. Is this virus notable? HappyCamper 15:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Personal essay/research, or else a hoax. — RJH 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — personal experiance, not relivent in the manor presented Betacommand 16:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if for no other reason than "The "Happy" Virus was found by this author on February 25, 2006." Postdlf 16:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. A Happy virus does exist, but it's a seven-year-old virus that most systems are innoculated against unless you aren't running an antivirus program at all. Likely this is an attempt to create an "authorative" site to reference for a virus hoax.--み使い Mitsukai 16:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Makes me want to start a new category; "either nothing or something". Its such a mishmash I can't make head nor tail of it. It's certainly not encyclopedic, and has a good chance of being a hoax. Hynca-Hooley 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, probable hoax, not WP:V per description.--Isotope23 17:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Is there a category to Delete for cluelessness? Guess not. In that case, just Delete per above: Personal essay/experience Fan1967 17:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a place for personal accounts of experiences with viruses. If the virus can be established as important (I have found nothing to indicate that with Google, etc) then the article needs a complete rewrite, and Mitsukai's above comment seems to indicate that the virus is unimportant. Cool3 19:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete As has been said previously, this is a personal account and does not belong on Wikipedia Zak.l 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete for a large number of reasons, including, but not limited to, non-notable, unencyclopedic, vanity, original research, unverifiable... EdGl 00:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic, personal research Wyoskier 03:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Personal research and useless CloudNine 16:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What can I say, I'm following the herd. -- Jbamb 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Hell, I remember that 99 virus Computerjoe 11:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete badly written, personal essay, does not appear to be factually correct, no references, not notable.
  • Above unsigned comment by 85.144.113.76. Bart133 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Super-ultra high strength delete personal experience Bart133 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal essay, no references, not noteworthy, more than likely a hoax article. --Maikeru 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I'm a virus researcher, and this was clearly not written by someone who knew what they were doing. This does match behaviour of other viruses, and I doubt it is a complete hoax (although several parts seem just made-up), but this is entirely un-scientific. It's akin to someone getting rabies and writing an article on "Toothpaste Mouth Syndrome." --Trafton 01:06, 7 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 result, malformed nomination which belongs at TfD.--Alhutch 17:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cameroon infobox

Delete because it was out of date & replaced with Template:Infobox country MJCdetroit 16:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You probably meant Template:Cameroon infobox. — RJH 16:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Template deletions need to go to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. This should be closed and dealt with there.--み使い Mitsukai 16:46, 1 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 (speedy deletion criterion G4). howcheng {chat} 22:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob (Weird Al Yankovic song)

Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob (Weird Al Yankovich song). It offers no significant information that isn't already on the Poodle Hat article. -- Elvis 16:39, 1 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 01:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Hilton

A vanity article. Subject doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Conscious 16:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO or Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons either. --OscarTheCat^talk 16:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: The artist doesn't Google, nor do any of the groups mentioned. Probably a hoax. --djrobgordon 16:49, 1 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 WITHDRAWN by nominator (me). There's clearly no deletion concensus emerging. Largely as a result of this nomination, WikiProject The Beatles has been formed, with the consolidation and tidying of articles such as thing a high priority. I will therefore withdraw and close this nomination and we can deal with it over there. kingboyk 23:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suzy Parker (Beatles Song)

Article was PRODded but the tag was removed. A non notable song. Yes, I know it's by the Beatles but it didn't even make it to the Anthology compilations of outtakes. Merge or Delete. kingboyk 17:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Changed to merge or delete. --kingboyk 15:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• As nominator I am leaning towards a merge into a new list or overview article. Can interested parties let themselves be known, and if any suitable merge articles are found list them here or in another suitable venue. --kingboyk 20:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep OK, you just want to delete an article. That´s really funny :-). Good luck. (even a bad Beatles song is a Beatles song and therefore interesting) Greetings 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.60.106 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep. Beatles.Herostratus 17:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Beatles. Listen, I like the Beatles (and I'm one of the few Wikipedia editors who can say they've been on national TV talking about them) but do we need an article on an unreleased nonsense song?! --kingboyk 18:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keap per above. Staecker 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no reason to deny wikipedia users information about this song. Kappa 18:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Can't argue with that logic. I maintain that it's quite a hopeless article, however. How about collecting all of these (as I'm sure there are others out there) in something like Beatles unreleased songs or Beatles outtakes? Another option, given it's apparent inclusion in the film Let It Be, is to merge it to Let It Be (film) which is currently a (promising) stub and which could use some padding. --kingboyk 19:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• It would seem out of place in a stub about the film, but the suggestion of somewhere like Beatles unreleased songs might be reasonable. Kappa 19:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK. If anyone finds similar candidates (and/or an existant page which we could merge to) please advise. --kingboyk 19:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Early Lennon/McCartney songs. I'd forgotten about this one, but it just sprang up on my watchlist. Some more candidates for a Beatles unreleased songs article? --kingboyk 03:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Let It Be (album). Never released officially, and the article doesn't suggest that the song is notable for any other reason than "it's by the Beatles". No recording act should have articles dedicated to every one of their songs, and the article on this one is only a paragraph long anyway. Extraordinary Machine 19:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or delete -- not sure what to merge it to, but I don't think this song deserves an article. Tuf-Kat 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. Songs should not have articles unless they are notable in and of themselves --Cymsdale 20:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Let It Be (album) or Let It Be (film). Regardless of being recorded by The Beatles, it fails WP:MUSIC/SONG - Rynne 20:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Beatles bootlegs. The criterion for Beatles tracks as stand alone articles should be the same as for other artists namely is it a significant single or album track. Is there enough verifiable material to justify a standalone article? My position on this track is that there isn't. Capitalistroadster 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A List of unreleased songs by The Beatles would be useful, allowing a paragraph each on such songs as this one. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Extraordinary Machine. COncur with Gruntness on the list comment. MLA 09:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• @ Beatles unreleased songs see: bootleg: Beatlemania,Twenty Never Published Songs, released in 1991 , (but that`s not correct, because all (?) these songs were published on other bootlegs before).

btw.:The Beatles have dedicated a song to (former) American beauty Suzy Parker, who could be their mother...... For me that´s significant enough.Greetings to Kingboyk from Berlin. :-) 20:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.60.106 (talk • contribs) .

• Of course some of the songs listed on your external link have now been published. I take the point though and am more than happy for the all the stubby, low quality articles on unreleased/minor release Beatles songs to be collected into one article. Go for it. --kingboyk 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into List of minor Beatles songs. BD2412 T 02:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into either a list of minors, or into the Let It Be article (whichever makes most sense)... Lets not lose the content though, with an outright delete. (normally I'd vote keep but I see the argument here) Shameless plug: Interested editors might want to consider joining WikiProject The Beatles, which got started partly as a result of discussion about this very article. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 4 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 01:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blood Car

Another unnotable, unreleased film. This one gets two google hits, one of which is a mention in someone's blog. —Xezbeth 17:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unreleased film with no press coverage. Sounds like a potentially funny movie. Nice website too.--Isotope23 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Isotope23. Stifle 01:28, 5 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 01:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloodriot

Neologism. Can't find a single google hit for it. —Xezbeth 17:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete neologism. I'm a big fan of the zombie movie genre and I've never heard this term used in this context.--Isotope23 17:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone took the Zombie Survival Guide way too seriously. Haikupoet 04:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle 01:28, 5 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 01:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duotech

Fictitious company... not WP:V, Only Thomas Sakaguchi Google finds is a man who was sent to a Japanese relocation center during WWII. Somehow I don't think he was a Nintendo modder.--Isotope23 17:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my nom.--Isotope23 17:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per norm. Wyoskier 03:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the first six words of the article. Stifle 01:27, 5 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. pschemp | talk 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

===Kingdom of Kurdistan=== --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC) According to the article two "kingdom of kurdistans" exist.

• Both existed for a very brief period of time (one being only two months).
• Article has very very little coverage and portrays what appears to be "rebellions" as independent nations.

First choice: delete

Second choice: broken into two articles with a better title

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the second choice, what would you have the articles be named? Kingdom of Kurdistan (1922-1924) and Kingdom of Kurdistan (1925) with Kingdom of Kurdistan as a disambiguation page? - FrancisTyers 18:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion is good, only I would recommend teritorial, rather than temporal disambiguation: Kingdom of Kurdistan (Sulaymaniyah) and Kingdom of Kurdistan (Palu), because the time way may misleadingly say that it was one and the same, only at different time periods. Mukadderat 19:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I really think perhaps a merge in to History of the Kurds may be better (a recent suggestion below). The two entities did not last 3 years combined, there really inst much, articles cant develop much. I am not trying to delete information, but this "article" can't develop. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep The article is cited and whilst only a stub has the potential for improvement - I would be amenable to a disambiguation page upon completion of two separate articles, but I think for the time being that one will do. I will assume good faith, but this nomination does seem suspect, Cool Cat hasn't discussed this on the talk page at all. - FrancisTyers 18:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Cited or not this articles real content already exists under history of kurds, stand alone there isnt much to write about as countries did not exist long enough for anything interesting. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep Fad (ix) 21:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Heja Helweda 02:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a real historical thing. I expanded it a bit, giving correct names and places, to make further searches easier.Mukadderat 05:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I am not suggesting it isnt notable however the entities did not last long enought to be article worthy. One "country" lasted 2 months (with no recognition) another only 2 years with british occupation until British decided they didn't want this country. There isn't much else to say about them aside from who their only leader was. History of the Kurds explains the matter and this article alone cant grow beyond a stub. This article could redirect to History of the Kurds. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Please aloow me to respectfully disagree. "History of Kurds" is a big topic, with potentially a very big article. "Kingdom of Kurdistan" is a small but a separate topic. It is in wikipedia tradition to create separate articles by cutting fdrom big ones, not vice versa. The statement "can't grow" is also probably made in polemic haste. I am sure that in due time Allah will guide a Kurdish editor to expand the article. I am not an expert in this historic time and place, so I added only some basic details, but in fact I've already seen much more in the internet. Mukadderat 19:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no need for this poor quality article when History of the Kurds exists and is a high quality article. MLA 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am afraid this opinion is made with poor judgement. History of the Kurds, as good as it is, does not say a single word about the topic you want to delete. And this is reasonable: such a general topic cannot be contained in a single article. History of the Kurds must be a broad overview, with details scattered in subpages. Mukadderat 19:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • My judgement is based on the following: - there exists an article called History of the Kurds and in this article is a section called History_of_the_Kurds#Modern_History_of_the_Kurds with a link to a main article called Modern history of the Kurds which is currently redlinked. The section in question covers the period 1828-present day. There currently isn't any reference to the two items of information in Kingdom of Kurdistan which are an attempt at independence from the British mandate which did not last long and an attempt at independence from Turkey which did not last long. These two pieces of information are part of the modern history of the Kurds and should be referenced there. An article about independence struggles in Kurdistan would have more than just two basic pieces of information and would not be called Kingdom of Kurdistan. There should in my view be an article on the modern history of Kurdistan and at most, the information presented in Kingdom of Kurdistan would be a small section within that. MLA 19:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The key words in your kind reply are "redlinked" and "should", which only confirm my opinion that the nomination for deletion was a bit of misunderstanding. You just don't delete information from wikipedia just because it should be a part of the article which does not exist yet. I am not in a position to evaluate the validity of the term "Kingdom of Kurdistan"; I may understand the position that if someone proclaims himself King, this does not necessarily mean that there is a "Kingdom". But this is a different issue, and again, you just don't delete a correct and significant information from wikipedia. We already have an article about Republic of Mahabad, which was just as shortlived. Mukadderat 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmm.... Republic of Mahabad was also called kingdom of kurdistan... I for one am confused in this flood of 3 kingdoms with identical titles. Even a disambiguation page would be hard to create. Since all 3 of the kingdoms existed/ceased to exist repetively in the same time period. It is perfectly fine to explain this under a "modern hostory of kurds" rather than pathetic individual articles that cannot grow beyond stubs. Each article can hardly fill a stub.
          • Where was the RoM called the Kingdom of Kurdistan? Well, disambig pages are for clearing up confusion (ambiguity)! :) Again your baseless assertions that the articles can "hardly fit a stub", please prove this or refrain from reiterating it. We have huge articles on demonstrations that only lasted one day, so to say that a country or rebellion that lasted in one case 2 years and in another a number of months can't fill an article is pure propaganda. - FrancisTyers 09:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Mukadderat the nomination was not a misunderstanding, when I nominated the article for deletion there was only two lines of information. The article improvement drive converted the article into a BARE stub explaining two diferent kingdoms. How many kingdom of kurdistans were there?
        • --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Reading your all last replies I regret to reiterate that it is a misunderstanding. If the article is poor, the proper solution is to "merge and redirect" using be bold approach. The historical entity "Kingdom of Kurdistan" did exist, and people may search for this term, so deletion is totally inappropriate. Mukadderat 19:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and let develop. --dcabrilo 18:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article is of poor quality and unsourced, probably nonsense talk by Kurd nationalists --Kash 10:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Poor quality is a value judgement, please make complaints about article content on the talk page. Unsourced is not true, the article has several sources. Please try and remain civil and don't characterise other users edits as "nonsense talk". Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 10:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve the article. The article is part of Iraqi and Kurdish history. It's still is a stub and will become an informative article.Diyako Talk + 13:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  The Kingdom of Kurdistan did not last long, thanks to the British Royal Air Force acting on behalf of a puppet government in Baghdad... come on... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  But instead the Kingdom has its own long story and deserves its own article in Wikipedia.Diyako Talk + 16:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Why delete??? It's important historical info. -- infinity0 17:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to provide information not available elsewhere. I wouldn't support a merge for the sole reason that [[[History of the Kurds]] is already a huge page. Does need some cleanup and sourcing, though, no argument there. --InShaneee 20:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The Ezo Republic lasted less than a year, and I don't see people trying to delete that. Naelphin 10:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Although the historical information is important, it should be discussed in a page dedicated to the unsuccessful attempts/rebellions/... by Kurds to establish independent states. Unsuccessful rebellions should not be presented in Wikipedia as though they were real states. In short, keep the info, but present it impartially and in a page dedicated to the whole issue of attempts to build a Kurdish state. Shervink 15:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)shervink
  • From your description it follows that you mean "merge and redirect", rather than "delete", because your problem is with the title, rather than content. Please read the deletion policy about options in voting. Mukadderat 18:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There is lots of problems with the content as well. Those few issues mentioned in it which qualify as historical studies must be merged into another article. For the most part, in line with others in favor of deleting the article, I think the article is simply a fabrication of history, portraying rebellions as though they were states. I have also stated that very clearly in my previous comment. I definitely think it should be deleted. Shervink 16:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink
  • The article is still a stub, There are many issues which still have not been discussed. deleting that article although will satisfy Turkish and Iranian nationalism for a very short time (but It never happens!) but it does not help wikipedia. This is why this article should kept.Diyako Talk + 16:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no need to repeat yourself. You already voted, and we both have made our points clear. Shervink 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink
• Keep per FrancisTyers and others; Nomination doesn't offer substantial arguments for deletion rather than improvement and/or reorganizing.--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)