Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< March 19 March 21 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] March 20

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Dodd

not, alas, notable. Midgley 00:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, looks like one of 10,000 "entrepreneurs" out there. In other words, non-notable. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable person, though there does seem to be a notable political songwriter with 16,300 Google results out there with the same name --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, reads more like WP:VANITY than anything. Definitely not the songwriter. --Kinu t/c 02:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - A rather well-written vanity page, but still a vanity page. --Viridian {Talk} 03:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete non-notable. Hbackman 04:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. dcandeto 06:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable enough for WP ~Linuxerist L / T 07:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing to indicate notability --Icarus 07:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. Robin Johnson 10:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn and vanity. --Terence Ong 10:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn Lankiveil 11:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as completely not notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. joturner 23:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP -- Francs2000 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universitat de València

the article doesn't tell you anything Where (talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - If it didn't tell you anything that would make it a speedy deletion candidate, not an afd candidate. As it is Google shows that there really is a university of this name, therefore this should be cleaned up, not deleted. -- Francs2000 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree, this article should be expanded and cleaned up, not deleted. Why would you ever want to delete an article that refers to a legitimate University?
  • Merge or expand. Unless this article is greatly expanded it seems to make more sence to place this information in the education section of the article on Valencia, which is currently empty.
  • Keep and expand article --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This was tagged one minute after it was written. That has to be a record. Universities need articles. I suggest speedy keep in fact to let this editor have a go at it. --Bduke 01:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep since this is notable enough and it is a very new article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE Harro5 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Fake Facebook profiles

This list does not meet guidelines for notability or importance. Furthermore, there is no way to cite any sources. The list could become extremely long as there are numerous fake profiles being created. This basically would end up being a list of celebrities, politicians, internet memes ("Limecat"), and other random fictional characters ("Captain Planet"). Sorry to spoil your fun, but this does not belong on Wikipedia. L1AM (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As Above. Tombride 00:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Harro5 01:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above Makgraf 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unmaintainable, unencyclopedic. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Allen 01:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. --Kinu t/c 01:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. No way we could make this, and if we could, it'd be pointless. Noone could get to the profiles unless they were in that school and on facebook, and there is probably a pile and a half of duplicates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZachPruckowski (talk • contribs) 02:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 02:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. -- BrownHairedGirl 04:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Hbackman 04:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. dcandeto 06:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't belong ~Linuxerist L / T 07:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hey, I actually have four of these that I can name! Alas, you could not verify that without a facebook account, more are created constantly, and probably no-one cares anyway except the author. Totally worthless and unencyclopedic. Grandmasterka 07:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Icarus 08:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and non-notable. Robin Johnson 10:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Lankiveil 11:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete as per nomination and everybody else. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to uncyclepedia (if some current author wants it) JeffBurdges 15:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft.--Isotope23 17:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Andy123(talk) 19:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. — Adrian Lamo ·· 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per nom. If it were to be completely full, it would waaaaaay too long. And since that will never happen, it will be waaaay incomplete. --Pal5017 03:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 02:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jostein Saether

This author has only published two books, and only has 481 Google results. The proposed deletion tag was removed, so I guess it comes here --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I could only find 1 book, but even that is good enough for me. apparently a notable new age author, books are currently available for sale. Why did you nominate this guy - it appears you are not voting for deletion. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment, well, its already assumed that I'm voting the article for deletion as I've nominated the article on AfD. Also, the book that he has written ranks only #661,217 on Amazon --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Amazon may or may not be the New Age retailer of choice. E.g. lotsa notable Jewish books sell terribly on Amazon - b/c Jewish people buy them in specialty stores - same could be here. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, overall I'm still not sure if having one or two books published with questionable notibility makes the author notable enough for Wikipedia. --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, per WP:BIO. PJM 02:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn Midgley 02:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep seems notable enough. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per t.c.r. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 03:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per PJM. I'm willing to bet that the book has a distribution of at least 5000. Hbackman 04:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for now per PJM and Hbackman, but tag for importance. -- BrownHairedGirl 04:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep ~Linuxerist L / T 07:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete very probably fails WP:BIO Robin Johnson 10:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep --Terence Ong 10:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Jostein Sæther and redirect. Eivindt@c 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, I guess if he's published by a non-vanity press, that's good enough for me. Lankiveil 11:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Very weak keep as per the majority of votes above. Seems to be somewhat notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I checked the books on Amazon - I think that one is a translation of the other. Neither has any appreciable sales rank, and neither is published by a major publishing house. He scores only about one tenth the number of Ghits that I do, and I am my own benchmark for non-notability. I call WP:HOLE. Just zis Guy you know? 16:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, per JzG. --kingboyk 17:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If not we'll have to let Just zis Guy have a page!!!! Marcus22 20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per PJM and WP:AFDP --David.Mestel 15:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as per JzG, just barely not notable enough to me. I mean, by the plaque off my teeth. Lord Bob 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Published author. — Adrian Lamo ·· 00:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The book popular enough to have a lot of listing in on the Amazon used books page.Seano1 01:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep. This author is not one whom I would consider to be directly "notable" in himself alone; however it is clear looking through InfoTrac and on Google that his work has been referred to by others (albeit to a comparatively minor degree). In my own personal opinion, I wouldn't say he's worthy of inclusion in any encyclopaedia due to lack of substantial merit on his part, but of course since Wikipedia is meant to be a "sum of human knowledge" we don't seem to ignore people who have some demonstrable level of following in the world at large simply because of their academic insignificance. Admittedly, if Wikipedia were my encyclopaedia, such articles as this would be deleted post-haste, but mercifully for the world this is not the case. Thus it seems he is notable enough to warrant an article given usual Wikipedia editorial procedure. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep his second book can be found here [1] (found on Google Scholar). His writings may not be enough on their own for notability as an author, but he is also an academic, with verifiable contributions. Mangojuice 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maze Clays(tm)

Delete nn sport, ad, vanity, prod removed by creator w/o explanation the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per above; 9 google hits Where (talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife 01:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as copyvio. It's basically a slightly edited copy of their website at [2]. Fan1967 01:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am the creator of the page and I don't understand what is the problem with the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cautaro (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 March 2006
  • The problem is that it's an ad, not an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is not free adspace. Fan1967 01:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have nominated this page for deletion because I believe this sport does not meet the notability criteria required under WP:N and further because the purpose of the article is to promote the sport/organization. Your input is valued here - go ahead and read the policies, and then you can make a case for why this article should be retained in the encyclopedia. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom Nobunaga24 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to deletion request. Maze Clays is a new shotgun discipline that was just recently launched. It is a unique and newsworthy topic, from the fact that it already has a following in the shooting ranges that it was introduced. We have had TV coverage that is about to air in the following weeks. The article is not an ad or vanity, it plainly states the creators of the discipline and the main characteristics. It does not go into the benefits of this game over the other existing shotgun sports. This topic is verifiable by visiting the official website.
  • Not a promotion - it simply states the components and rules of the game. Please explain what you mean your accusations in greater detail so that I may respond.
    • God forbid, no accusations. I have nothing against you, and your shouldn't try to convince me, rather everybody here. The problem with your page is that I believe it violate WP:N and is an ad. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Details** I understand that this is a debate. I would like to know specifically, what is it that you see in this article that would classify it as an ad? Second, I have explained the fact that it is notable, because it is unique, something new a novelty, which already has a following among the hundreds of shooters who have tried it out.
  • Basically, there are two points. (1) it looks like an ad for the website that licenses the game and sells the equipment. (2) It appears non-notable as, basically, it looks like practically nobody is doing this. The lack of Google hits makes this look like a start-up attempting to get some exposure. You claim there's a following, yet nobody seems to be talking about it. (By the way, sign your comments with ~~~~) Fan1967 02:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all the article does not talk about licensing or selling the equipment. It describe the Maze Clays discipline. The link to the website is put there for verifiability purposes.

Second, just because you can't find hits on Google doesn't mean that it does not have a following. What corellation exists between shotgun shooters and computer users. What basis do you have to tell me that shotgun shooters automatically are big fans of computers? The purpose of the article is to inform shooters about the existance of a new shotgun sport. What is wrong with that. The article does not mention a sales pitch which you claim that it is. Cautaro

  • Delete Notability is a guideline, not a grounds for deletion. Whether this is an ad or not is debatable (although the TM everywhere doesn't help matters). But pending some kind of third party verification this article should be deleted. Note also that Wikipedia is not for self-promotion - the creators of such a sport should not be the ones writing an article about that sport. Ziggurat 02:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Everybody's on the internet these days. Every gun club has a website and, apparently, if any of them are running these games, they're not listing them. Read the policy: WP:V. You cannot provide any verification other than the vendor's website that shows there is a following. Fan1967 02:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; at the least, this is a WP:V problem, as the only sources I can find about this are the Maze Clays website. Admitted to being "recently launched" as well, so WP:CHILL applies. --Kinu t/c 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Club reference - one club that is running the game has a link on their site: Tom Lowe Shooting Grounds User:Cautaro
  • Sorry, one club out of thousands does not constitute a notable sport. Fan1967 02:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The author wrote the following on my page page:
This is a quote from the notable page: "The word notable is often used as a synonym of "unique" or "newsworthy." 

To explain, Maze Clays is unique because it uses a new system of operating the shotgun sport. Besides that it has a new classification and no registered targets are are necessary, two new, unique things which don't currently exist. 

Second, it is newsworthy. We have been filmed by the Comcast channnel CSS and will be airing in the following weeks. We are in talks with other media sources who are interested to feature Maze Clays.
The fact that you are the producer of this product means that the article may also violate WP:VANITY. Also, Maze Clays has not yet been aired on any major media sources; whether it will be in the future is irrelavent. Finally, the article does not assert the notability of its topic and we thus have no idea how many users the product has and if that number is significant. Perhaps later it would be a good article, but not now. Where (talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all the article describes a shotgun discipline, which by definition cannot be sold. The equipment is described to provide a better understanding of the game. Second, what is wrong with having the information come directly from the authors of the creation. In this day in age, where the internet allows creators and users to come together, why would Wikipedia be a barrier to this type of communication?
  • Inclusion criteria: What would the article need in order to be included? User:Cautaro
  • First of all, the article insists on using the TM symbol every time the discipline is mentioned. In other words, no one can run these games without paying royalties to the owners of the trademark. Don't be disingenuous. By definition, that is selling. In addition, it seems there's specialized equipment for this sport that's also being sold. Second of all, You are under a delusion that appears to be quite common, you believe Wikipedia exists to help promote and publicize new things. It does not. Fan1967 03:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. It may be "unique and newsworthy", but as has already been said, the article should be written by someone with nothing to gain or lose by its inclusion, the (tm) should be ditched, and it needs indepedent, third party sources beyond a single hyperlink from a random gun club of questionable notability in itself, such as mentions (that are not advertisements) in magazines, newspapers, etc. Otherwise, it's just self-promotion. -Dawson 03:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, except for the prod part. There is no requirement to explain a prod removal. · rodii · 04:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, I stated that there was no reason given not as a reason for deletion but for the sake of full information. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom except prod. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. If someone independent of the sport's inventors decide to write an article that doesn't read like ad copy, and if the sport has, by that point, achieved significant media coverage, it would be worth inclusion then. Right now it just seems like a vanity/advertising page to me. Hbackman 04:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 05:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sandstein 06:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Icarus 08:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteTM. JIP | Talk 09:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No verifiable claim to notability. And it does look like an ad™. Robin Johnson 10:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the constant trademark symbol did it for me. Lankiveil 11:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete, vanity, ad, unverifiable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please review - the page has been updated, by removing the (tm) marking and also any references that would seem like vanity or ad. Also I have requested that the page be moved to Maze Clays from Maze Clays(tm). Also the image has been changed, so that it does not reflect the equipment by itself (not an ad). Again, the purpose of the page is to inform the Wikipedia users and I believe the Wikipedia users have a lot more to gain from this information, than by deleting this page. Please provide feedback. Cautaro 17:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete strictly on the basis of NN. Maybe Maze Clays will become the ne plus ultra of skeet/trap shooting in the ensuing years and it might qualify for a huge article in an encyclopedia (written by an unrelated 3rd party...) But today it simply another corporate promo item, and has yet to establish its notability. Wikipedia can't have an article on every new game/product/idea that's out there. Slowmover 17:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination.--Isotope23 17:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanispamcruftisement Just zis Guy you know? 18:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. -Mask 18:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Notable - I have stated earlier that according to Wikipedia in order for a site to be notable, it has to be unique or newsworthy. I believe that Maze Clays is both, and that is the reason for which I don't see the basis for not notable claim. Maze Clays is unique, because is different from all the existing shotgun sports and it is newsworthy because it has solid fundamentals that will change the shotgun shooting industry. Cautaro 02:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If it is newsworthy, the the news has covered it. Point out solid newspaper or magazine references for this subject, and it'll be considered notable. If they are 'soon to be', then the article will be deleted, without prejudice, and you can recreate it once a newspaper prints something on the subject. -Mask 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You believing that this is unique and newsworthy is not enough. Uniqueness and newsworthiness have to be borne out by other sources than people directly related to an article's subject. Hbackman 02:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Newsworthy - I have found a reference to Maze Clays on Lost Target which is a "A web-based news service for gun enthusiasts", under the News of Interest section. Cautaro 19:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: It looks like a single hyperlink to your website (added today even), not an independently written news/magazine article. -Dawson 19:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Still trying, eh? lol - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Response - The website that posted this link considered it as being a newsworthy item in order for them to place it on the main page under the News of Interest section. Cautaro 15:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment The losttargets.com site is listed as a partner of mazeclays. Should be looked at with a grain of sand. Also, the memberlist on the forums on mazeclays.com include two entries, one of which was automaticaly created by the BBS program. -Mask 18:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Response The LostTarget.com site is news site for shotgun enthusiasts. The fact that it appears under the Partners page is just a gesture of appreciation for their support. Second, the forum at mazeclays.com is a new addition and the list of users does not reflect the number of members. The number of users is just how many people registered to use the forums without correlation to members. Cautaro 13:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, copyvio, vanity. --Soumyasch 13:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yuko Aoki

Keep page had prod tag, I changed to afd because while the article is very weak, she was actually one of the most popular bikini models in Japan about 10 years ago, then abruptly abandoned her modeling career Nobunaga24 01:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would you remove the PROD tag and take it to Afd and vote Keep? Just remove the PROD tag and it is a Keep! --FloNight talk 02:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above. [3]. PJM 01:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
If you enter the kanji for her name (青木裕子) you actually get 500,000 hits Nobunaga24 02:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per nom --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, see below since nominator wants article kept and no delete votes yet. (Nobunaga, it's fine to remove a PROD tag without nominating for AfD. Perhaps you know this and just wanted to make sure this PROD got discussed, but I thought I'd mention it just in case you didn't know.) --Allen 02:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I added to afd because I hate it when people just remove my prod tag, so I won't do it to someone else :). I figure if somebody wants to delete it, it's probably worth debating a bit. Nobunaga24 02:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Her picture was everywhere on the internet back in 1997-1998. -- JJay 02:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy keep nothing contested. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And what with all this "keep" talk the article as it stands could still be speedily deleted as having no claim to notability. I put a note to that effect on the talk page and {{prod}}-ed it instead of speedily deleting it myself, in fact. Here's a bit of a crazy idea - put some of these references into the article. I'll spare everyone the quotation from wp:v that says that the burden is on whomever wants an article included to provide sources. - brenneman{T}{L} 04:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    I've also reversed the "speedy keep" closure as testimony of editors isn't a source. Clearly someone *cough* me *cough* thought this was open to debate, as a prod tag had been added, and no actual citations have been provided to indicate notability, just some hand waving and a google search. And while I suppose that there is nothing saying that someone known for their "large breasts" couldn't have gone on to do work in host sphingolipid biosynthesis as a target for hepatitis C virus I suspect that this is in fact a common name and many of these hits are spurious. Can we see some actual sources, please.
    brenneman{T}{L} 05:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    The closer also un-closed at the same time as me (with no edit conflict?) so sorry that I was a bit narky about the quick close.
    brenneman{T}{L} 05:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    If you could read Japanese, you would know that if you do a search using kanji, that she was (and still is) incredibly popular in Japan and also outside of Japan. She has several DVDs in Japan, and numerous photobooks. A search on amazon.co.jp will show this. As far as fleshing out this article, a) I only stumbled across it today because it was listed for deletion b) since I do most editing at work, searching bikini model web sites isn't really an option as I would probably get fired. This needs to be expanded, not deleted. Nobunaga24 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    Which is exactly why I used prod instead of speedy deletion, I repeat. All I'm asking for is that rather than closing this as "keep" and leaving the article a micro-stub that someone sometime in the next five days puts some evidence into the actual article. If for no other reason than so that I may bookmark them for, ah, research.
    brenneman{T}{L} 05:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    Now that I know of the existence of this page, when I can get some edit time where I don't run the risk of a sexual harassment suit, believe me, I will dedicate myself to expanding it. I will make the sacrifice of browsing page after page of scantily clad, buxom Japanese models in order to ferret out more information to add to the general repository of knowledge contained in wikipedia. That is if in the process of research I remember to come back to wikipedia. Nobunaga24 06:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 11:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Provisional Keep, if the kanji explanation noted above is correct (my study of Japanese never went that far). Lankiveil 11:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep. Seems notable enough based on a quick google, asides from everyone else's comments (and the nominator's). Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete since I don't actually think she ahs ever done anything that notable. Any woman with large enough breasts can garner a million Googles easily without ever doing anything of any signifciance whatsoever. Not that I care overmuch, but this really does seem to be breastcruft. I suppose it might justifiably be defended per systemic bias, as balancing some of the millions of utterly non-notable American women with large breasts... Just zis Guy you know? 18:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright, I'll contest it. She's a girl with moderately large breasts (this is the second draft of my comment) and she appeared in one porn movie 20 years ago. Wow. Non-notable. It's a speedy delete, not a speedy keep. If there's someone who cares enough to add other movies she must surely have appeared in, then they should do so post-haste rather than merely asserting her fame here. -Splashtalk 01:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • But the article is claiming she's notable for being a famous bikini model, not for being a woman with large breasts or an actor. The only evidence I have of her notability are the Google hits and the word of Nobunaga and JJay, but for me, that's enough to keep a recently created stub. While editors' personal knowledge shouldn't be cited as a source in articles, it seems reasonable to me to consider it in behind-the-scenes judgements like AfDs. (I haven't been here long, so if anyone can point me to any old discussion on that last point I'd appreciate it.) --Allen 02:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No, the article says "mainly known for her large breasts.", not "is mainly known as a bikini model". The only passing claim to notability is having, as they say, big ***s. Evidence that can't go in an article is difficult to find much use for, since it is the article and the material in it that is at issue here. -Splashtalk 02:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
        • You're right, it does say that. But what about this official website that Nobunaga added? The "discography" link goes here... she seems to be a recording artist with a major label album, which would make her notable in itself. I'd add it to the article, but I'll leave that to the editors who can read Japanese. --Allen 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure that this means she is signed with HMV, if that's what you mean, since I'm not even sure that they are a label. Even if it does mean that, WP:MUSIC asks for two albums on a major label, and there is no proof of that. Allmusic.com has never heard of her, sugesting that probably that release was not, in fact, on a singificant label. -Splashtalk 02:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Actually, I was thinking Universal Music Group, not HMV. Again, I can't read Japanese, but it looks to me like a Universal release. And you're right that it's just one, but it's packaged with a DVD and looks like the kind of big pop release that would easily have sold 5000 copies. --Allen 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Oh, I see. Hmmm, that is difficult. But absent any proof of notability (or even, for that matter any proof of the one claim in the article), it remains deleteable, and speedily. -Splashtalk 03:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Perhaps. I bet Nobunaga will be able to shed a lot of light on this when he gets back. --Allen 03:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • Actually, looking at the IMDB listing, I don't think that's her. She would be about 10 or 11 years old when that movie came out, and seeing as it looks like an erotic film, I doubt it's her. Most of her *ahem* movies are "smile and pose" straight to DVD type jobs, not listed on IMDB. The album is news to me, but I'll look at the site. I'm not really a Jpop fan so I don't stay on top of those things (actually I despise Jpop). Nobunaga24 06:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (regretabbly). Having large breasts does not notability make. It's borderline CSD A7 as the entire article is "Yuko Aoki (青木裕子, born February 5, 1977) is a Japanese bikini model mainly known for her large breasts." which doesn't make much of case for importance/notability, does it? --kingboyk 08:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is no sense about her large breasts.--Taichi 05:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Witold Gustaw Pawel Maria Czartoryski

Speedy delete. Not even an article.

  • Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 01:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, A1. Tagged (due to Crzrussian's edit). Delete, unless it can be properly expanded and sourced so that it satisfies WP:BIO.PJM 01:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete --Allen 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, hold it, author did add cats, implying that this WGMPC dude is a member of the Czartoryski noble clan, and added him to that page as well. Now, I happen to think that that was a bogus addition, which is why I am not voting keep here, but this is not speedy. Give the author a few days to prove this is a bona fine Czartoryski noble. I am removing the tag and adding a few words to the article. Delete unless author proves relation to Czartoryski clan. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a stub that's been there for a month with no content. It appears to have been created for no reason other than to resolve a redlink in Czartoryski. Fan1967 02:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google gives 10 results for a search on "Witold Gustaw Pawel Maria Czartoryski," only 3 of which are not Wikipedia pages; "about 39" for a search on "'Witold Czartoryski' 1983," but many of those look like genealogical pages; WP:NOT a genealogical dictionary. Hbackman 05:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Saying "noted" doesn't make it so. dcandeto 06:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above ~Linuxerist L / T 07:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hbackman. --Icarus 08:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Czartoryskicruft, unlikely to ever contain any encyclopedic information. This is what we get for putting in too many redlinks as we write. Robin Johnson 11:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if it cannot be proven he is a real noble, and that he has some notability other than a famous surname. Lankiveil 11:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete nn. --Terence Ong 11:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as completely non-notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete next time use WP:PROD Computerjoe's talk 16:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom Nigelthefish 18:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Premier production discography

c. i dont know if you guys read point b.? the article takes correct information from the afromentioned site (which stands under a Creative Commons license which is harmed) without linking or crediting and adds additional false information. is that not reason enough for a deletion? who-am-i 15:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Merge per Tom. JoshuaZ 04:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with DJ_Premier. Pleanty of musicians have their discographies listed on wikipedia, however a seperate articles is unwarrented.Tombride 04:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Tombride --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to DJ Premier as per Tombride. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, pretty clear-cut case. Lankiveil 11:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Merge, as per all of the above comments. DJ Premier is notable, but he doesn't need a seperate article for his discography. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Tombride. --Terence Ong 11:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Tombride. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 13:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; don't merge information that is copyvio'd, it would just make the copyvios harder to find and delete later. ergot 19:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catme 06

The article says "The Catme movement was created and announced on March the 19th, 2006 over the Internet, by three friends who were bored on a Sunday afternoon." I assume that refers to Wikipedia. Good old Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Delete. Melchoir 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Article was created in response to press release sent out by parties involved. I know them. It's legit.
I can see how this would be considered on the gray area of acceptable use policy, but I maintain that it fits.
If any "movement" were chronicled the day it was born, would it still be superfluous?
The people involved have a sense of humor, but it is not a joke, they put their actual filmmaking beliefs in their manifesto. And between the three of them, they have actual film credits, books on filmmaking in stores, reviews in Variety, Film Threat, etc.

Regarding "by three friends who were bored on a Sunday afternoon", The Dogme 95 movement was created exactly the same way.

Just my six cents, Eliza. —This unsigned comment was added by ElizaBarrington (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 March 2006.
  • Delete per nom, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If this ever extends beyond these three it might become notable. It's not now. Fan1967 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Eliza, under our verifiability policy, we require sources such as newspapers, magazines and film journals to write about this before we can have an article on it. If it becomes verifiable under our policies, especially with coverage in multiple reliable sources then I would welcome an article on this movement. At the moment, it doesn't meet our standards. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


-- Good point, Fan1967. --Eliza. ElizaBarrington

  • Delete per nom... and as for the "created today" part, WP:CHILL applies. Verifiability and notability first, then inclusion. --Kinu t/c 02:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. The problem is not how long it took to create this, or how many people. One person might conceivably create something notable in a short time, which could lead to a lot of publications by reputable sources. But here notability is not established, it fails the Google test, and worst of all it also appears to be unverifiable. The external link in the article redirects through a meta http-equiv="refresh" to Jeff and Genevieve's Photos, which don't seem that notable either, and whose connection to Catme 06 I am unable to grasp. LambiamTalk 03:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Looks like the catme06.com domain is brand new, from GoDaddy; the redirect may have been left over from the previous renter of the IP. It's been fixed now, and basically matches the article. Also, it appears that one of the "three friends" who thought this up is, in fact, a cat. At least, there is a Julie Peasley whose website ([4]) includes pictures with her cat, Squeaky McGee [5]. This whole thing is starting to look more like a hoax. Fan1967 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Najeh-gram

hoax, 0 googles RJFJR 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as haox --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax/neologism Gwernol 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO. --Kinu t/c 02:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as hoax. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism (or, in any case, surely not in our vernacular), although it should be said that, whilst this usage is probably a hoax, the Najeh Davenport story is, for Packers fans, all too real. Joe 04:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. Hbackman 05:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom ~Linuxerist L / T 07:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef/neologism at best. --Icarus 08:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - does this article entertain or inform? Nope. Lankiveil 11:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete, neologism, probably hoax. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 12:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom Nigelthefish 14:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Wait a minute, I can't see why we can't have this as a redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexual interpretations of Batman

  • Delete This section of the Batman article has been agreed upon by a number of editors and has withstood attack as well as suggestions it be removed, for over a year now. The consensus has consistently been that it would be against the rules to remove the material to its own article since it is against policy to get rid of provocative material in this fashion. The argument that the article is too long is spurious on its face: for example, today's featured article Sun is 51K long, while the Batman article is only 44K long, and there are other sections that could be spun off if so desired. Haiduc 02:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete There is no reason for this to have its own article. Carlo 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep — Well written article with plenty of references. Should have found the Batman talk page earlier. Merge it back into Batman.
  • It's a disputed fork from the main Batman article. Delete this fork and keep the information in the main Batman article, per consensus on the talk page. --Elkman - (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Although I am not as pessimistic regarding the intentions of the article's creator (I feel he/she/hir probably had good intentions), those reasons do not warrant the action taken. Therefore, delete this article and keep the information in Batman where it belongs. CaveatLectorTalk 04:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and put it back where it came from. Fan1967 04:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete rubbish.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this and keep the material in the Batman article per others. Hbackman 05:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and keep the material in the Batman article -- Samuel Wantman 08:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Oliver Keenan 09:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Batman or Seduction of the Innocent. Robin Johnson 11:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Pretty funny, but merge back into Batman. Lankiveil 11:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Err, delete POV fork. Keep content at Batman. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 11:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a POV fork. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It could use some rewriting to make it more encyclopedic, but it's a reasonable issue regarding a notable fictional character; although it might otherwise be better dealt with in the main article, this is already 44 kb, too long according to Wikipedia:Article size. ProhibitOnions 12:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pov magnet. Osomec 13:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork, nonsense. --Terence Ong 13:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it's the begining of an article that will be strong enough to stand on it's own merits. -- Ipstenu 14:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, since this information is already doing fine in the Batman article. I'm not convinced there's much more to say than is already there. -- Mithent 14:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this and Keep the material in the Batman article. Well sourced description of a legitimate and widely-held point of view. No good reason for removing it from the Batman article has been articulated. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge it back or Keep. Material too good to throw away. --kingboyk 17:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect (merge and delete is banned per GFDL). Unless this was split out, in which case revert and delete. Just zis Guy you know? 18:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Hello, this isn't especially related to the issue at hand, but it is incorrect that the "merge and delete" option is "banned per GFDL." See this discussion between Rossami and DPB Smith; for methods of doing it, see this post. Regards —Encephalon 23:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Batman (not the entire article, just a brief summary). Catamorphism 19:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sourced, verifiable, basically well written and intersting. Batman is 44K with this material, so breaking it out would be reasonable. I would not support reducing it to a brief summary in Batman - why take legit information out of the encyclopedia? BD2412 T 22:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412 -- and I'm usually a mergist. --M@rēino 02:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe the best thing to do is to have this information in the main article. There it presently resides, and sits very well with the rest of the article which provides it context, lacking in the fork. The (possiblly POV) fork has nothing that the version in the original article Batman doesn't—unsurprisingly, as it looks like it was simply removed from the original article. (An editor later reverted the deletion from the original, so this same text now lies in two pages). The removal accomplished little: it reduced the size by a miniscule 4k. Furthermore, Batman is a Wikipedia:Featured article: part of its value is that it includes this thoughtful, well-written section on an interesting subject, the sort of commentary that is sorely lacking in most comic and pop-culture type articles on WP. Deleting the section is therefore a poor choice, IMHO: we damage a featured article by removing one of its most interesting sections, and then place this well-written information to what amounts to a POV fork, where bereft of context it is distinctly suboptimal. All for the supposed benefit of reducing the article from 44kb to 40kb. If 44kb was a perfectly acceptable length for the FA director, then it ought to be perfectly fine for Wikipedia, I imagine. ;-) Therefore, delete Homosexual interpretations of Batman, please. There is no need to merge anything, as the text was originally at Batman (and still is, along with the pictures and references). The references in the original have to be sorted out by someone familiar with the article, though: there appear to be two sections. —Encephalon 23:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South-Central Eurasia

A term "increasingly being used" despite that it receives 105 Google hits. I would say non-notable, and possibly original research because the user who created this is probably affiliated with the website South-Central Eurasia News. (Check his/her contributions) --Khoikhoi 02:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda in the american media system

Original research. This is somebody's term paper. -- Curps 02:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Obviously OR. Fan1967 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:NOR Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (one hopes the term paper didn't get better than a C). Joe 03:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The article cites its sources, but per WP:NOR, "it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source." Also, it goes on too long for an encyclopedia article. Delete. --Elkman - (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR.--Phenz 04:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Hbackman 05:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this one's pretty obvious -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom abakharev 07:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Lankiveil 11:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete soapboxing. —This unsigned comment was added by Robin Johnson (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete as definite original research. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. I'd describe it as original research, except it's not very original and shows no signs of actual research. ProhibitOnions 13:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 13:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research Triage 14:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. And I hope the paper gets no better than a D; it is possibly the longest paragraph that I've seen outside of James Joyce. ergot 19:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's an effect of the way the author pasted the article. He/she didn't realize that an extra carriage return was needed to start a new paragraph, so in WP each section ended up as one paragraph. That could be cleaned up, but why bother? Fan1967 16:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hazelgrim Lith'ensay

Delete. Fiction, non-encyclopaedic. ShaunES 02:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, no Google results --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's nonsense. ... discospinster 03:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and offer new medication for author. -- BrownHairedGirl 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, nn. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a bulletin board for bad original fiction. Ursula LeGuin's grocery list would make better reading than this. Fan1967 05:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable fiction. Hbackman 05:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom ~Linuxerist L / T 07:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete worthless Lankiveil 11:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Utterly non-notable and nonsensical. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, though amusing. ProhibitOnions 13:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete It's either nonsense or I need more coffee. Nigelthefish 17:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weddingsireland.com

Claims to be Ireland's first wedding website. No evidence of meeting WP:WEB; Google turns up only job listings and self-promotion by the site itself and its non-notable host. No non-trivial coverage, no awards, Alexa 99,764. Melchoir 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Gilley

is somebody really notable just for being related to a notable person? Where (talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife 03:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into Mickey Gilley --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Based on search for Keith Gilley and Tracey Kae, it appears they do weddings and small clubs. (There's a different Tracey Kae who's a nude webmodel). Fan1967 03:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above ~Linuxerist L / T 07:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - you do not inherit notability. Wickethewok 08:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Lankiveil 11:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability asides from being related to someone notable doesn't appear to be established. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. ProhibitOnions 13:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 13:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Terence Ong 14:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was transwiki. W.marsh 15:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken alfredo pizza

Transwiki to Wikibooks then Delete exolon 03:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki and Delete per WP:NOT a cookbook --Jaranda wat's sup 03:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (perhaps Transwiki, although I don't know that there's anything of particular value here) per nom (indeed, Jaranda beat me by just seconds in tagging the article!). Joe 03:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Er - I tagged it :) exolon 03:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not a cookbook.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Transwiki per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and Delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 03:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and Delete as per nom. BrownHairedGirl 04:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and transwiki per others. Hbackman 05:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki ; Delete per others ~Linuxerist L / T 07:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki/Delete, see above. Lankiveil 11:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Transwiki, delete. Alas, it doesn't even sound like a good recipe... Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and transwiki. Recipe as above. ProhibitOnions 13:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and transwiki, Wikipedia is not a cookbook. --Terence Ong 14:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Ö
  • Transwiki and delete, as usual. Just zis Guy you know? 18:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable item (he admits he and his girlfriend created it), and not only is wikipedia not a cookbook, but this article doesnt even show an effort to be neutral, and its not written in encyclopedic form. --Pal5017 03:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki & Delete as per all above. Chairman S. Talk 11:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Steven Lasher

Autobiographical vanity page. Girolamo Savonarola 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - IMDb has a listing for him, seems notable enough, John Lasher at the Internet Movie Database. Though it does need some cleanup. Dismas|(talk) 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete - Vote changed per Girolamo's last few points below. The first two make it sound like Girolamo wants to in some way punish Lasher and his associates for creating articles whether they are notable or not but his last few points are valid. Dismas|(talk) 22:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Dismas, though IMDB is hardly a guarantee of notability. Needs third party sourcing for the soundtrack information, but seems notable to me. -Dawson 04:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Vote changed to Weak Delete per Girolamo Savonarola's information below. While I still think the article could potentially be salvaged, the lack of independent sources, and the degree of notability is such that it would be best served at this time by merging into the other articles cited. -Dawson 18:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it extremely faux pas to write a new article about yourself, notability regardless? I thought the idea was that if you truly are notable, someone else will get around to it eventually, and with better objectivity. Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, yeah? Girolamo Savonarola 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I have a listing at the IMDb too. I certainly have no intention of writing an article on myself in an encyclopedia, however. (Nor would it be notable enough.) Girolamo Savonarola 04:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I have a listing as well, and I while agree, the article is salvagable, ie, could very easily be taken by a serious editor and made into an article of acceptable quality. -Dawson 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Some tidyup needed, but it seems to me that this man's technical innovation marks him out (notability-wise) from other low-output directors. The self-promotion does make me tempted to swing towards deletion, but I guess I'd better set that aside. -- BrownHairedGirl 04:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete After reading the results of Girolamo's careful research (thanks!), I'll change my vote to delete. That's not to "punish" the author, but because the evidence no longer allows me assume as much good faith about the potential notability of the subject. --BrownHairedGirl 00:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but drop the creator a note about creating vanity pages. Hbackman 05:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep. Evidence presented by Girolamo definitely weakens the case for this article, but I still feel that it's keepable. His later points are good ones, but I do object to the idea that misconduct of the article's creator means that we should definitely delete the article here, almost as a punishment (if I misinterpreted that point, please let me know). Hbackman 20:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, seems notable enough. JIP | Talk 09:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Vote changed to weak delete per evidence below. Note that the author's behaviour is no basis for the deletion of this article, this simply a question of John Steven Lasher's notability. JIP | Talk 16:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • (very) Weak keep, seems notable enough, but only marginally. Lankiveil 11:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Extremely weak keep. There is a vague notion of notability amongst the vanity. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC) I was leaning towards weak delete earlier, but based on the comments made by Girolamo Savonarola, I've decided to change my vote to Delete. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 14:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed to delete after argument below. --Terence Ong 09:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, based on the following points:
  1. Very sizable percentage of user contributions are vanity edits, including all links back to this article.
  2. Blatant disregard for vanity guidelines as discussed on Wikipedia:Spam (specifically under "How Not to Be a Spammer" point number one), Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. Especially notable in the light of the fact that he already had a vanity article, Vox Melba Mastering Labs, speedily deleted for this reason and engaged in a vigorous debate with several editors wherein these policy guidelines were linked and thoroughly explained to him. Nonetheless, he has added an article about himself shortly since then.
  • Just to clarify for those who have asked above, I bring these points up merely to show that a) the user is familiar with these policies and encountered them before, and b) continues to make a substantial number of edits whose main or only purpose is to highlight himself and his work. Sure the two together are relevant? It's certainly not vandalism, but were this to continue like this substantially longer, it would. I'm concerned, is what. Girolamo Savonarola 23:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Non-notability in regard to the majority of the article - while I have no doubt that he facilitated the commercial availability of classic movie soundtracks, I certainly wouldn't consider such a producer any more or less notable than someone who produces, say, the budget classical music CDs for Naxos, or an assistant director who has worked on big Hollywood films for several years. Its interesting work involving other notable things and people, but co-relation with such things does not confer notability in and of itself. (Were that the case, you could argue the every name ever listed in a playbill, liner notes, or end credits of any creative work counts as a notable entry.) As for the Bernard Herrmann info, it is uncited and has a high probability of conflation as it is an autobiographical article.
  2. All of the Vox info relates to companies and divisions founded and run by John Lasher. A quick search on the internet confirms that he runs them in conjunction with the man responsible for his bio on his IMDb page. Furthermore, it seems as though the company was only recently started, which again smells awfully like self-promotional ad-spam. While it is marginally interesting and notable, I believe it would better be served by a brief mention and link in the phonograph cylinder article. Which Mr. Lasher has already done.
  3. The Kinopanorama info, similarly, is somewhat interesting, but of his work, it's been barely seen and by his own admission, only one of his three films in this format has been fully completed or screened en-masse. Again, this would be far more appropriately merged as brief mentions in the Kinopanorama article. Which, again, Mr. Lasher has already done.
I simply don't think that the creation of an autobiographical article is proper in any regard, nor do I think that Mr. Lasher qualifies as an encyclopedic subject at the moment. I am willing to concede the latter point, but only if someone other than Mr. Lasher or his associates feels fit to create such an article. IMHO, the case here is very cut and dry and is about vanity and disregard for the policies and guidelines. I think that Mr. Lasher does interesting work and has worked with interesting people, but this alone is hardly enough to warrant an encyclopedia article written by someone else, much less himself. Thank you. Girolamo Savonarola 15:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as discussed above. The JPS 15:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Delete non-notable. Only assertion of notability can be merged into Kinopanorama. The JPS 16:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, vanity. Nigelthefish 20:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable or, at least, not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Marcus22 20:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. We can not keep a page for every person that exists out there. Triage 14:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I hereby demand that you delete this page about me without further ado. I have read the comments by each of you and am totally disgusted by many of the comments therein. As far as I am concerned, most of you have nothing better to do than to argue amongst yourselves. Other that the moderator, who seems to have some sort of grip on each of you, none of you have any knowledge of my 32-years work in the music and film industries. Obviously none of you have purchased any one of the fifty recordings produced by me, or, for that matter, seen either of the two Kinopanorama films, one of which you deleted from Wikipedia. Lastly, to those of you who stated that IMDB is a vanity site I am sure there administrators would not take kindly to your comments. Entries at IMDB are vetted for authenticity, and only approved after an appropriate investigation is conducted. John Steven Lasher. jslasher@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jslasher (talk • contribs)
none of you have any knowledge of my 32-years work in the music and film industries. Obviously none of you have purchased any one of the fifty recordings produced by me, or, for that matter, seen either of the two Kinopanorama films, -- Sorry that we were unable to pander to your ego. Hbackman 23:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment, simple fact is, an IMDB entry is no guarantee of meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Being able to back up information with reliable sources does. Assuming you actually are Mr. Lasher, I'm sure you could provide independent sourcing (ie, not written by Mr. Sefton-Parke), and a complete discography for the article, and make it potentially worth keeping, instead of throwing a tantrum. The Hotmail address does not lend much credibility, especially when IMDB and other sites have a different email address listed. -Dawson 00:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Also, please keep in mind DFTT. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willy on Wheels

Is it at all useful for Wikipedia to have an article on this vandal. I don't think so. I doubt that it is. Booking563 03:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. 64.192.107.242 03:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - Someone removed my speedy tag. Article already exsists at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels, and there is no reason to redirect to glorify him more. --lightdarkness (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dismas|(talk) 03:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, wish there was a CSD criterion -- Samir (the scope) 03:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. See no particular need to delete this article. CarDepot 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable bio (WoW is not notable in the real world) and repost of deleted content. --Rory096 03:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chastity, Truth and Kinopanorama

Vanity page written by the film's producer Girolamo Savonarola 03:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete,non-notable film, vanity --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, nn. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Lankiveil 11:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • If John Steven Lasher is kept, merge. Otherwise, Delete. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity, non-notable, promo. That Lasher has had to create these articles himself demonstrates the lack of importance and notability. The JPS 16:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I read about this in Popular Science/Popular Mechanics (I'm not sure which.) It's a cool story. --Snafuu 03:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedied. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 04:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimi_meihm

This actor doesn't meet WP:BIO, neither google nor imdb.com have ever heard of him, or the movie he was supposedly in Xyzzyplugh 03:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 04:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transsexual pregnancy

This article is an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. It's interesting, but not an encyclopedic topic, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, female-to-male transsexuals *could* get pregnant, if they aren't on hormone replacement therapy, or have just started it. But, that's not an encyclopedic topic either.--Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 03:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- this article is merely speculation. -- BrownHairedGirl 04:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Crystal Ball. -- Vary | Talk 04:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, only speculation--TBC??? ??? ??? 04:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. Hbackman 05:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I suppose it could happen, but it's not really encyclopædic until then. Lankiveil 11:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete as original research, Crystal Ball. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as there could be an article here about the real research into male pregnancy, but this isn't it. ProhibitOnions 13:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Interesting essay though. --Terence Ong 14:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some info can be used...--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is really just a definition of a speculative theory. Triage 14:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quentin Thomas

Non-notable university sports palayer, see WP:BIO. BrownHairedGirl 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, maybe in two years or so. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 04:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 04:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep WP:BIO guidelines actually seem to indicate notability. Besides, he's on the damn Tar Heels; clear notability. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 05:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know where you draw the line on a college player. This guy's not a starter. In their two games before being eliminated from the NCAA tournament, he played a total of 21 minutes. Is that notable? Fan1967 05:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The relevant provision of WP:BIO would seem to read, in pertinent part, that notability for "sportspeople [is demonstrated where one has] played...at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles." I readily concede that the latter phrasing isn't directed at college teams, but I think the principles nevertheless translate; best as I can tell, the only UNC player for whom a bio exists is Tyler Hansbrough, who surely merits an article. Seven other Tar Heels played more minutes per game than Thomas this year [6] and none has an article. Were there another distinguishing characteristic (e.g., likelihood that Thomas will be drafted into the NBA), I would be inclined to vote keep, but of course there is no such characteristic; therefore, delete. Joe 06:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, maybe once he plays more than a quarter hour at high-level, he'll be notable enough. Lankiveil 11:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete. As per the majority of the above comments. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't see why US College players are notable, I tend to think that they're only notable if they're standouts or when they start playing pro MLA 13:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, being the backup backup, even on an exteremely notable Division I program, does not seem to be in line with the athletes clause of WP:BIO combined with a little common sense. Players like Rudy Gay, J.J. Redick or Gerry McNamara are (per the accolades mentioned in their articles), but not Thomas. --Kinu t/c 19:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ooops! can I (and if so, should I) withdraw a nomination? I'm now unsure if deletion is the right step, because maybe the page should exist as a redirect to Sir Quentin Thomas, an article I created and which prompted me to find this one.
    I'm relatively new to wikipedia, so I'm unsure what to do and am seeking advice. Is the right step to delete this page and lose the history before creating a new redirect page, or should I just go ahead and delete the contents and replace with a redirect?
    Maybe a more experienced wikipedian can advise. --BrownHairedGirl 23:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: If this is closed with a consensus to delete, we won't need the page history of this article anyway, so I'd actually recommend that Sir Quentin Thomas be moved here afterwards to fit naming conventions better (and have that page redirect to here). --Kinu t/c 18:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lureon

Nn character from a nn e-game which has been shut down (see article text).Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 12:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete RPG Characters do not need articles. -- Vary | Talk 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete -- nn, game was shut down in 2001, i.e. 5 years ago. -- BrownHairedGirl 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Character from a nn game. Even if the game weren't shut down this would still be nn. JoshuaZ 05:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If every RPG player could create an article about his/her character... Hbackman 05:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Articles about individual RPG characters should be deleted on sight. JIP | Talk 09:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn in any sense of the term. Lankiveil 11:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Speedy delete, utterly non-notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Space Farmers

nn band. 149 google hits. will be performing at a cafe in the future, so they claim.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC --lightdarkness (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable band --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity page, fails WP:MUSIC. -- BrownHairedGirl 04:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BAND, and clear vanity page ("The members of the group include David A. Wagner (my father)") Hbackman 06:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn and poorly written to boot. Lankiveil 11:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete. As Hbackman pointed out, it's clearly a vanity page, and non-notable to boot. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. ProhibitOnions 13:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn band. --Terence Ong 15:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bruneian Student Association in Western Australia

Nn political-type club (these sorts of clubs usually do some type of political campaigning). It is 6 days old -read the text.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable organization --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 04:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Bucketsofg 05:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete too new to be notable. Hbackman 06:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fledgeling organisation less than a week old with no verifiable info existing about it. Capitalistroadster 09:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn organisation, no indication whether they have more than a dozen members, and questionable longevity. Perhaps if they're still together in a year with a large enough membership base. Lankiveil 11:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete. Not notable, small membership... etc. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 09:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Ian ≡ talk 09:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep. No point letting this particular debate carry on any longer. kingboyk 13:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Barnes

article does not assert the subject's notability Where (talk) Let's debate to get consensus on T1 04:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Though very little info is provided on him (bio, prior head coaching positions), he is the head men's basketball coach at a Division I school in a major conference, and has had success (one Final Four appearance). This would be considered noteworthy IMHO. We simply need more Wikipedians to expand the article (photo, other info). 160.147.240.6 17:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree, we could have the expand tag on the page and make efforts to expand and apply notability to the page. I'm sure that there is some importance behind this page. Shawn 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. While the article, of course, needs to be expanded, it is, I think, settled that coaches of "high-profile" sports teams at major U.S. universities are notable, whatever one may now think about that determination (see, e.g., Steve Alford, Dick Bennett, Bo Ryan, and Billy Donovan, to list four). Joe 04:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable college sports coach. dbtfztalk 04:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I know little of college basketball, but if the Longhorns play in the NCAA tournament every year, (and they're still alive in this year's) their coach is notable. Fan1967 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Of course, if they screw up my bracket by failing to win the tourney, then I'll vote delete :). Joe 04:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand notable coach --Jaranda wat's sup 04:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I expanded it some, it now claims notabily --Jaranda wat's sup 04:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Changes look good. -- Vary | Talk 04:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough to be wiki-worthy. Bucketsofg 05:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, a coach for a consistently highly ranked Division I team is definitely notable. Or are we about to delete Lute Olson, Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams, Bill Self, Jim Boeheim, Jim Calhoun... ? I'm actually quite surprised the article didn't exist before today. --Kinu t/c 05:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep University basketball coach seems like a notable position to me. Hbackman 06:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, if this team has a large enough following. Lankiveil 11:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep. Did a quick google, got a few interesting results on google news that seem to verify his notability. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep' as clearly notable. ProhibitOnions 13:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep; even in its most primitive form, the article asserted notability, and tagging an article-in-progress on an obviously notable subject one minute after it was created should be treated as obvious vandalism.
  • Comment Even as I believe the article, in its first iteration, to have been sufficiently clear as to the notability of the subject (at least to an American user), I can't abide the suggestion that to have nominated the article for deletion was to have committed vandalism. Nominations for deletion, generally, I think, inamsuch as they abide by process, are not to be considered vandalism; to make a suggestion to the Wikipedia community as to the proper disposition of an article and to await the reaching of a consensus by the community writ large seems nearly diametrically opposite to vandalism. Moreover, notwithstanding that I think the provisios as to what is vandalism are too exclusive (they do, of course, seem to reflect a consensus of users, though), the "What vandalism is not" section of WP:VAN would surely seem to include such tasks as tagging an article for deletion under the (mistaken) belief that its subject is non-notable. Finally, I don't think that the tagging of an article one minute after its creation is anything about which to be upset; whilst one may think it best for him/her to wait for an article to develop, surely such waiting is not necessary and can be counterproductive (non-notable bios, hoaxes, etc., quickly disappear from "new pages" and are picked up by Wikipedia mirror sites, incentivizing the creation of such pages). The worst-case scenario, of course, in this case, would have been that, in the absence of an expanded article, the Barnes article was deleted; someone might easily have recreated it, then, and simply added information sufficient to establish notability on the first edit. Joe 22:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 15:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok. I'm confused. This guy works at a college right? He also happens to coach a bunch of kids that go to that college?? It may be cos I'm a Brit but that just don't seem notable to me! Could someone please explain? Jcuk 23:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC) + *Keep.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

- **Certain college sports are pretty big here, basketball being one of the more prominent. (Games are televised, and teams can have thousands of fans, some of whom often aren't even associated with the college for which the team plays.) And (according to Kinu) Barnes is a coach for a Div I team, which is the highest and most prestigious division in the NCAA. Hbackman 01:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - ***See also Current sports events, where NCAA sports are often featured. Joe 01:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

        • Comment My question and the responses to it seem to have been removed at some point, am putting it back in, as it might help non americans have a meaningful input into this (or similar) discussions. Jcuk 08:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (G7, author requested deletion). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quadlings

nn blog. It has been around for 9 days. It is advertising, possible vanity.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable blog. Fails WP:WEB --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Joe 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 04:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Quadling Country. Why don't we have a real article on Quadlings? We have Munchkins -> Munchkin. In any event, lose this non-notable blog. · rodii · 04:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Rodii. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete now that creator has requested it on the page. Hbackman 06:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banzai Media

appears to be nn company. 740 google hits, but these are for "Team Banzai Media Corporation" which is another company in Texas. Pity there is no speedy for nn business.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete it. There is no evidence of the Company's importance and it is pretty evident that it is not important given the somewhat humorous information that is provided Shawn 04:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable company --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. BrownHairedGirl 04:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 05:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Lankiveil 11:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete the only Banzai I can think of are something to do with Digimon. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red this ever

Non-notable, does not meet standards at Wikipedia:Notability (music).

  • Delete. Fang Aili 04:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. They hve only did their first gig in 2005! -- BrownHairedGirl 04:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:Music --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Joe 04:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 05:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom ~Linuxerist L / T 07:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band. Lankiveil 11:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete, not notable at all. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn band. --Terence Ong 15:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I originaly tagged as speedy twice, and was deleted under CSD A7 and G4, they still don't meet WP:MUSIC. --lightdarkness (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. This is reposted content 3 times speedy deleted. Does not meet WP:MUSIC.--Dakota ~ ° 07:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Gebharra/Template:test

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Angr/talk 20:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yellin_Hockey_League

DeleteThis article lifts material from the National Hockey League to create an article of a fictional league. Capsgm2002 04:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Amusing, but not funny enough. Delete JoshuaZ 05:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense/hoax. Feezo (Talk) 05:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, nonsense --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Bucketsofg 05:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sppedy delete per Bucket. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: G1 per above, no meaningful content. --Kinu t/c 05:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious hoax. Lankiveil 11:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Hoax, too. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as hoax. ProhibitOnions 13:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Mushroom (Talk) 06:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The rebel alliance(band)

Disputed PROD. Reason on original prod: No explanation of nobility, fails WP:Music み使い Mitsukai 05:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 09:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schoolhouse Earth

I tagged this for speedy as advertising, but the creator of the page appended a bit more info, added the "hangon" tag, and noted on the talk page an intent to modify the page such that it was no longer advertising (albeit ostensibly with eleemosynary aims). I removed the speedy tag but nevertheless believe the article, inasmuch as it references a non-notable organization (to-wit, a Google search returns many hits, but none--as far as I can tell--to this project) and seems destined to remain advertising (since there don't seem to be any organizational accomplishments of one might write), should be deleted. Delete Joe 05:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

...I may not be able to address the concerns that give rise to this recommendation. Although I might concede that the organization in question is non-notable, I wonder if the absence of Google results is in itself, evidence of that. I will clearly describe here the current state of the organization, and may ultimately concede that an article in Wikipedia is not merited. But I have a sense that the presence of such an article will serve both the organization in question and Wikipedia. The organization is currently formed by fewer than a dozen individuals and has just been newly formed. So accomplishment of note is as yet undelivered.
There are three objectives I have with respect to submission of this item. The first is to provide a clean place in the public commons that identifies the mission and scope of the organization Schoolhouse Earth. In this place, public comment is invited and open access is available both for endorsement or concern. A secondary (and somewhat unstated) objective is to publicly invite commentary about namespace conflict. We can find no significant evidence of an organization that is using this name and that has these objectives. The appearance in Wikipedia will help to unearth any prior claims to the name that we have not yet identified. The third objective is (secondarily again, and certainly) that of raising public exposure of the organization and its mission. It cannot help but happen that if we lucidly explain the mission of this organization, that there will be many who wish to express support either through contribution of their efforts or other resources. This is not our direct aim with this article, but it is inevitably a side-effect.
I alluded to the idea that the article may serve Wikipedia goals as well. Perhaps this is in an indirect way, but it is an intention of the organization in question both to utilize Wikipedia content in its curriculum, but also to create curriculum that has learners participate in wikipedia as content editors and providers.
This is what I'm thinking about the whole thing. --Agentv 06:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "The organization is currently formed by fewer than a dozen individuals and has just been newly formed. So accomplishment of note is as yet undelivered." — In 2 sentences you have just summarised the main reason why the article must go. Wikipedia is, basically, not the place to "raise public exposure" of new organisations. That is best left to the organisation's own home page. Delete, without prejudice to future re-creation iff the organisation becomes notable. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 07:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it doesn't get any easier than the subject coming out and saying that they're nn. Lankiveil 11:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete, you said it. ProhibitOnions 13:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete By the author's own description, this organization does not meet WP:N. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to publicize new enterprises, no matter how well-intentioned. Fan1967 15:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and author - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree then. The page should be deleted. --Agentv 17:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Doc ask? 11:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

Full of original research, many sources are unverifiable, doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Furthermore, constant edit warring. Constant problems without resolution. Level of notability doesn't merit this activity. I wrote the bulk of this article and previously fought to keep it. There will never be an objective version in current condition as all editors (for and against) are too biased and too polarized. Hamsacharya dan 18:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)c

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Comment This notice added by 999 (talk · contribs), a suspected sockpuppet of Adityanath/Chai Walla/Baba Louis. Hamsacharya dan 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE BENE: All the anonymous voters are suspected sockpuppets of User:Hamsacharya dan ---Baba Louis 19:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You have all the IP addresses - why don't you do a WHOIS lookup? I've done so - and they're from all over the world. Nice try Baba Louis, but the only confirmed sockpuppets are your own. Hamsacharya dan 19:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Read the WP:SOCK page Dan. For policy purposes, meatpuppets are considered the same as sockpuppets. And anonymous users from "all over the world" who only showed up to vote but have not edited WP prior to voting don't get counted. ---Baba Louis 20:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I know what a meatpuppet is Baba Louis. And if you're going to make accusations, you better substantiate them. So far the only policy violations I've been marked with are 3RR for dealing with your nonsense. You on the other hand are a confirmed sockpuppet. How you have the gall to come on here and start throwing around accusations is beyond me. Hamsacharya dan 20:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per my nomination. I don't know if I need to do this, but just in case. Hamsacharya dan 16:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Recently discussed with a vote to keep - see Archive 1. -- RHaworth 19:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment First time around was nominated for deletion by our very own Baba Louis. If this isn't proof positive of the incessant edit warring and inability to come to resolution, I don't know what is. Hamsacharya dan 20:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 68.127.175.116 18:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Didn't this just go through an AfD about two weeks ago? Edit wars are not a valid reason for deletion. Fan1967 18:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fan1967. -- RHaworth 19:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Silentswan 19:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    • User's first edit. {{unsigned|999))
  • Keep, just went through an AfD recently and it was voted to keep it then too. ---Baba Louis 03:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Baba Louis is a confirmed sockpuppet per WP:RCU of another voter - Chai Walla [7] Hamsacharya dan 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Hi HD. Yes, I Chai Walla, once used the same laptop as Baba Louis to edit an article while on the road. No we are not the same person. This has already been explained to you. I am no sockpuppet. You fought to keep this article a couple of weeks ago. Something has changed. If you want to enlist the support of people for your amazing "about face" on the fate of this subject, I would suggest that you pour out your reasoning on the discussion page as per WP policy. I have no clue where you are coming from and I suspect others are in the same boat or flotation device. You rarely explain yourself or your edits and this is in my opinion the main reason there are conflicts between the editors on this subject. You constantly scream "sockpuppet", but in reality many wonder if the shoe isn't on the other foot, so to speak.-Chai Walla 07:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 61.1.113.72 04:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 203.200.99.67 05:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy keep please it satisfies the bio page Yuckfoo 06:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep I also recall the recent AFD on which I expressed no preference but noted the edit warring. As that was kept, there seems to be no reason to change now. MLA 09:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 66.117.147.56 21:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 125.23.20.131 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 86.10.229.248 22:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep looks like a perfectly fine bio to me. Ekajati 22:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That doesn't address the issue of edit warring. It looks fine because we've been removing the original research. But it keeps coming back Hamsacharya dan 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirant jones (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. This AFD is full of sockpuppets!--Adam (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Holy mother of sockpuppets! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 136.182.2.222 22:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. And per talk page. Kalagni Nath 00:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Shiv leela 06:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • User has only 4 edits.
  • Delete per nom. 59.144.178.255 07:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • User's first edit.
  • Keep Maybe this page needs to be referred to an administrator Patrolling the ocean called Wikipedia|Tell me about vandals, violations and more... 07:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 212.188.244.101 12:37, 11 April 2006(UTC)
    • User's first edit.
  • Keep - previously AfDed with a vote to keep. There's a whole raftful of meatpuppets here!!! -999 14:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment 999 (talk · contribs) only has 3 edits this year before April 3. You might want to consult with WP:BITE before making accusations. Why are you only interested in creating or voting in AfD's for articles written by me? Why did you appear exactly when Adityanath disappeared? Likely a sockpuppet of Adityanath/Baba Louis/Chai Walla [8] Hamsacharya dan 17:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 59.94.244.239 16:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.151.241.186 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per very recent AfD; AfD is not the terminal solution for content disputes. And note to whoever: stop the sockpuppetry. It fools no-one. Sandstein 20:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete ... and I'm no sockpuppet. This is, however, an article of questionable merit, and the author himself is the nom, claiming it to be original research and unverifiable. I suggest we take his perspective at face value. RGTraynor 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - while HD may be the original author, there have been at least 5 other editors working on the article. At least one other editor is on the pro side with HD. The article as it stood in my last version is completely cited. All questionable references had been removed per the NPOV dispute on the talk page. So this is NOT the case of an author asking for his own article to be deleted. ---Baba Louis 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - three of which are confirmed sockpuppets, including yourself, and still yet to be vindicated despite clamorings to the otherwise. [9]. Previously you nominated this article for deletion. Why the sudden change of heart? Hamsacharya dan 21:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - it's rather hard to be a sockpuppet of someone who has left Wikipedia - or hadn't you noticed that you and your buddies chased Adityanath off WP? And since the other user you mistakenly think I am has not voted, there is no violation of WP policy. CW & I are still not the same person, however, regardless of what you think. ---Baba Louis 22:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - what is this, another laughable attempt at deception? Try him at his new username Hanuman Das (talk · contribs) - Sysop Gator (talk · contribs) witnessed the whole thing. Hamsacharya dan 23:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment so now you're stalking him? Nicely obsessive, like all your other interactions on WP. ---Baba Louis 03:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment-The subject of this page is a known personality, published author and alleged Guru to quite a number of people. In this sense there is valid cause for a page on this subject. That the subject has made claims which cannot be substantiated is another issue. This issue is best sorted out by discussion among the editors in line with WP policy as to the specific points and merits for inclusion, exclusion or conflicting views. This page was recently voted keep in a recent AfD. Why delete it now?-Chai Walla 05:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per RGTraynor. -- Speedygonzalous 03:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep-Chai Walla 05:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Chai Walla is a confirmed sockpuppet per WP:RCU of another voter - Baba Louis [10] Hamsacharya dan 16:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Hamsacharya dan, I am a sockpuppet in your dreams, only. I wonder what most of the Admins think of the unsigned Deletes without comment? Sheesh Kabob and give us all a break-Chai Walla 08:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 62.129.121.63 09:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.136.5 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom.
  • Delete per nom.
  • Delete per nom.
Note The three delete votes above were all entered by 82.151.241.186 (talk · contribs). Fan1967 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Note I've stricken out these copycat votes to make clear that they should be invalidated. It seems like the proper thing to do. If that is incorrect policy, my apologies. Hamsacharya dan 20:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment In a thread like this one, where so many of the votes are so dubious, I don't think it matters. They weren't going to count for anything anyway. Fan1967 03:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.177.73 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Better to see as honest a representation from the movement/mission/group/sect/body themselves217.34.121.233 18:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Shaninath
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syllable (operating system)

Given a {{prod}} which was removed without comment. As noted there, no claim to notability or satifsying our guidelines for inclusion of software.
brenneman{T}{L} 06:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, about a thousand or so references on Google, coverage in a notable print magazine (Linux Format), and some longevity. Lankiveil 11:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep. As noted, Linux Format has covered this OS. I can't comment on how many people use it or are on its mailing list(s), but I think this is notable enough to warrant an entry. Ciaran H 11:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks to be notable enough to have an article. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I went to the Linux Format website and was unable to penetrate their arcane search system fully. However I was able to discover that not only has it been featured on the Cover CD several times, it is due to be featured in the upcoming issue (April 2006). If someone could get hold of a reference for that and add it to the article, this would probably help a great deal. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough to keep. Also, the project is active. --Kaze0010 21:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Moderately notable and useful software Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see more information put into the article to support these claims. - brenneman{L} 00:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See the Syllable forums for pics of the LXF article on the subject —This unsigned comment was added by 217.206.224.221 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep Notable enough, although it needs this asserted - I'll try and take a look at it, later. --Fuzzie (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (CSD G4) by User:Alex Bakharev — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valentin rimdjonok

Clearly non-notable vanity (and yet another confirmation of Geogre's Law, though there are some claims that could be construed as attempts to establish notability. Speedy delete (db-bio) tag was removed by creator. dbtfztalk 06:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Never mind; it has been speedily deleted. dbtfztalk 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bridal Gala™

Delete. Deprodded by author without reason. Reads like spam. Link is not functional--Porturology 08:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As above. Wickethewok 08:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advert. --Blue520 08:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advert for nn event. See associated AFDs for Elite Soirée. Kcordina 09:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad and nn. --Terence Ong 10:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. A mention in Elite Soirée would be more than adequate. -Dawson 18:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisment as with the two related articles I just voted on. Company founder is 24, so it may not amount to much yet despite all the hype. Golfcam 23:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note this has been incorrectly put up for a second AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bridal Gala™ (second nomination)) while this discussion is still open, could the admin that closes this discussion please also the second one as well.--Blue520 11:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all of the above. The (tm) doesn't help, either. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per AOTA. Andy Saunders 13:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per AOTA. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 13:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, and we never use trademark symbols like that. -- Mithent 14:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete™, non-notable outside of Elite Soirée, which should likely go as well per its AfD. --Kinu t/c 20:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labelled bottles

  • Delete - Blatant advertisement. dewet|™ 07:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Icarus 07:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, blatant spamvertising. --Kinu t/c 08:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom ~Linuxerist L / T 08:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hopeless advertising. JIP | Talk 09:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. Lankiveil 11:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete as spam/ad. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 13:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Triage 14:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 03:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hippuristanol and Jerry Pelletier

Delete. Crystal ball. When this thing beats cancer, we'll repost it. The discoverer will be notable then as well. -the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 07:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This discovery has been reported extensively in the scientific literature and so I think it's notable even if it doesn't cure cancer yet. I added the article because I saw the news reports and wanted to know more, but discovered there was no coverage in wikipedia. I've sent emails to experts in these fields inviting them to expand wikipedia articles in their areas of expertise. I think it's not very nice to delete authoritative articles that people are interested in and it might discourage participation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjhalasz (talk • contribs) 07:44, 20 March 2006
    • Discovery may have been reported as a chemical with potential, but that does not constitute notability now. WP:CHILL the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 07:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added a reference to Scientific American and preemptively redirected Jerry to the compound. Has non-trivial coverage in several major media. Re CHILL - No hurry to delete, either. - brenneman{T}{L} 09:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Not explicitly saying "keep" because it's not a vote, it's a discussion.
  • Keep. Meets current notability standards, reported in press/professional journals. This really ought to be a speedy keep, since the crystal ball test doesn't apply. Andrea Yates hasn't been validly yet; do we delete her, too? Monicasdude 13:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The stuff exists, and something can be said about it. - Andre Engels 15:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability evidenced by Scientific American writeup. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Like the Crazy Russian says; no place for a crystal ball. When this stuff is actually out there and doing something then it could be worth an article. In the meantime... Marcus22 20:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • In my opinion it is doing something, namely being researched. - Andre Engels 08:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable molecule. Covered in media, holds promise for human use, and notable regardless since it occurs naturally. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above supportive statements. —GrantNeufeld 05:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for above reasons. --Rob 22:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:DakotaKahn. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 09:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pembadorjee

Appears to be nothing more than an itinerary for a specific company's pre-planned vacation/tour. Likely an advertisement. Icarus 07:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete: G1... I'll go out on a limb and say it's doable per the "no meaningful content or history" clause. --Kinu t/c 07:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom ~Linuxerist L / T 08:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Shanel 02:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drew Olsen

Definitely notable - but someone made a mistake here. The guy's name is Drew Olson [11] - and he has an article with the exact same details under that name. Seems logical to delete this one.


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sayanhya Roy

Google kills off any chance of notability[12].

  • Delete as non-notable. JackO'Lantern 08:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, regular contributor to notable print publication. Lankiveil 11:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Extremely weak keep, vague sense of notability. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Really doesn't satisfy WP:BIO, in my view. PJM 12:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - we have an 'average professor' rule, this would appear to be an 'average journalist'. Contributing to a notable newspaper doesn't make you notable (in the same way that working as a researcher for the University of Cambridge doesn't make you automatically notable), only if a sufficient proportion of average readers would recognise the byline do they become notable in my opinion. Average Earthman 13:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no "average professor" rule (it was proposed, but never came close to consensus). No "average journalist" rule, no "average actor" rule, no "average King of France" rule, either (or I'd get to delete Louis the Indolent, remembered for doing nothing during his reign). Appears to meet the notability standard for published writers. Monicasdude 13:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reads like autobiography. - Andre Engels 15:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity. Wickethewok 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and vanity. Sandstein 17:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability is not a trickle-down effect, and writing for a notable paper does not make you pass WP:BIO automatically as well. And Average Earthman is right, in that as compared to other writers for the paper, I see no evidence that readers would recognize the byline. --Kinu t/c 19:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A Factiva search also finds exactly one article by this author, related to the auto expo mentioned in the article (Hot Wheels of 2006, 28 December 2005). The HT website seems to back that up. --Kinu t/c 23:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jud. There's a vague sense of delete here :) - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not yet notable enough Dlyons493 Talk 21:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable journalist, per Monicasdude - I would love to see similar articles for all NYT contributors, for instance. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I doubt you would really. Do you have any idea how many of them there are? And how trivial and boring most of their work really is? The New York Times don't even bother making it possible to click on the byline and see all articles by the journalist, so they don't seem to think it's very interesting either. Average Earthman 00:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying I'd read it straight through like a book - I'd just love to have it available when reading the paper Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the standard we should use is Google matches - or something like that. In this case, it was barely two pages - including Wikipedia. I've written for my student newspaper at my university - about a dozen movie reviews in two years - and I have a unique name - and I, too, have exactly two google pages about me (or rather, of my reviews). Doesn't mean I deserve a Wiki entry. JackO'Lantern 00:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 03:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raziq Rauf

Does not sound notable to me. Autobiography. 542 google hits. Thue | talk 09:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, drownedinsound is a notable publication, but he's not a core contributor ([13]), and this is an autobiography. —This unsigned comment was added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as copyvio, then Redirect to Mogliamante —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 07:32Z

[edit] Wifemistress

Info ripped directly from IMDB, with a bit of personal commentary (using the first person, no less) thrown in. Icarus 09:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominator wishes to change vote to Merge per PJM. --Icarus 18:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, mix of a press release and an amateurish film review. Lankiveil 11:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep, take out the copyvio, clean it up. I had exactly the same issue when I came across The Gambler (1974 film). If it's notable, it can be improved rather than deleted. MLA 11:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Redirect to Mogliamante MLA 12:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mogliamante. PJM 12:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Mogliamante. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Mogliamante. Kcordina 13:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous People With A.D.D

Copy & paste job form the linked sites, which are not commercial and some text has been added, so not strictly copyvio. But they are not reliable sources. We have a list of fictional chracters with ADHD, but I did not see a list which duplicates this. On the other hand, without careful sourcing it is a minefield. Just zis Guy you know? 12:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. This type of list should be meticulously sourced or not exist. If reliable sources are provided through the course of this discussion, I'll reconsider. PJM 13:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Also these types of lists have problems with verification and point of view content, due to the non-public nature of medical records and that many people on this list were/are deceased before the public medical introduction of the term (in the DSM III in 1980). Point of view problems also crop up as some of these names also commonly appear on net in lists of Famous People with Dyslexia or Famous People with Learning Disorder/Disability (that is not lists of people with LDs and ADD).--Blue520 13:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 13:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Artical lacks sources...the second source is just quoting the first source. The first source states it as "...or shows symptoms of ADD" which makes it misleading to assume that everyone on this list actually has ADD. Nigelthefish 16:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Every one of the claims should be verified. At the moment, the list is useless to a researcher as a claim counts for nothing without evidence to back it up.  (aeropagitica)  17:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Isn't there a category for this already, anyway? 23skidoo 19:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Gflores Talk 02:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment funny how the consensus differs on this vs. the speculative lists, if this were titled "People speculated to have ADD" would it then be acceptable? No consistency on this problematic. Let's think through larger issues rather than one-offs here. Carlossuarez46 01:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No inconsistency fomr me - you'll see I voted deleted on the speculative list as well. But that was speculation taken from a published source, this is speculation taken from a Comcast homepage and a semi-commercial activist website selling product listings (i.e. not even in the same postal district as WP:RS), and then represented as fact. Just zis Guy you know? 23:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD has no jurisdiction over copyright law, which the nominator alludes to. If someone thinks this infringes copyright, it needs either speedily deleting, or blanking and taking to WP:CP. Copyright problems are not keepable, no matter what AfD may think. -Splashtalk 21:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - badly sourced speculation. --Rob 22:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Just another star in the night T | @ | C 23:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of films with surprise ending/plot twist

Inherently POV list (what constitutes a surprise ending anyway?)... uncited, unexplained collection of titles, original research, listcruft, kill it with a stick. — Mar. 20, '06 [12:47] <freakofnurxture|talk>

  • Hey, whoever this is (they were probably drunk when writing this) but a surprise ending is obviously an ending that the audience did not expect or predict. And i'm not even going to start on the "kill it with a stick" comment. FreemDeem 12:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Almost infinitely expandable. Vague and pointless. Osomec 13:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, pretty much every film has a plot twist these days. I'm sure I've seen this come up somewhere before. At the least, it needs to be renamed. MLA 13:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename and Keep. The "/plot twist" might be the problem. "Surprise ending" is quite clear and definite - it will not be "infinitely expandable". If you want a reliable source, well IMDB lists 34 of them.[14] So it passes WP:LIST. --Perfecto 14:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kcordina 13:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 13:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep and rename I believe that this would be the wisest solution because 1) I wanted to rename it anyway, 2) I don't actually know what Citing is so if someone could do that for me it would be much obliged and 3) I don't think the /plot twist bit is valid. So I (the author) say rename it. FreemDeem 16:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Every film with a surprise ending or plot twist? How could this be kept up-to-date, consise and research-friendly? What constitutes a surprise, anyway? Potential POV violation inherent in the nature of the article.  (aeropagitica)  17:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --kingboyk 17:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft per above. FreemDeem, see WP:CITE for an explanation on citing. And no one will heed your comment very much if you don't say to what you want the article to be renamed. Sandstein 17:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unmaintainable, POV, list that is not WP:V... unless someone is willing to stand around outside movie theaters, take a poll to prove that greater than 50% of people seeing a particular movie were actually surprised by a so-called "plot twist" or "surprise ending", and then publish the results for peer review in a reputable 3rd party publication so we have a WP:V sourcing to back up the labeling of something as a "plot twist" or "surprise ending". In that case I'd be willing to change my opinion. IMO, too many "plot twists" are painfully obvious from the time the opening credits stop rolling to anyone with rudimentary cognitive abilities to make this a designation that can be seen as NPOV (see also The Village). --Isotope23 18:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; inherent POV and verification problems as to what constitutes a surprise (i.e., A Beautiful Mind, I believe I know to what the author is alluding, but I was hardly "surprised" by it.) I hardly consider the IMDb page listed above to be a reliable source, because a majority of that information (including the keywords) is also user submitted. --Kinu t/c 19:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. That the IMDb list of surprise endings is very different from this one, missing many listed here, should only further indicate that this is too POV. Problems with movie predictability and quality would also spoil intended surprise endings, further complicating the matter. -- Jugalator 13:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --66.71.31.62 16:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Copyright violation, listed on the Copyright problems page. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosario Isasi

Tagged as repost but previous deletion was speedy, not through AfD as far as I can tell. The previous deletion comment indicates amusement. Seems to be copy & paste from [15] (not commercial so not speedy copyvio material), scores <500 Ghits and appears to be promotion of a non-notable individual in support of the agenda she espouses. Just zis Guy you know? 13:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - A copyvio is a copyvio, no matter where it comes from. - Andre Engels 15:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP. The Rosario Isasi article was unfairly deleted. Beyond the fact that her bio speaks for itself in regards to how notable she is, Isasi is mentioned in the Bioconservatism and Transhumanism article. I therefore recreated the article. Since I disagree with her views and positions, this article is not meant to promote her agenda but explain it out of fairness. I'll edit the article to eliminate the copyvio.--Loremaster 19:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn --Icarus 19:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Commercial site or not, if it's a copyvio, which this is, it needs to be listed on the Copyright problems page. I have done so, thus rendering this listing moot.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zboard

Advertisement. Used to have a whole paragraph listing games for which keysets were available. Most incoming links consist of "There is a Zboard available for the PC version this game". Need I say more? Drat (Talk) 13:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, as per nom.Bjones 13:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 13:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite if necessary; the advertising obviously is no good, but I think it's a fairly well-known product (7.7 million Google hits). -- Mithent 14:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but allow re-creation. I agree with Mithent that the subject could be worth an article, but "post your advert and we will NPOV it for you" should not be the way things work on Wikipedia. - Andre Engels 14:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertising. If this subject is notable, the article doesn't make a claim to this effect.  (aeropagitica)  17:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to promote products. Schzmo 20:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Castul scale

Only references on Google come from Wikipedia or mirrors. No info on author or publication date (if any) of these novels. Bjones 13:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Even the book series it is supposed to occur in, does not get any Google hits outside Wikipedia. Delete with extreme prejudice. Also check and remove references. - Andre Engels 14:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with delete, and with removal of references per Andre Engels.Bjones 15:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Triage 14:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer Bogganing

  • Delete as non-notable neologoism. Just 100 hits in Google. Doesn't look popular enough. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete neologism lacking in notability. - Mithent 14:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete See above. Nigelthefish 16:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. I'm sure that something similar to this has been AfD'ed recently & that the consensus was delete.  (aeropagitica)  16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 17:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, neologism --Icarus 19:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 17:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect --W.marsh 15:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking DRM

  • Delete - Inappropriate tone and POV. nlitement [talk] 14:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight merge to Digital rights management. This topic deserves treatment, but this article is not it. —kotepho 2006-03-20 15:06Z
  • Smerge, per kotepho. PJM 15:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight merge and delete the remainder per Kotepho. --DMG413 17:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Digital rights management. Is there any content that can be merged across, allowing for tone?  (aeropagitica)  16:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • digital rights management is too long already? "This page is 46 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." - i want to try to merge all breaking of drm from multiple pages including copy protection digital rights management decss and many others... but if this isint the right way to do it, please let me know what is.Compn 19:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to 'circumventing drm' because i cant find any examples where drm has been 'broken' Compn 20:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight merge as per kotepho. --Snaxe920 22:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight merge and delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.6.65.219 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Circumvention already redirects to Copy protection and is NPOV. Cmpn is on the right track. -- Perspective 22:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Circumvention of digitial rights management would not raise my ire, but this article is not a good place to start. kotepho 00:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Alternatives to digital restrictions may work, yes? -- Perspective 01:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relenta

Created by Relenta (talk · contribs), company scores 745 Ghits most of which are press rleeases and announcements. No evidence of significance, user base, innovation, major clients or any of the other things which mark the difference between an article and an advertiseement. I call WP:VSCA. User's other edits include adding Relenta to some other articles and creating four categories, Application service provider, Web application, Webmail and Contact manager, each of which had precisely one entry - Relenta. Just zis Guy you know? 14:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - It's a web-based application, so if it were any important, it would have a decent Alexa rank. It does not (3-month average ~1,000,000). Also the article as written is closer to marketing blurb than to neutral encyclopedia article. - Andre Engels 14:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norada Corporation

Looks a lot like spam. "Norada Corporation" scores about 750 Ghits, with Wikipedia second on the list (not a good sign). Has been tagged for prod and contested, so bringing to AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 14:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. Advert. PJM 15:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertising; WP:CORP violation; company makes no claims as to notability.  (aeropagitica)  16:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam Nigelthefish 14:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —GrantNeufeld 05:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Ardenn 17:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Trevorrow

I do not believe the patent claim in this article is correct - a google search for the text stated leads to two patents by Delphion (US6028835, US6046973), neither of which mention Trevorrow. No other claim for notability is made. In short, we need to ensure this article is not a vanity hoax. Average Earthman 14:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Obvious hoax. - Andre Engels 14:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. PJM 15:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even given the benefit of the doubt, it's vanity. --Icarus 20:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stealing Passwords

Original research, reposted from article creator's website (link is in the article), includes information on actual passwords of real users. Topic exists at Password cracking. Mangojuice 14:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, WP:NOR. I would not object to making the title a redirect to Password cracking. PJM 15:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unencylcopedic topic --Ed (Edgar181) 15:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This isn't Password cracking though it is Phishing. Nevertheless, delete no redirect. —kotepho 2006-03-20 15:12Z
  • Delete Original research; WP is not a how-to guide. No redirect required.  (aeropagitica)  16:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, certainly, per nom. --JoanneB 16:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, stupid details on writing a phishing scam as far as I can see. -- Mithent 17:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and especially not for would-be hackers. --Elkman - (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious vanity article by someone who thinks they're a "1337 h4x0r"... WP:NOT a how-to guide. --Kinu t/c 19:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom --Icarus 20:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SQL Injection by Susam Pal

Original research; article reposted from author's web site [16], article title inappropriate. Another article on this topic already exists: SQL injection. Mangojuice 14:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:Wikipedia is not an instruction guide to h4x0ring the gibson. —kotepho 2006-03-20 15:15Z
  • Delete Original research; WP is not a how-to guide.  (aeropagitica)  16:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, SQL injection looks like enough of a reasonable, encyclopedic, non-OR take on this topic anyway. WP:NOT a how-to guide for 1337 h4x0ring. I also love how the author signed the article in the title. Classy. --Kinu t/c 19:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone --Icarus 20:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete in agreement with all the above comments. No need to redirect this title to the existing article. Barno 20:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eflatun

It's made up of two (apparently unconnected) dictionary definitions of names in other (poorly or un-) specified languages. No obvious room for expansion ionto encyclopædia article. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the definitions can be verified, in which case they can be transwikied to Wiktionary.  (aeropagitica)  16:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a disambiguation page. --Icarus 18:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a disambiguation without an article to go with it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Plato (which needs more about the non-Western treatment of Plato too). Ziggurat 23:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge any useful text to Plato ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cinematic masturbation

Neologism, unverifiable, POV, nonsense Stlemur 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - neologism, always going to be POV. JPD (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV article, nothing more.  (aeropagitica)  16:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV, neologism. -- Mithent 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, term does appear to be in use per Google, but with various meanings and by informal sources; plus WP:WINAD. Sandstein 17:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as pure POV and demonstrably incorrect. The term is used repeatedly in film reviews, and (being a neologism) the meaning varies with each reviewer. If and when a common meaning becomes clear, it would belong on Wiktionary, not here. Slowmover 17:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No discussion of cinematic hairy palms or cinematic blindness? Delete as neologism and POV. --Elkman - (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sandstein and Slowmover. Joe 18:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism per Elkman... funny, but no evidence of use.--Isotope23 18:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone. (No matter how true it may be, lol) --Icarus 20:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rewrite After doing some research with Google it seems that cinematic masturbation refers to movies made to please the file makers rather then an audience. It dose not have anything to do with unoriginality and far from referring to overly commercial films is usually used when describing art house type films. As this article stands it would need to be completely rewritten to be accurate. Seano1 03:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not written in encyclopedic form, and I thought MI2 was better than the first. --Pal5017 03:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yardcore

Protologism. Can find no evidence of notability. Delete. Fang Aili 16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - as above. Wickethewok 17:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Note that the Google hits seem to be about various other things. Sandstein 17:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Sandstein as WP:NFT.--Blue520 21:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. Spearhead 21:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Rmhermen. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ernesto David Hepler

Speedy delete, nonsense. {{nonsense}} tag removed with comment "Keep this article in honor of all the Daveists out there" in the article. Weregerbil 16:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per Weregerbil.--Blue520 16:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Not even a decent hoax. — RJH 16:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, complete unfunny nonsense. Grandmasterka 16:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Clearly meets WP:CSD as nonsense. Slowmover 17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this nonsense per everybody. --Lockley 17:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. May be an attempt to make it into BJAODN, but it's not good enough. Fan1967 18:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as per nom and comments above. Gwernol 20:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom and above Bucketsofg 20:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: G1, utter garbage. Don't condone its existence with a BJAODN. --Kinu t/c 20:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation respelling key

Conflicts with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation), Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Citing sources. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 17:36 Z

  • Delete—my request. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 17:36 Z
  • Keep. There is no conflict with Original research, Verifiability, or Citing sources: This is a guide, as as such is self-defining. It no more needs cited sources than a table of contents does. Self reference is generally a problem because it is unprofessional, but this isn't the case with a pronunciation key: Guidelines such as this are standard in print encyclopedias such as the EB. As for Wikipedia's pronunciation guideline, these issues are covered in the key's talk page: No one has yet come up with a way to represent English in the IPA in a dialect-neutral way, so the IPA has resulted in edit wars over "cultural imperialism". Also, many people are more familiar with this kind of system than the IPA. Think of middle-school kids in the USA, for example. The IPA should always be used as well, of course, but this extra info is helpful, which is something we should always keep in mind. kwami 20:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless MichaelZ can explain his reasoning in more detail. Kwami's justification seems sensible to me. The Singing Badger 21:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    Please also refer to what Wikipedia is not: not an instruction manual: "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. . . . Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate"
    This is not an encyclopedia article, although it could have a place in the help: or Wikipedia: namespace. However, I am skeptical that it represents any Wikipedia policy or conventional practice. —Michael Z. 2006-03-21 01:35 Z
As for Wikipedia not being an instruction manual, by your reading of the policy Wikipedia should have no pronunciation guides at all. However, these are clearly acceptable and are not considered "instruction".
And no, it's not an article at all, it is a key, just as we have in any other encyclopedia. (The pronunciation guide in my print encyclopedia appears at the begining of volume I, separate from the articles.) I would be fine with this in help or namespace as long as articles could still link to it once it's there, but I have a feeling that people would object to that as "self reference". kwami 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I think a key like this wouldn't belong in the article namespace, and I think there are templates made for references to help pages like this. But the other question is which articles refer to this key? Is this respelling method used anywhere in Wikipedia? —Michael Z. 2006-03-21 17:36 Z
Check the 'what links here' link. kwami 19:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, after looking at 'what links here', I'm wondering if this is a particular respelling standard that's used in astronomy? If so, then it may be appropriate to offer it alongside IPA (which is already the recommendation) in astronomy articles. The "key" article is lacking references and context. —Michael Z. 2006-03-21 21:22 Z
The purpose of the manual of style is to avoid haphazard pronunciation spellings. However, this key is intended to avoid that problem as well, by making the pronunciation spellings regular and consistant. The manual of style causes its own problems because people fight over whose dialect to use as the approved pronunciation. This system avoids that problem, and having both it and the IPA addresses the needs of more people. kwami 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Perhaps find a place for it in the Wikipedia: namespace. Robin Johnson 11:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or move to Wikipedia: namespace per Kwami and discussion on the article's talk page.--JHJ 13:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is not redundant, but just mistitled or mislocated. (Or misremembered? haha) English phonology (at least can we please refer to articles by the correct entry?) delves into dialectical issues and doesn't address phonetic respelling. Also, as pointed out, there's no one way to unambiguously transfer a pronunciation into IPA: the beauty of the idea of this article is a very elegant way of doing that. I'd recommend that at the worst, the namespace idea happens. I'd much rather see it developed more to provide a non-IPA method of pronunciation transcription that could be useful throughout linguistics and languages pages, classical literature and history pages, biology, and so on. Every page of my oldest Webster's has a similar pronunciation guide on every page. Another advantage is that this system (similiar to what most newspapers and magazines would use) only requires one special character, the unambiguous schwa, [ə]. I'd rather see us first work to edit the article to address MLA's POV that it's "not very well written". Then let's rewrite it so it is, and make it so it could be used throughout the English language Wiki.--Sturmde 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] discussion

Would it be acceptable to everyone to move this key to wikipedia:help or wikipedia:namespace and still allow the actual articles to link to it? kwami 05:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That would definitely be more acceptable. After it's moved we can address the question of whether it should exist at all. —Keenan Pepper 03:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't fudge the issue. Would it be acceptable or not? kwami 05:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I would argue against it existing at all, so no. —Keenan Pepper 05:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passy Gardens

Just another building(?) Doesn't state notability, and I seriously doubt that it has any. Eivindt@c 18:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no claim to notability. Schzmo 20:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of notability --Icarus 20:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 05:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Ardenn 17:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russia naming issue

Found in the cleanup backlog: an unsourced, NPOV, possibly original research article claiming a conspiracy to rename Russia as Muscovy. Unencyclopedic. Merge anything verifiable to Etymology of Rus and derivatives and delete. Alba 18:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete—this seems to be a troll: nothing of merit here, unless someone wants to find references in support of a few facts in the timeline. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 18:25 Z
  • Indeed, the name of Russia predated the name of Muscovy in the western tradition, however unhappy our Polish and Ukrainian friends may feel about the fact. Yet the wording of the article is POVish. It needs to be NPOVed and wikified, that's all. So keep and expand on the model of Name of Ukraine. Or perhaps eventually merge to Etymology of Rus and derivatives? --Ghirla -трёп- 18:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and cleanup, perhaps merge, but POV problems is not a reason for deletion. Factual information on timeline is totally correct and useful. Interpretations are presented in a partisan and argumentive form. Needs cleanup but not the deletion. --Irpen 19:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • merge per Ghirla - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 21:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone promises to dePOV, reference, and/or re-write it altogether. If nothing much is left after such a re-write, then merge salvageable parts to Etymology of Rus and derivatives.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 22:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. --Kerowyn 00:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced POV fork. If there's anything verifiable in there, it should be part of the Russia article. Robin Johnson 11:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. To the extent verifiable (I don't have subject knowledge), pieces likely salvageable for a discussion at Etymology of Rus and derivatives and Russia after made NPOV. POV in itself is of course not grounds for deletion, but questionable articles which are deeply POV, marked for cleanup for 9 mos without it taking place, and can be partially recycled in much more logical places should be cannibalized and deleted. Userfy or move to a subpage of the talk pages of one of the 2 articles above before deleting so if someone wants to scavenge they can. Martinp 01:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Despite the fact that there may be some correct facts in this article, I see no basis for the existence of the article itself. Just for the record, can someone state in a neutrally-worded sentence or two, what exactly is the "Russia naming issue"? Citation of at least one respectable source would help, too. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 19:29 Z

The issue is the existance of the claim that the self-appelation of the "Rus" rooted names (Russia, Rossia, Rus' Velikaya, etc) was "stolen" by the "Muscovites" for the political purposes, that the "correct" names were and remain only Muscovites and Muscovy (which I don't disagree, these were also correct names) and the Russia and Rus' are incorrect and stolen. That "they" "stole" or "attempted to steal" or "to monopolize" the legacy of Rus', that ony we (whatever it means) are related to Rus' and Muscovites owe their legacy only to Mongolic or Finno-Ugric tribes, that "we are more Rus'ian" then them" (see this article in Ukrainian or in Russian for a good review).
Finally, if you go to uk-wiki, you can find users who deny to call Russin things as "Russian" even today and agree to only call it Muscovite (see this). --Irpen 20:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so this article is about a particular rhetorical stance used in a debate about the lineage or "legitimacy" of the Ukrainian and Russian nations? Does it really justify more than a mention in etymology of Rus'? Perhaps it is part of a larger topic about the rhetoric of national self-importance?
I just don't see the merit of analyzing a name-calling match in too much detail. English-language historians tend to document the etymology and usage of names like Rus’, Russia, etc, and the social and political histories of the peoples involved. They may mention that some argument features prominently in somebody's national rhetoric, perhaps mentioning prominent scholars who have held particular related views, but stay well away from evaluating the relative merits of such arguments, as, I think, should we. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 20:27 Z
All I am saying is that this is a valid issue and such cleaned up article will not harm and will cover a legitimate, although a rhetorical, point. I think it doesn't qualify for AfD. I would consider the etymology article much more important. Note that both were started by the same user (now seem retired) rather than some troll. --Irpen 20:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if someone would rewrite this so it doesn't sound like someone's personal grudge, then I may change my vote. But as currently written, it's not a suitable article. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 23:16 Z

Until then it should be POVed with a tag that I find totally justifiable. However, the POVish presentation in itself is the reason for correction and not deletion provided that the topic is legitimate. --Irpen 23:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Young Bellz

right at the edge of notability per WP:MUSIC. His name, but nothing else, has been mentioned in a couple of newspaper articles. 153 google hits. Page reads like WP:VAIN violation, but this seems close enough to the edge to request debate. No vote. Alba 18:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 03:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha

Delete. The Leadership of the Order of the Collar organization did not authorize the writing of the article and wish it to be removed.In addition, the content was taken from their own published history without permission. Inpectore 18:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep for now. AfD is not the proper venue here, as this is an encyclopedic subject. The wishes of the article's subject are not relevant unless the article is in violation of applicable law or Wikipedia policies. Google searches for random blocks of text indicate no copyright violation of online sources. If you think this is in violation of copyright on printed text, please proceed as per WP:CP. Sandstein 19:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Sandstein is exactly right. Gwernol 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sandstein Bucketsofg 20:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I am the author of the article and I also wish it to be deleted. I'm not claiming it is a violation of copyright. Rather, I am saying I was unauthorized to write this article in the first place. Am I to understand that after voluntarily writing this article it now MUST remain on Wikipedia against my wishes? Inpectore 21:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Cf. WP:OWN. What do you mean, "authorized"? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 21:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear, yes, by submitting an article to Wikipedia you have liscensed it under the GFDL, which means that you, among other things, have lost the right to insist that it be removed from Wikipedia or any other publication which complies with the conditions of the GFDL., so this article MAY remain here against your wishes. (It can also be removed if the consensus of the community is that it does not fit the needs of the encyclopedia.) No vote. Dsmdgold 02:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Clearly someone not wanting this page is not grounds for deletion. I confess I'm struggling with the lack of sources. I'm not suspicious - I just like good sources. The ones here are fairly circular, as the first links back to wikipedia (strange for a page they want deleted). I think that any statement without sources should be removed. Anyone know how to access charity commision lists? Nevermind - I'll take it to the talk page.Obina 23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Here is the best link I found [17] Obina 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep because the 'leadership' asking it to be removed is not a reason to remove it. Rewrite anything that's a copyvio. I'm rather sceptical about the whole thing though. Robin Johnson 11:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite anything that is a copyright violation. I'm sorry that you have written something that you were not "authorized" to write but this is not the forum to debate that Nigelthefish 16:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Nice - is this link on the page? Can any bilingual type tell if this all supports what the page says? Oops sorry i know take it to talk. I agree Keep.Obina 23:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not sure if to keep. Agree with above that an article is not owned by any one person and that mere wish to delete by one author of article or the subject of the article is not enough. But we have in the past acquiesced to requests by sole authors to remove content even if it had been GFDL (I remember a case about an image of someone's wife and the Koran, I believe) as a matter of human courtesy. What would be helpful is to know to what extent Inspectore is the only "real" author of the article - there are others in the contribution history, but a lot of the changes seem minor or removals of paragraphs. Isn't there some visual tool to see the authorship split of an article? If Inspectore is the near-only author and he wants it to go, I'm inclined to delete. If there has been active collaboration, then not. Martinp 01:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ravi Ramkeesoon

Non-notable per WP:BIO; also advertisement/vanity. PROD contested by author without comment. Sandstein 18:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The best part of the article is that, assuming arguendo that the author is the subject, he praises himself for...modesty! Joe 18:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Reminds me of the traditional definition of chutzpah, the guy who kills his parents, then asks for mercy because he's an orphan. Fan1967 18:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Fan1967 18:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:VSCA for the WP:BIO-failing founder of a WP:WEB-failing site. --Kinu t/c 18:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I almost proposed this one for speedy delete myself. Clearly unencyclopedic, ad/vanity etc. Gwernol 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable creator of a non-notable website. Robin Johnson 11:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Egyptian view of soul

Can anyone tell what this article is about? Unintelligible, possible original research. Delete. Fang Aili 18:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Pretty dreadful outline of material already covered, very well, in Book of the Dead and related articles. Fan1967 18:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. Sandstein 19:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete substandard and unencyclopedic. Bucketsofg 19:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fan-1967 --Icarus 20:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research. The subject is of sufficient interest to warrant a cleaned-up, referenced and cited article, but this is not the one. A sandbox development opportunity for the author, perhaps?  (aeropagitica)  22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect This topic is already cover in Egyptian soul. Seano1 02:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Seano. Reyk 06:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No point in redirecting, as the article title is rather contrived - no one is likely to be looking there for the information. Robin Johnson 11:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Seano1. And I think somebody could actually just use this term, especially via google - Skysmith 14:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uterosexual

Neologism, 12 Google hits, contested PROD. Sandstein 19:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, neologism created by non-notable author, not generally used by people other than that one author. It originally appeared in a book published in 2005, so it hasn't withstood the test of time. Catamorphism 19:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism that nobody has adopted. Fan1967 19:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism. Re-create article if it catches on. --Icarus 20:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable neologism. If cited in newspapers, journals of record or popular culture then it could be transwikied to Wiktionary. WP is not a dictionary.  (aeropagitica)  22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Unlikely to find much in the way of WP:RS. Even then, it probably should go into Wiktionary. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable protologism. And rather an ugly one. Robin Johnson 11:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed my mind: slight merge with Metrosexual. It's a verifiable minor point that this word exists, so worth mentioning as part of a more general article. Robin Johnson 15:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I don't understand what this word has to do with "metrosexual". It's not defined as a female parallel to "metrosexual" at all (the female equivalent of "metrosexual" would be a straight woman who has the fashion and grooming sense that lesbians have, whatever that would mean). Catamorphism 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Nine Google hits (in English) is so small that I don't think the word has yet earned any recognition at all. Fan1967 16:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do NOT Delete. It's the great term for a valid trend. If Retrosexual can be listed in Wikipedia, then so should Uterosexual. Triple-x 12:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
But that is not what Wikipedia is for. If 'uterosexuals' are not already a notable phenomenon, known by that name, the article has no place here. And if there's nothing but a definition, it should go in a dictionary. Robin Johnson 12:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Please don't change your own comments after people have replied to them! Anyway, Retrosexual is tagged saying it has been AfD'd and the result was to merge with Metrosexual - and now I think that's the best idea for this article, too. Robin Johnson 15:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just merged Retrosexual with Metrosexual. Therefore, the argument of "everyone is doing it, so why can't we?" is moot. Retrosexual was unacceptable on its own, and so is this article. It's silly to have an article on a neologism used by only one author. Brian G. Crawford 23:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do NOT Delete but merge with Metrosexual. It is a valid published term which simply expands Wikipedia's informativeness. Triple-x 00:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not vote more than once. -- Astrokey44|talk 01:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zac German

A friend of mine wrote this article, and this in a kid at my school. There's no need for such an article, and I propose it be deleted, mainly due to the fact that it is completely false. Hurricanehink 19:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is completely true and is intended to inform others of Zac German's fame. While not well known to the general public, German was still incredibly influencial in many groups across the world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.185.239 (talk • contribs)

I agree wholeheartedly with the above. This article is completely true. I know both Zac and the man who wrote it. Believe me, if you know Zac at all, you'll realize that this article is pure truthiness. All those who don't agree are simply jealous. -Hurricanebrantley,lawlz/roflcopters 141.150.185.226 18:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you say it's true? There's no sources, and I know the kid who wrote it! Hurricanehink 19:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course you know who wrote it, what does that have to do with the validity of the article? For instance you write many articles yourself. German is not well published and news is mainly transferred through word of mouth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.185.239 (talk • contribs)
Note The above IP address belongs to the Ocean City, NJ Public School System. Fan1967 19:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax or attack page. Sandstein 19:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete not notable; probably patent nonsense. Bucketsofg 19:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy if the author/subject really thinks the article is worth keeping. Delete as absolute bollocks otherwise. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as hoax, patent nonsense, and bollocks Fan1967 19:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as schoolboy hoax. What little information that could be verified is patently false (he clearly wasn't the manager of Blur). Gwernol 19:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nom and above. --lightdarkness (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete. I am surprised that nobody saw fit to remove his telephone number from the article until I did it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete {{hoax}} article.  (aeropagitica)  22:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are obvious verifiability problems with this. Capitalistroadster 23:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magic marker karate co.

Looks like patent nonsense, but is just a no-name band. PROD contested without comment. Sandstein 19:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xess (3rd nomination)

Twice before this article has been nominated for AFD. The article was kept weakly on the basis the article could be improved, if the article was cleaned up and citations were provided. However, nearly a month later the article has remained untouched. The band when searched for, has not won the award they proclaim they have. Nor does the band have anything to do with the musical styles of Gothic Rock or Gothic Metal. The band is also not well known in their own country. The article fails WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, and fails Notablity. As such, considering the time given for the article to be cleaned up, the article should be deleted for Non-Notablity and Advertising purposes. Ley Shade 19:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The logic that it was kept twice, we should keep it does not apply here since the things suggested still have not been done. The article is going nowhere, and is about a non notable band.Obina 23:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xess—1st nom April 2005, (Kept). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xess (2nd nomination)—2nd nom January 2006, (Deleted).[18] Recreated March 16 2006 [19] in a single edit (possible copyvio?). Not a single reference. I am inclined to agree with Leyasu. Will revise opinion if compelling new information provided. —Encephalon 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Update: I've tried to search for more information on this band because I want to give the article a fair shake, but again I've been unable to find reliable, independent references from which to source the claims being made here. The paucity of sources suggests to me that the subject is not yet of sufficient note to be able to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and related rules. That is to say, it cannot (for now) be treated in encyclopedic fashion. The best I could find was this, which IMO is inadequate as a source, to say nothing of the fact that it is unable to support most of the article. The claims, even taken at face value, do not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. The two claims to some notability are:
At the end of 2003 in the competition of alternative music bands “White Devils” organized by the publishing label “Dangus”, XESS was acclaimed as the best gothic/industrial band in Lithuania, and
On 25 09 2004 with their song „Ikask man!“ (Bite Me!) XESS played live in the national TV show “Lithuanian TV Top 10”
Neither meet WP:MUSIC. Therefore I think deletion is justified. However, on closer reading of the nominator's comment, I find several remarks about which I have no knowledge, and therefore cannot endorse. Regards —Encephalon 22:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-black metal (2nd nomination)

This page has been recreated by its first originator after already having been deleted after afd. Is a bad clone of the Avant garde metal article, and is also advertising and glorifcation of a minor set of bands. Also coining a term of which does not exist, as these bands are either essential to Black Metal or have nothing to do with it. Also in violation of AFD that the originator has recreated the article after it was deleted. Ley Shade 19:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as previously deleted article. --Bugwit grunt /scribbles 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Spearhead 22:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and {{deletedpage}} as per previous AfD discussion. Articles deleted after AfD should not be recreated unless they have been through an undeletion review.  (aeropagitica)  22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. + {{deletedpage}}. A lot of the article seems to be original research —Encephalon 00:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 02:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circus metal (4th nomination)

Article has been strongly deleted three times by AFD, and has been recreated by the members of a Yahoo Chat Group, who have admitted to coining the term to advertise their favourite bands and yahoo group. This is in Violation of WP:BOT, especially after recreating the article after it has been strongly deleted three times by AFD. Ley Shade 19:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per nom Bucketsofg 20:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect per nom. Joe 20:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as reposted material. -- Vary | Talk 21:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy Delete as complete and utter bollocks. Spearhead 22:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and {{deletedpage}} as per previous AfD discussions.  (aeropagitica)  22:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, repost of previously deleted material. Protect to high heaven afterwards. Lord Bob 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per G4. — RJH 16:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camille balaubar

From The translation desk, where nobody translated it. Entry from there follows. Delete unless somebody makes a decent article out of it. Kusma (討論) 19:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No idea. First sentence: Si Camille Balaubar ay isang halimaw nangangain ng tao. Kusma (討論) 02:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Tagalog, most likely. "Camille Balaubar" sounds like a name and gets no hits. I'm thinking vanity, or some variation on "for a good time call..." --Diderot 07:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it might be Malay instead of Tagalog. Kusma (討論) 19:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it gets translated by the time the AfD closes. Then, keep or re-nominate on its own merits. --Icarus 20:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki. W.marsh 16:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cozido à Portuguesa

Obvious case in which a transwiki is needed Icarus 19:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wikirecipes Schzmo 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Schzmo --TBC??? ??? ??? 09:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is a national dish of Portugal. Page Up 12:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Right now it's just a recipe. If an actual article can be written about it, then that would be fine. But the proper place for recipes is in the Wikibooks cookbook, not wikipedia. --Icarus 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (CSD A4) by User:Trevor macinnis. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 23:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microshit

The article was a former speedy deletion candidate, the template {{Db-attack}} was added, but i don't understand why. I changing this to a AfD. --Off! 20:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete The {{db-attack}} tag was added because it was an attack page to "disparage its subject." --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 20:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless as a disambig or a redirect. Rhobite 20:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt the earth. Article has been deleted four times already. -- Vary | Talk 20:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as {{db-repost}} copy of previously deleted material or {{db-attack}}.--Blue520 21:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above Bucketsofg 21:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] list_of_punk_cities

  • This list is completely arbitrary and unencyclopedic. Many of the bands listed are of only local importance. Furthermore, a truely complete list would contain the names of thousands upon thousands of cities and many more bands.Tombride 20:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Indiscriminate listcruft. Next we will next have list of cities with buildings, cities with a corner where teenagers hang out, cities with people, etc. Slowmover 21:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Slowmover. Sandstein 06:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not really a hope of being encylcopedic. MLA 13:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, includes accounting for unsigned comments. W.marsh 16:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mayberry Mall

Non-notable local mall. See also Eden Mall and Pennrose Mall, which were also previously nominated for AfD. Note that like those other two articles, this article was created by and edited by the North Carolina vandal (using multiple sockpuppets), which however is not in itself an argument for deletion. -- Curps 21:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep - the recent spate of mall AfD's is an example of an anti-mall cultural bias, as are any anti-mall precedents in deletion policy. I strongly feel that Wikipedia is being kept from covering many massive, notable, quasi-permanent commercial institutions (many of which are important features in the lives of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people - entire communities!) simply because of cultural bias. I am not a huge mall-lover myself, but most large malls are more notable than many of the small museums that wikipedia covers, and are treated differently mainly because they are seen as distasteful or dislikeable. Wikipedia should not censor or delete an entire category of information (we already cover a number of malls), information that is relevant and important to an electronic encyclopedia, simply because some people find that subject a bit crass. Covering individual malls is not comparable to, say, covering individual Wal-Mart stores (which should not be done), because each mall is different. The layout, location, and composition of a mall is important geographic and cultural information. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously we should be open-minded to any attempt to document notability for any subject. Without passing judgement on the question of whether malls as a whole are unfairly discriminated against in wikipedia, we have to decide about individual articles about individual malls. I see nothing in this article that suggests that this mall warrants an article. Bucketsofg 22:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this mall is less notable than many that have recently been targeted in the AfD blitz, but I think that it is still notable, as it includes 23 stores. Also, being located in a small community, it is likely a commercial center of that community - and, as such, as important as a local state park or something on that idea. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bucketsofg. Slowmover 22:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, malls are not inherently notable and this one has nothing special. I know I shouldn't keep firing my mousegun into the artillery barrage of Wikipedia holy wars like this, I just can't help myself. We need a Wikiproject to save people like me from myself. Lord Bob 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep' as per above ~Linuxerist L / T 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the town's article would be my choice here, but if that absolutely cannot happen then Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I guess I'm puzzled over why Wikipedia needs a two sentence entry on a shopping mall, especially since the shopping mall already has an official site on the web. I can't think of a single compelling reason to keep this entry. Brian G. Crawford 23:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with the town it is in, since malls don't tend to pick themselves up and run off to another town when they're bored. Average Earthman 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If you've seen one mall, you've seen 'em all. Denni ☯ 01:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the article for the town. BryanG 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. is right about there being a bias against commercial, contemporary or pop culture related topics, but this is a mall in a town with less then 9,000 people in a county with only about 70,000. I don’t think there enough people for a major mall. It provably belongs in the article on the town it’s in. Seano1 06:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge notable, though not as much as Eden Mall or especially Pennrose Mall.Reidkins 02:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • This user's only contributions are votes in the three mall AfDs. -- Curps 05:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just being a mall isn't enough for notability, and this doesn't claim anything beyond it. - Andre Engels 09:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town square. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic. -- JJay 11:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • How many Main Street or Town Squares moved from town to town in the past? They should be merged because they are a feature of the town - saying they warrant seperate articles is like saying that we should have a separate article about Pele's right and left feet because he used them to score so many goals. Average Earthman 13:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your analogy with Pele, however I do believe that, to a large extent, Main Streets and Town Squares have moved- into the malls. As you know, malls also drain customers from much larger areas than the immediate towns they are located in. Finally, I guess we could merge every article on a building, highway, school, museum, stadium, team, mall, company, etc. into a jumbo article on the town in which they are located. While we are at it, we should probably merge every player bio into the sports team they play for. Then when that becomes unmanageable, we can edit all the discussions of these things in the Town/Team articles down to single line mentions. Then we can give up on trying to be a comprehensive, internet-age encyclopedia. -- JJay 14:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
        • They didn't move, they were replaced (unless someone actually dug up the entire street, moved it to the edge of town, and put a roof on it). It's like Pele retiring and someone else playing for Brazil. I think the analogy is that a particular small mall, or a main street, is part of one specific town and no other (in the way that nobody other than Pele has ever scored a goal by kicking the ball with Pele's foot, so no matter how impressed you are with Pele's foot, or how many times Pele's foot propelled the ball into the back of the net, it's still Pele's foot so doesn't have its own article, as you can't really say that much about it, and what you can say relates directly to Pele). Very large malls have a life and reputation of their own of course, but this isn't a very large mall. 128.243.220.21 11:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I've added info concerning the infamous murder that took place at Mayberry. It's somewhat ironic given the name of the mall and the fact that the murder weapon was bought in the mall shortly before the crime took place. -- JJay 21:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as a collection of stores is neither encyclopaedic nor notable. JJay's arguments are a wonderful encouragement to improve the mall article, but hardly provide reason why each and every mall is either encyclopaedic or notable. It should be mentioned in the article on the town, and maybe even its own setion, but is not worth an article of its own. Wikipedia is not Everything2. Proto||type 13:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete most malls and other individual builings. If a building has a particular significance or history, that's another issue, but having articles on buildings merely because they exist is the cruftiest cruft that ever did cruft. Friday (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely.Apriyay 15:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    user's first edit. Lord Bob 16:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep great article. may need expansion though!
    unsigned vote by Evil Kro, his second edit. Lord Bob 01:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am utterly astounded that anyone could look at Wikipedia and think it has an anti-pop-culture bias. I wouldn't say it has an anti-mall bias either, but that's probably much harder to determine. Anyone who wants to discuss notability of buildings in general should look at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_buildings. So far consensus seems to be to apply WP:CORP to them. To me, trying to create and maintain a list of which stores are at which mall would be a project for WikiPhonebook, if there was such a thing. Friday (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What in the article makes it encylopedic? Vegaswikian 06:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Encyclopedias are reference books that deal with all fields of knowledge (the word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning general or well-rounded education). Since Wikipedia doesn't have very many size constraints, we can include a lot of stuff. Also, I'm not sure it's worth destroying someone else's work and alienating that person--who could be a contributor to other articles as well--over an issue as uncertain as notability. Something increadibly notable to a physicist may be non-notable to a chemist, for example. In other words, I don't see the point of this vote. What will deleting the article help?--Primetime 21:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • How much did you donate in the last fundraising appeal? Average Earthman 00:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • $50. (Go here: [20]--I listed my user name in the comment column.) And you?--Primetime 00:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not the one advocating unlimited expansion. At least you have the decency to put your money where your mouth is, most of the people advocating this I've asked don't. Average Earthman 10:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry, that sounds sarky - my complaint was that a lot of people who are advocating unlimited expansion don't appear to be aware that there actually is a cost to it. I'm glad you are. Average Earthman 15:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
            • No. You're fine, Average Earthman. Thank you for the kind words.--Primetime 15:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Ivermee

Delete as non-notable. Although what is claimed in relation to Make Poverty History is true (see [21]), nothing in the article seems to me to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. htonl 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom (clearly non-notable vanity page). Joe 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. With this threshhold for notability, there'll be another 5 billion to come.... Slowmover 21:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Chairman S. Talk 22:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Why is this page not tagged {{nn-bio}}? An unremarkable report of the life of an A-level candidate schoolboy, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete obvious {{db-bio}}. Gwernol 22:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is a biographical account of the life of a talented and well-known if young, individual who is sure to become a leading figure in Politics in years to come. Removing this article will only mean someone having to submit another in the future.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Beaumont (talk • contribs)

You are free to recreate the article after he has done something notable. There are tens of millions of promising young people who haven't done anything notable yet. This is one of them. Fan1967 23:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Yet another of the infinite number of schoolkid vanity pages we get all the time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pocket Change (software)

Delete. Simply an advertisment with links to reviews and no content. └ VodkaJazz/talk┐ 22:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete spamvertisement. Bucketsofg 23:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn advertisement --Mmx1 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam. Can we also consider its maker's article, and its other software articles, Pocket Antivirus and Pocket Shortcuts, for this AFD too? Nominator may want to widen the nomination scope, none of these software — or their company — seem particularly notable. There are 704 ghits for "JSJ Software". [22] — Kimchi.sg | Talk 23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but since this article is actually empty as opposed to the other two, I would prefer to keep them seperate to have this article deleted faster. You could propose AfD, linking to this page as evidence of the companying trying to use Wikipedia as a billboard.└ VodkaJazz/talk┐ 18:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisement --TBC??? ??? ??? 09:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 03:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyler Magyar

Speedy delete: Obviously non notable. 100 or so generally unrelated Google hits. Mrtea (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah right, forgot that we can speedy vanity aricles now. Should've just tagged this one. Mrtea (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. Normally one would like to see the AfD wait more than two minutes after the article's created, but I think it's pretty obvious where this one's going, an ordinary 20-year-old posting his autobiography. Fan1967 23:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete As now tagged.Obina 23:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Perfect example of a speedy bio candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - CSD A7 --lightdarkness (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy or Speedy delete per all. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Bucketsofg 23:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 08:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cameron Leslie

nn nightclub director. I initially marked it for prod, but the prod tag was removed. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn google search turns up 100 hits on name + name of club. Some attention should be paid to Fabric (club) as well --Mmx1 23:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete his article, as he is not sufficiently notable separate from the club. The club, on the other hand, is sufficiently notable to warrant an article (or at least sufficiently well known - if London-based journalists keep banging on about the place enough for someone like me who really doesn't care about nightclubs to recognise the name, then lots of other people must know of it) Average Earthman 00:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above, could even have been {{db-bio}} Gwernol 00:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems like a vanity bio seeing as the author is User:CameronLeslie. Royboycrashfan 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Gflores Talk 01:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge merge tags are on article, merge should probably be discussed a bit more on the talk page(s) to decide where this is going, but consensus seems to be for merging somewhere. W.marsh 15:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistani black metal

Completely non-notable band scene, comprised of only non-notable bands Spearhead 23:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with Black Metal Most black metal is rather non-notable in the grand sceme. Countries with widely know or (in)famous scenes (i.e. Norway) might deserve their own article. Pakistan is not deserving of this.Tombride 23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per the above. Royboycrashfan 00:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Tombride --TBC??? ??? ??? 09:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep You insult Pakistan. Lapinmies 18:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, however, I suggest merger with Music of Pakistan rather than Black Metal. The Black Metal article should have some mention in its historic overview of the rise of black metal scenes in Islamic countries like Pakistan and Malaysia. Peter G Werner 10:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaotic_wrestling

Local wrestling is not notable, vanity. Tredmen88 23:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Notability not established. Bucketsofg 23:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, clubcruft. Royboycrashfan 00:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable cruft. Chairman S. Talk 11:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noctis Night Life

Delete; advertisement for a website GregoryWeir 23:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't appear to be sufficiently important, influential or original to warrant listing. Average Earthman 00:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement, red link farm. Royboycrashfan 00:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spamvertisement. And for deficient Latinity: "in Latin, Noctis means Night". Tsk, tsk, tsk. Bucketsofg 00:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Postdlf 05:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisement --TBC??? ??? ??? 08:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom, spam Nigelthefish 14:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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