Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< March 20 March 22 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] March 21

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Superpower

This page looks like complete junk. It is filled with redlinks. It has citiations and quotes in non-sensical places. After reading it I'm not even sure what it's about. Delete as Decief Tobyk777 06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete- Incomprehensible. Looks like Original Research and POV. Reyk 06:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, doesn't seem to be original research as the article is well-referenced with noteworthy sources that seem to use the term, such as Green Peace --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just quotes some sources that used the term. The subject might be worth an article (it depends on whether the term actual has a specific meaning or has either been thought up by various people independently or no meaning beyond the literal one), but this would at best be a source for it, not something to base it on. - Andre Engels 09:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep 142k google hits and has references. Also note the page has been around since April 2003 -- Astrokey44|talk 10:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep probably deserves a chance, and could defiantely help epole who heard the term and want to find out what it is.Dolive21 11:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup - verifiable by a Google search, but the article needs a lot of work. Strong keep per Calkin's rewrite Robin Johnson 12:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep per Kalkin's rewrite. Thanks, magical fairies! :-) Robin Johnson 09:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite. Keep and clean up. Admittedly needs some TLC, but could conceivably become a good article. Brisvegas 12:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 13:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. StarTrek 16:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Are all those saying "keep and cleanup" planning to do the cleanup themselves? How are we going to know that the work will be done after the article is kept. Wikipedia is maintained and improved by users, not magical faeries, and saying "Keep, I hope the magical faeries fix the article at an undisclosed point in the future" just seems silly from where I'm standing. -- Saberwyn 21:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, this doesn't make me any more inclined to do it myself, but Wikipedia has some brilliant users and yes, I expect someone will. (Perhaps they're waiting to see the outcome of the VfD first.) No one is saying it will be fixed by magical fairies, please don't be silly. Robin Johnson 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
        • You do have to admit "keep per this rewrite" is a much better argument to keep than "keep and hope someone else will come and fix it". -- Saberwyn 11:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't understand you. Neither of those is an argument, they're both suggestions you might make. If the problem is that the article is badly written, but you do believe that an article on this subject should be there, I do think that keeping it for editors to improve is a better idea than deleting it. Robin Johnson 12:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Forget I said anything. -- Saberwyn 20:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Keep as per my rewrite. Still could use work, of course. Kalkin 18:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Hallelujah! Keep Kalkin's rewrite as a vastly improved form of the article, and a far better launching pad for later expansion than the article was at nomination. -- Saberwyn 20:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. The Disco King 17:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above, but rename to Second superpower. ProhibitOnions 20:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as ProhibitOnions. Oliver Keenan 20:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per above. Cnwb 22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. Peter Grey 06:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Widely used, 152k google hits. MMZach 06:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purerave.com

Delete - non-notable website, Alexa ranking of 72,676. discospinster 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soap dispenser

No claim to notability of soap dispensers. If there really is something special about soap dispensers it should be part of Soap. Schzmo 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This Afd is an example of why PROD is working so well. Within two hours, there are significant changes to the article eliminating reason for delete. Please consider PROD if you don't already use it. FloNight talk 02:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Soap dispensers are pretty separate from soap as a whole, and I'd be interested in knowing more about them - for instance, when they started appearing in public restrooms, how they work, various types, etc. This article could be expanded to include that stuff, and the soap arrticle could link to it. Excellent topic for an encyclopedia; if I can find any info I may write this up myself. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Pez dispensers with Pez; soap dispensers with soap. Bucketsofg 00:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Soap and soap dispensers have a different relationship from Pez and Pez dispensers. Soap has a whole history and life outside of soap dispensers, whereas Pez doesn't have any real history outside of Pez dispensers. Soap and soap dispensers are just not as inextricably tied together as Pez and Pez dispensers. The two subjects are less "of a piece" and don't need to be in the same article in the way that Pez and Pez dispensers did. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I imagine we could expand this article with a more elaborate explanation and some pictures. Royboycrashfan 00:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above and expand --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Soap dispenser is different from soap FloNight talk 00:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete substub, then enter as an article request. This is not an article, this is not the start of an article, this is not a good stub. This does not provide any information that is not implicit in the article title, and its presence in Wikipedia performs no service to anyone. This is the expression of someone's desire that Wikipedia have an article on soap dispensers; that is, it is an improperly executed article request. The topic itself is perfectly good, and any time that someone has enough information to write a decent stub they can re-create the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Not any more! FloNight talk 01:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Keep in present form. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and Dpbsmith's comments. --BrownHairedGirl 01:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge Automatic Soap Dispenser into this article. --Hyperbole 01:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I should probably mention that I took the liberty of actually making that merge. It seems clear to me that "Manual soap dispenser" and "Automatic soap dispenser" probably don't deserve separate Wikipedia entries. --Hyperbole 01:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per FloNight. --Firsfron 01:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fine little article on an everyday item. dbtfztalk 02:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep good improvements, needs more. Ziggurat 03:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable topic and now a good little article. Capitalistroadster 03:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Humorous if come across on random pages, but who's going to look up "soap dispenser"? TKE 03:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep... it's kind of worthy of its own article, I suppose, but there's a definite need to expand it into something truly encyclopedic. And no article on soap dispensers is complete without a mention of the infamous Yale soap dispenser ordeal... --Kinu t/c 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, although the tautological opening line should be rewritten. ("A soap dispenser is a device that dispenses soap...") The Disco King 04:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • - Thanks! That's a lot better! The Disco King 17:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I expect more people will read the article in connection with this nomination than over the next 5-10 years . . . Monicasdude 05:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I enjoy clean hands and keeping articles about common, everyday items.Tombride 07:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but would have voted delete based on dicdef if the article would still have the form at the time of nomination. - Andre Engels 09:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good info source.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a good article. An encyclopaedia should definitely include this. The article can be expanded if we get more sources. Its current state looks fine though. --Terence Ong 10:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr.. Feezo (Talk) 10:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Definatelly deserves to stay Dolive21 11:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, soap dispensers are important. JIP | Talk 14:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JIP. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Soap dispensers are a real, tangible thing. Given the notability of some of the stuff we do keep, I can't believe soap dispensers would even be in question. 204.69.40.7 14:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It needs improvement, but I think this is definitely an article to which "wiki is not paper" applies. --kingboyk 15:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Interesting and well written. Nigelthefish 17:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Interesting and a good start. Notable enough topic, everyday item. ProhibitOnions 20:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - interesting, notable, a start. Certainly needs some improvement. Oliver Keenan 20:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, would be great to see a reference to a notable event where a soap dispenser was crucial though. Deizio 00:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, soap dispensers are notable and different to soap. I'd be curious to see what it turns into. -- Mithent 00:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Slightly not in accordance with AfD rules but given the new version I'd suggest Speedy keep JoshuaZ 04:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have one...delete it because they obviously don't exist and are not sold by companies --DragonWR12LB 06:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I guess, b ut it would be better if Booking563 were to create whole articles instead of just looking round the cubicle and creating a stub on each thing he sees. Just zis Guy you know? 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. Good stuff. Grace Note 09:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - That's three "deletes" versus thirty-two "keeps." I realize that this isn't a straight voting contest, but consensus seems to be pretty clear here, and the objections brought up by the dissenters seem to have been addressed. The Disco King 15:56, 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 01:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banana tooth

This is a disputed prod. The editor who removed the prod template claims it's a legitimate term, but I can find no references to this usage of the term on Google (search results). Delete as unverifiable and non-notable neologism.--Muchness 00:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Protologism worthy of wider recognition (I, too, have known banana tooth) - but Wikipedia can't be the vehicle for that. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can WP:CITE WP:RS. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per TBC.--Firsfron 01:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable neologism, per nom. Kuru talk 02:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kuru. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Kukini 06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable phrase coining. Requires citations and references in print before it can be transwikied to Wiktionary. Non-encyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  07:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad neologism and per nom. --Terence Ong 10:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wikipedia is not the place to go coining new terms. Get this to UrbanDictionary or Stephen Colbert. 204.69.40.7 14:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. Oliver Keenan 20:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neo/proto, per nom Deizio 00:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per stupid? --DragonWR12LB 06:56, 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 redirect to Missionary. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic missionaries

Inaccurate and unencyclopedic. This content is already addressed at Missionary. Kerowyn 00:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Missionary. --Aim Here 00:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Missionary --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Missionary.Carlo 01:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Aim Here.--Firsfron 01:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to missionary.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Missionary. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Missionary. --Terence Ong 10:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, ensuring no content is lost. Oliver Keenan 20:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Catholic missions are NOT the same as all other missionaries, different thing, different article --DragonWR12LB 06:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Well the votes here are for the article as it stands. If someone was to write a proper, encyclopedic article on Catholic missions (or any other flavour for that matter) then I'm sure opinions would change. --Aim Here 17:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if you want a seperate article, just start adding info on Catholic missionaries in a section of the missionaries article, eventually people will be forced to fork it for you. JeffBurdges 04:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Missionary. Crna tec Gora 02:28, 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 01:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lakhan Gusain

Article for a non-notable person, apparently written by the subject. Article was prodded, but the author deleted both the prod AND what assertions of notability there were (namely that he had a teaching job in John Hopkins Uni), which is why I'm AfDing what looks like a speedy-able article -- Aim Here 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:AUTO. 85 unique ghits. Royboycrashfan 00:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable person --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn as per nom. --BrownHairedGirl 01:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn per nom. Very brief article does not even try to assert any notability. He's doing great on RateMyProfessor.com, though. Kuru talk 03:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:AUTO. Nothing of any encyclopedic value here, just blatant self-promotion. Akira 06:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO, WP:AUTO and WP:Vanity all refer.  (aeropagitica)  07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 10:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I have to think that the guy thought he was writing a userpage. At least I hope he did. 204.69.40.7 14:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Yep, vanity. He can put the single sentence back pretty easily, though. ProhibitOnions 20:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, vanity, vanity. Oliver Keenan 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all Evillan 21:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment John Hopkins is good enough that being a professor is automatically notable, but he doesn't seem to be a professor. Its best to delete the one sentence version though. JeffBurdges 04:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I disagree with JeffBurdges that being a prof at Johns Hopkins makes one notable (see WP:PROFTEST for guidelines in progress), but in this case... the guy wasn't claiming to even be a prof, and he's not even on the faculty list: [1]. The prior version claimed he was widely published, which would be sufficient... but I couldn't find anything on google scholar, nor even a home page, so I can't verify it. Mangojuice 19:50, 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 01:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of prominent MySpace members

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data. Listcruft, forumcruft. Also OR, unless proof is provided for every assertion. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. junk. Moe Aboulkheir 00:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Royboycrashfan 00:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Notice also that the list doesn't include any criteria as to the degree or duration of usage, nor could that be effectively verified. Postdlf 01:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, indiscriminate collection of external links, unencyclopedic. --Kinu t/c 01:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kinu. --Firsfron 01:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, as a large plurality of {{db-a7}}. — Mar. 21, '06 [01:41] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Delete, per common sense.--Sean Black (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. Bucketsofg 02:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bucketsofg Encise 03:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Encise
  • Delete Ugh, nasty!! ...and per nom. --CrypticBacon 03:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - useful, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. --Khoikhoi 04:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I hate to do this to any article featuring my man K-Fed, but it's a useless article. The Disco King 04:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 04:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete indiscriminate collection of external links. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Large, never-finished random list of bloggers.  (aeropagitica)  06:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Terence Ong 10:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; pointless, useless and downright crufty. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft, unless having a MySpace page is somehow an important aspect in their lives and/or careers. JIP | Talk 14:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • For all we know, it's something their agents or PR people do for them, without them actually participating. Postdlf 15:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Then there is even less point to this list. JIP | Talk 15:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Focoe 15:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per every single opinion already submitted.--Isotope23 20:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Isotope said it. ProhibitOnions 20:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, need I say anything more? Per nom. Oliver Keenan 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: This list is better handled by myspace.com itself. There is no encyclopedic value in this whatsoever. --Slgrandson 20:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the entry for myspace, with a reduced list. Helzagood 00:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Merging doesn't address the issue of OR and verifiability. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Myspace side notes not worthy of being own topic Sundergod9 02:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Myspace is becoming more and more popular why not have an article on famous people who have them? --DragonWR12LB 06:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP I found the article to be interesting information and would argue that it goes beyond a mere list. User:JMiletic (UTC)
    • User's third edit.[2]
      • No it isn't he just moved his vote from the middle to the bottom of the list. —This unsigned comment was added by DragonWR12LB (talk • contribs) .
        • I have no idea why you think moving his vote refutes that (I moved the vote, regardless), but here are his contributions, clearly showing this to be his third edit. Postdlf 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As indication of MySpace's widespread importance and popularity. It is not about the celebs, it's about MySpace. --alienman 08:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Myspace itself provides a similar area for this, why is it needed here? —This unsigned comment was added by TgC (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete I followed afew of these and I don't think all of them are even official, for example, surely metallica would have had their name taken long before they'd have the chance to take it, and the artic monkey's one even states it's only a fan site. 84.68.119.235 19:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most are impossible to verify, and having a MySpace profile is getting to be as common as having a website. (Yes, I have contributed to this article, but MySpace has been clouding my brain lately... :) ) tregoweth 02:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete there is no use to knowing what websites those who are famous visit or use for self promo or friends Showtime203 03:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Or at least merge. The article shows how popular Myspace has gotten, especially to clueless users. M2K 20:14, 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. Sango123 (e) 02:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hellbound Saints

No claim to notability. Google search yields 38 (as of this writing) unique hits, most of which aren't reliable sources. Their homepage is on myspace, which makes it quite obvious this is vanity. I can't seem to match any WP:MUSIC criteria, either. Delete. Royboycrashfan 00:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, as per nom. --BrownHairedGirl 01:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be an unsigned local band in Provo with no broader notability --Hyperbole 01:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hyperbole.--Firsfron 01:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable unsigned band, WP:Music refers.  (aeropagitica)  07:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn band. --Terence Ong 10:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable --Focoe 15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. StarTrek 16:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN as above. ProhibitOnions 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Oliver Keenan 20:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capiche

Prodded as a slang dict def per Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy; challenged on the grounds that it "could grow into a useful article based on numerous cultural references / much context". --Muchness 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. An article on this word seems plausible, but IMO, we're best off sending it to Wiktionary. Royboycrashfan 00:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC) and has been done. Keep. Royboycrashfan 01:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak deletekeep. It doesn't seem to me that many WP:RS can be found. I'm inclined to think that Wiktionary is a better match. Now that some WP:RS have been found. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It isn't "slang," it's a straight Italian word, and it's used to mean exactly what it means. (It there supposed to be a difference between "Get it?" and "Do you understand?") And it's spelled "capisce." The spelling of the article would be "Ka-PEEK-ay" in Italian. Carlo 01:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above Bucketsofg 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dictionary entry.--Firsfron 01:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing more pointless than a misspelled dicdef. Fan1967 03:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - potential for a real article. For instance, how did this phrase get into the language? Where was it first used? Popularized? It has a notable history in film and pop culture. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 03:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been thinking the same thing, though either option is fine by me. Royboycrashfan 03:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Not really that much to it. It's a common Italian usage, like the Engish "get it?" or Spanish "comprende?" at the end of a sentence. It got used as dialog in Mafia movies. (By the way, the appropriate answer is, "Capisco.") Fan1967 03:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I just completely rewrote and expanded the article. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 04:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep revised version, which is encyclopedic. Monicasdude 05:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Articles about words rather than concepts should go to Wiktionary, in my opinion. - Andre Engels 08:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Tough call, but I'll come down on the side of Transwiki to Wiktionary. Article is good, subject is notable and appears in lots of films, and in everyday conversation, but ultimately it's a definition of a word. I'd be almost as happy with keep, though. ProhibitOnions 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

WE NEED THIS ARTICLE I'M DOING A REPORT ON SLANG AND THIS WAS VERY HELPFUL—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.245.215 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep the revised version...... Oliver Keenan 20:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, since it's just a dictionary entry, of an idiom. As part of a larger encyclopedic entry on "mob slang" or italianisms into English, it'd made sense, but not as a standalone entry Evillan 21:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nice article that can probably grow into something even nicer from here. -- JJay 22:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Current version has enough substance to merit an article. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten, redirected version. Notable for use in American slang. Haikupoet 03:41, 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 01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fox River Valley Conference

nn high school athletic league.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, clubcruft. Royboycrashfan 01:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable athletic organization --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 13:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Focoe 15:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Oliver Keenan 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sargis Bkheera

Appears to be either OR, or perhaps a fringe historical viewpoint. 7 distinct google hits, but they seem to be reprints of the same paragraph from http://www.aina.org/aol/peter/timeline ..Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, suspicious WP:OR. Royboycrashfan 01:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Focoe 15:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Oliver Keenan 20:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and cleanup - Sargis Bkheera, also spelled Sargis Bahira (which returns 3 more distinct Google hits) does appear at a glance to be a real and notable historical figure. The article in its present incarnation is, of course, unacceptable. --Hyperbole 23:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Woot for vanity! --DragonWR12LB 07:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:51, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KNHS radio

nn high school radio station with 559 google hits, some of which are not relevant. One of the google hits indicate that it closed in 1991. It appears to be of little historical interest.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite it then, wikify it! Mike (T C) 07:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, non-notable radio station --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Crazy Russian. Royboycrashfan 01:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-encyclopædic, first-person account of a minor High School radio station.  (aeropagitica)  07:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Held a valid license, even if it is a small radio station still was notable IMO for the sheer fact it was a licenced radio station. Mike (T C) 07:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -Focoe 15:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy (i.e. Delete from mainspace). Might be worth a line or two in the High School's article. --kingboyk 15:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Oliver Keenan 20:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I would go with merge to the highschool, but it isn't clear to me that anything is salvagable/verifiable. JoshuaZ 04:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless they have a website and a crediable source --DragonWR12LB 07:00, 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 SPEEDY DELETED as repost of previously deleted material. Postdlf 08:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyber Nations

I don't know if it is the same as it was the first time it was deleted as I am not an admin, however, it is an onlione game, but its website doesn't work. I think that says enough.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 01:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable game --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Speedy delete if this can be shown to be the same article that was deleted previously. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB; no more notable since its last AfD less than two months ago. --Kinu t/c 01:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Technically not the exact same article as before, but still an obvious delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No claims to notability, WP:WEB refers. If recreation of previously deleted article can be proven, move up to speedy delete as per WP:CSD criteria.  (aeropagitica)  07:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cyber_Nations Previously deleted version AfD'ed on February 4. This version contains even less information than previous article, so CSD4 condition obtains. I'll be brave and tag as such now.  (aeropagitica)  07:24, 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 as silly vandalism. Capitalistroadster 03:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Dishman

Nonsense entry from the Lancaster University vandals. Jokestress 01:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. I think this should have been prodded. Carlo 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: G1 as patent nonsense; obviously about Adolf Hitler. --Kinu t/c 01:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete at light speed. Patent nonsense. Bucketsofg 01:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, for my money WP:CSD A7 unremarkable persons applies — there's not a single creditable claim to notability in the article. Oh, and deletion notices had been removed by 194.80.32.8. Sliggy 01:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • good candidate for speedy.--Firsfron 01:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speed delete as nonsense --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Hennessy

Prod was removed by creator and improperly replaced by anon. moving to AfD instead. Few google hits per prod, true, but was able to confirm that he's a real councilman and that he's really 21. See Google results. Ordinarily, a Bay City councilman would be nn. Does that fact that Chris was elected at 20 change that? You decide. For my money, it's Keep - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per nom, local political figure. Royboycrashfan 01:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, being the youngest elected official in the county seems to make him notable enough --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Have the distinction of "youngest elected official in the county" doesn't give Hennessy international notability; Wikipedia is not a county-wide encyclopedia. In my view, Hennessy is exaclty as notable as any other Bay City councilman - which is not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. --Hyperbole 02:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Every few years some teenager gets elected to something, somewhere, and makes the news for a few days. He's the youngest elected official in some rural county in Michigan? Don't see that it qualifies as notable. Fan1967 03:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hyperbole and Fan-1967. Joe 03:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Doesn't appear to have passed guidelines for inclusion of humans, delete unless more evidence presented.
    brenneman{L} 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep minor minor notability.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; a local politician does not meet WP:BIO, regardless of how much of an issue age might be... and if the county charter simply says that there's no minimum age, then it really isn't much of one. (Similarly, I know college students who have been elected aldermen in New Haven, and I doubt that any of them are worthy of inclusion, even the youngest one). In other words, the youngest person to do something non-notable is still non-notable.--Kinu t/c 07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC), amended 06:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fan1967. Feezo (Talk) 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being a city official is not enough. Being the youngest such in some district is not enough either. - Andre Engels 08:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being young just gives him more time to achieve something notable in the future, it doesn't make him notable in itself. Average Earthman 09:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hayley Wain is a 20 year old (18 at time of last election) councillor in Wellington. She doesn't deserve an article. And neither does this guy. Think of the precedent set ("Well, sixty-six is passed retirement age, so that must be notable" etc etc). --Midnighttonight 10:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, this article asserts some notability in some way. --Terence Ong 13:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Taking others word for it that councilmen are nn (I'm not familiar with the US local political system; the average Brit councillor would be nn for sure) the only question remaining is "does his age make him any extra notable?". My answer - certainly not. He's a young adult, he got elected, so what. Terence, what is this notability assertion you speak of and how does it affect an AFD debate? Sure, he's not a CSD A7 because there's some assertion, but beyond that the notability is what we're here to decide. Have I missed something? Or is he just a young fella that got a local council seat? What's your rationale that he's notable enough to be in an international encylopedia? --kingboyk 16:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't seem notable enough. Oliver Keenan 20:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO... plus nothing good has ever come out of Bay City, Michigan: Madonna, Annie Edson Taylor, John List, & Isotope23 being just a few examples of the miscreants that place has produced.--Isotope23 20:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
... not to mention that it inspired the name of Bay City Rollers. Fan1967 03:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, very amusing. NN. ProhibitOnions 21:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, just not notable enough Gflores Talk 06:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: Clearly, someone has to be the youngest, so that much is unremarkable. Then again, Wikipedia is not paper. Peter Grey 06:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak DeleteCurrently not notable. --Soumyasch 06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Someone always has to be the youngest. Chairman S. Talk 06:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Expand please --DragonWR12LB 07:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge with John D. Cherry. -Colin Kimbrell 13:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because he's related to John Cherry. -- JJay 22:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete "youngest in county history" isn't quite enough to cross the notability threshold. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep for now. But can we get a notice on the talk page proposing it for future reconsideration of deletion? JeffBurdges 04:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. He's just a minor local politician. Why would we want to keep it now and delete it later?! Friday (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, your right, if he ever get an article for another reason, such as being a less minor politician, then I'm sure some admin will see the old deleted version, and include that information. So abstain. JeffBurdges 15:49, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noah Cope

  • Delete Not notable enough to have own article. Found very little on google and the radio station he worked for doesn't even have it's own article. "His current whereabouts are not known" hardly encyclopedic. Forbsey 01:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable person, fails WP:BIO --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails to meet WP:BIO criteria. --Terence Ong 14:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable Nigelthefish 14:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, not notable. Oliver Keenan 20:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 20:49, 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 16:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Dinky Robbery

A University prank is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Only 10 (4 unique) Google results [3]. --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 01:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Postdlf 01:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above.--Firsfron 01:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's notable enough for a DYK nom though... I'd like to see more cites if possible before agreeing this is notable. Given how old this story is, Google may not be where to go for cites, printed material may be the place. Reserve judgement. ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC) (
    update: Merge with Princeton Branch (and leave a redirect) sounds a great idea. That can be done now, no need to wait. ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
    update 2 I tagged them and will try to make time to do the work maybe as early as tonite (eastern US time) ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC))
    update 3 I am still concerned about the sources being verifiable but the article itself looks nice now... If it's merged in to Princeton Branch it may well dominate that article and people soon may want to split it out again. Smile. The editors actively working on this asked me not to do the merge just yet so I didn't. I still marginally think merge is the right answer, but I won't at all be too upset if the result is keep. Not delete entirely though... if whowever closes wants to delete entirely, userify it to my space instead, and I'll take care of the merge. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's in at least the same league as Great Rose Bowl Hoax or Saluting trap. It's certainly better known than Yale's "We Suck" Prank. Possibly the last American train robbery (and such a unique one, to boot!), though I can't verify that right now. --CComMack 05:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete - it is not comparable, it didn't get TV coverage, and lots of photos, etc.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It has a source, we've got storage space, that's good enough for me. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom (also, who outside the states cares? sheeesh) dr.alf 06:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Princeton Branch. theres room for it there -- Astrokey44|talk 11:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn prank. A merger to any appopriate article would be good as well. --Terence Ong 14:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge per above. StarTrek 16:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the last "real" train robbery was in 1923, making this the last train hold-up in America, at least according to this source. That alone should make it notable. Also per Stillnotelf. Cantara 17:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Merge with Princeton Branch would also be fine, though I still think this is great lore and would like to see it grow into a full article eventually. Cantara 18:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unencyclopedic. I will change my vote if several additional references are added to the article that show this event has had some wide impact, or was widely known, etc. The one source provided is not even exclusively about the purported hoax. Johntex\talk 20:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, much better more amusing and more notable university pranks have been performed. Oliver Keenan 20:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Princeton Branch. EASports 22:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic prank, agree with Johntex Deizio 00:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect per EASports. I've read about this prank. It's definitely notable, but probably doesn't merit its own article.jdb ❋ (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Princeton Branch, which could use some expansion. -Colin Kimbrell 13:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Colin Kimbrell. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; accept merge. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 03:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Let's see if there are more sources...Joaquin Murietta 15:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this should definitely be kept. It is a rather well-known thing around Princeton and it does have historical significance as the last time a train was similarly held up in the North-East, and perhaps even the US. I've edited the article quite a bit. The robbery took place in the spring of 1963, not the fall of '60 as originally cited. I also tracked down a list of names from an alum friend, that seems to jibe with an article in PAW that I added to the links list. Scharferimage 10:43, 24 March 2006.
  • Merge with Princeton Branch. --dcandeto 08:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bradley Sands

Nn author of a book published last month, amazon sales rank of 183,000.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. 96 unique ghits, hardly notable. Royboycrashfan 01:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable author --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per aboce. StarTrek 16:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, unless the book takes off. Oliver Keenan 20:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. ProhibitOnions 20:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as a patent nonsense. abakharev 03:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War of L'Viv

Possible hoax, no google results and the article does not cite its sources --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:HOAX. Royboycrashfan 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - author added a citation on the talk page, but it appears to refer to a book on World War II, not 18th-century Bulgaria. --DMG413 02:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as Hoax abakharev 02:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy per AB - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy hoax. Bucketsofg 02:22, 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 (CSD A7) by User:Alex Bakharev. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 03:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonel Keaton

Possible hoax article about a general from the War of L'Viv, another possible hoax article. Only 9 Google results [4], none of which are relevant. --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, perhaps merge this AfD into the War of L'Viv AfD. Royboycrashfan 02:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy A7. I tagged it. After you strip out the hoax, there's not assertion of notability. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Hoax. Bucketsofg 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Hoax abakharev 02:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frequency analysis, more concisely

Original research. Xanzzibar 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Bucketsofg 02:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR fork of Frequency analysis --Mmx1 04:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR fork per Mmx1. --Kinu t/c 07:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, o Etaoin Shrdlu. JIP | Talk 14:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 14:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, NOR. ProhibitOnions 20:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete orires. Oliver Keenan
  • Keep NOT ORIGINAL it cites a book, doesn't say I did all this! This is cool as hell wtf is with all the deletes? --DragonWR12LB 07:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, cryptocruft and unnecessary fork. Haikupoet 03:44, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ajaan suwat suvaco

Non-notable monk. Delete. DMG413 02:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable person. Only 293 Google results [5] --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no claim to notability. Royboycrashfan 03:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep founded four notable monasteries in the Western US> Rewrote and wikified the article. I'll add the external links (to the monasteries) that I found on google later. I'm keeping them out for now lest anyone start thinking that this is a promo or ad or whatnot. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 03:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. notable monk.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google isn't exactly where I'd look for information on monks, but even the limited information there indicates he's regarded as notable within the relevant community. Monicasdude 05:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Founding four monasteries makes him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Feezo (Talk) 07:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough -- Astrokey44|talk 11:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable monk. --Terence Ong 14:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, notable. Oliver Keenan 20:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think we have formal guidelines for monks, but he seems sufficiently notable. -Colin Kimbrell 14:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Card-Curling

Promotional vehicle for (the author's?) new game. Tom Harrison Talk 02:30, 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 delete. Feel free to set up a redirect to the relevant merged page, though. Mailer Diablo 01:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airport Express (Sydney)

No point in having a single page for one bus route, especially one that was discontinued several years ago SM247 02:57, 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. DS 14:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bhai Makhan Shah

I tagged this for speedy, but, in view of an objection raised on the article's talk page, I figured I ought to bring it to AfD. Essentially, the text is a Sikh story taken from this website (I don't think that there's a copyvio issue). Were the article a summary of the story, it would perhaps be appropriate; it seems summaries exist here for sundry Bible stories (e.g., Genesis. As it is, though, the article reads essentially like a fictional account (I should say that perhaps my atheist tendencies got the better of me when I added the speedy tag, inasmuch as I wrote that the text was "like a fictional story"; I do not mean here to suggest that the story is apocryphal, only that the fashion in which it is currently presented is non-encyclopedic and akin to that one would find in a novel or the original source). Moreover, were the text of great religious import, it would, I think, appear in some form on more than one website; a Google search for a short portion of the text, though, returns just one result, the website supra. Thus, delete keep (with tags). Joe 03:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per above No vote for now. Once the article creator finishes on improving the article I'll vote for keep Strong Keep, good job on cleaning up the article --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC) *Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Changed my vote to Keep. --Khoikhoi 06:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As the writer of this article, I make the following comment: It is interesting to note that this article was tagged by Joe for speedy deletion as Joe thought that the article "appears to be a fictional story" at 2:58. He had failed to notice that the article began with: " Makhan Shah Lubana (also written as Lobana) was a devout Sikh and a rich trader from Tanda district Jhelum (now in Pakistan)…" – If this was a fictional story, would it refer to "(now in Pakistan)". Further, mid-way down the article is the line " He then recited this Shabad of Guru Arjan Dev:" followed by the sacred hymn by the fifth Sikh Guru – Now surely if you are not even aware of the Gurus of the Sikhs, do you have the right to make any judgement on this article or any other article linked to Sikhism?
If Joe has the "well-being" of Wikipedia at heart, surely it does not take more than a few seconds to search for "Makhan Shah" on Google to see if this is fiction or fact! – He would have found 654 hits and the first article is at: www.Sikh-History.com – Do I need to say more! – I don't think you would find fictional stories on a history website. Under the circumstances, the comment by User talk:Royboycrashfan that this is "original research" is laughable. 654 hits with Google and this is original research!! And what is surprising is that he is supported by User:TBC and User:Khoikhoi. Follow the leader!!
Following my comments on the discussion page highlighting that this article was a Sakhi, which are very popular in Sikhism at 3.09, Joe changed the article to AfD status at 3.13 saying that this was because "text is a Sikh story taken from this website". So in 4 minutes he has done a proper comparison of the two articles. I am sorry but I don't think this is how articles should be judged - Someone spending 4 minutes to evaluate an article that may have taken a few days to create from various resources. How can someone who appears to have no knowledge of the subject matter and has spent very little time be allowed to take such a step?
Having read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, I believe that the comments made by Joe – "only that the fashion in which it is currently presented is non-encyclopedic" does not appear to be reason for articles to be deleted.
Further, he says that if the text was: "of great religious import, it would, I think, appear in some form on more than one website" – This is based on a Google search of the words: "Once while he was returning home". What he does not tell us is the Google finds the following:
"with his ship carrying valuable goods over the vast seas, his ship got caught up in a furious storm" in my article and
"with his ships loaded with valuable cargo, there was a furious storm at sea and his vessels got caught in it" on the other site.
Not quite the same sentence – let alone the whole article. So how he can say that "text is a Sikh story taken from" another site is completely unjustified.
So I believe that these criticisms are totally ill-founded and without foundation. Further, this appears to a tactic to discourage minority religions to have a reasonable say on this website and this type of behaviour will stall contribution from the minority traditions. The majority sects will dictate what goes on this site - even when they are completely wrong!!--Hari Singh 05:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment, please calm down. First of all, with quotes, Google only shows 138 results, but then again Google is not very reliable for articles on non-English related subjects. Second of all, I suggest you cite your sources as well as rewrite and clean-up the article using the Wikipedia:Manual of Style as your guide to make it so that the article sounds more like an encyclopedia article instead of a fictional story. If you need help, you can always contact other editors. --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment As I suggested on Hari's talk page, there is "certain[ly]...a different way in which to include the story, one short of the insertion of the story itself" (assuming for the sake of argument that the story is indeed notable, as I think it likely is). If there seems to be a consensus for notability here, I would be happy to withdraw the nomination and remove the AfD tag and instead tag the article as needing to be Wikified, cleaned up, and sourced. Joe 05:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - appears to be about a notable person in Sikh religious development.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a book publisher. If verified to be notable, rewrite as an encyclopedia article rather than a story. Sandstein 06:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The author has written an extensive reply to this comment on my talk. I've copied it to the article talk page. Sandstein 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Initially if you folks had said that the style was not good and it should be improved – Well, I can understand that and we can discuss that. – But that is not what was said. Please read the initial posts. First it was a fictional story, then it has been taken from another website or may be it was original research or school project! Well what is it?

    You know that the world has over 6 billion people and there are just 1million articles on this site – that a tiny fraction – This site does not represent the views of the globe or even all the English speaking people – If you don't listen and allow other to tell you their story, how will you know how they feel and what they have to say!

    If you care to look, I have written over 400 articles for Sikhiwiki (http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Main_Page) and Wikipedia on Sikhism. When a Sakhi is told, it is told as a story. That is how these were recorded in the "Janam Sakhi"s which have existed since Guru Nanak in the 1500. What is suddenly wrong with this style? Was there a reason why this style was used? And because of Wikipedia, this style has to change?

    It would help me if constructive comments were made rather than irrelevant and incorrect comments! Many thanks to all of you who have been constructive and have taken your time to improve things rather than move backwards! I am much grateful for your help.--Hari Singh 07:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, please remember that Sikhiwiki is a wikicity, which is completely different from Wikipedia in terms of regulations, rules, style, ect. --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleanup tags. I put {{tone}} on it -- Astrokey44|talk 12:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • delete Sheesh read the rules and style guidelines here and follow them instead of trying to bully us with talk of how you do it elsewhere. Your whole tone is defensive to say the least, and the article explains nothing really, it just looks like a boring story of little interest to anybody outside of sikhdom. Williamb 12:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The Sikh religion is a major world religion so I think the person who 'discovered' one of the ten Sikh gurus is notable - theyre making stained glass windows about him [7] -- Astrokey44|talk 12:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it's definately notable and deserves a Wikipedia entry. However, it needs cleaning up (a lot) and it needs to be moved to Makhan Shah. We should refrain from adding titles unless necessary (in this case, Bhai means brother). Essentially any relatives of the Sikh gurus or close associates all deserve Wikipedia entries. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above Computerjoe's talk 19:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that, consistent with the comments of Sukh and the discussions several of those who posted here have had with the article's creator on his and other talk pages, it would be fair to say that there is a consensus for keep. The article, as it is now, still needs a great deal of work, but the appropriate tag has been added, and it appears that Hari understands how best to write the article in order that it should conform to Wikipedia conventions (although I am a bit worried by his comment supra: "When a Sakhi is told, it is told as a story. That is how these were recorded in the "Janam Sakhi"s which have existed since Guru Nanak in the 1500. What is suddenly wrong with this style? Was there a reason why this style was used? And because of Wikipedia, this style has to change?"). This can't be closed as a speedy keep, but I do think it should now be closed as keep. In the future, I do think that a proper procedure for us to follow when presented with an article such as this was in its first version, consistent with the "On deleting pages" section of WP:DGFA, is to vote "delete" and then list the article on WP:RA. Joe 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Astrokey44. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hari removed the AfD tag from the page. Because I fear that he may infer malign motive from my re-adding it (even as I've now supported the "keep" position), I'm not re-adding it (though it was removed out-of-process), especially because I expect that this will be closed as keep soon. Joe 05:15, 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 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latitudes Home Care Inc.

Delete. This page is clearly just an advertisement CharacterZero 03:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:VAIN, WP:NOT, and WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 03:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and RoyBoy. Joe 03:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of Royboy's list plus copyvio. It's a straight cut-and-paste of their website: [8]. Fan1967 03:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete adspamish copyvio. Bucketsofg 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Royboy, advertisement --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spamverty copyvio. (And how cute, blatantly improper it's/its in the very first sentence.) --Kinu t/c 04:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanispamcruftisment, copyvio. --Terence Ong 14:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Oliver Keenan 20:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 20:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Blatant advert. —GrantNeufeld 05:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. --Ardenn 17:56, 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 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clydex the Platypus

  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}}

Non-notable: character from the fredthemonkey.com website, which was already deemed non-notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred the Monkey.com) —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Obscure character from obscure website. Capitalistroadster 03:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above, unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Bucketsofg 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; he's a platypus. Non-notable both on its own and due to precedent in previous AfD. Speaking of which, I'd be wary of puppetry here... --Kinu t/c 03:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable website character --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that at least there should be a mention of the website and characters in some sort of "Minor Flash Cartoons" article. After all, other Flash cartoons only were able to get popular and well-noted because of word of mouth. Homestar Runner is a prime example, and I bet back in 1999 nobody would've expected it to be what it is today. TTE 04:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, Newgrounds has an article, and so do about ten animations off of it—some of which are up for Wikipedia awards! IMHO, the difference is that those articles have the underlying research to support that the subjects are noteworthy. Fred the Monkey didn't, and neither does this character. —C.Fred (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Darn people removing my prods. --Fuzzie (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a platypus. D'oh! What I meant to say was, delete, non-notable character from an obscure webcomic. JIP | Talk 14:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If Homestar Runner and Brent Sienna don't have their own pages, there's no need for this. 204.69.40.7 14:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Fred the Monkey himself (in the Newgrounds cartoon complained about the hypocrisy that Clydex has an article and he doesn't - so let's fix the problem! --DLand 16:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obscure, plus their wasting volunteer time by writing to OTRS. -- Zanimum 19:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn and not meeting WP:WEB. — Scm83x hook 'em 19:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I thought the website itself was borderline notable, this individual character clearly isn't. --Russ Blau (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above Evillan 21:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I might have voted keep for the website, but the character alone certainly doesn't make it. JoshuaZ 04:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: When half the article is a commentary on its own deletion, it's a sign of something. Peter Grey 06:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per norm, but I still wanna see a pic! --DragonWR12LB 07:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Information on the character belongs with the article on the work it's from. The work was deleted as not being notable, so this needs to go too. NickelShoe (Talk) 07:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete nn - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 21:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jake's Mom

Non-notable: neologism, article notes it is severely limited geographically. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Joe 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and neologism --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Or should I make an article about Ted's Mom? (You don't get it? I'm shocked!) --Kinu t/c 04:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 04:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Inside joke from college; WP is not for things made up in school one day.  (aeropagitica)  07:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inside joke in one of your precious Merkin "fraternities". You can't get much less notable than that. JIP | Talk 14:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete never heard of it, seems extremely geographically confined. Oliver Keenan 20:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Way too silly and parochial. Evillan 21:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ...Now if it was STACY'S mom then it would be a Keeper --DragonWR12LB 07:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per every listing here J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  15:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jake's mom (I mean, per nom). OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:00, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blacksky

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This game is still a year away from release. Article is also the only article the original author has contributed to. —C.Fred (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as vanity. We do cover predicted events if there is notable attention paid to it (e.g. E3 release). However, this game is pre-alpha and has no third-party cites. Unverifiable info. --Mmx1 04:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point! Look at the talk page, and the author admits it is vanity! Speedy delete if we can get it, otherwise my recommendation stays at delete, adding vanity and original research as reasons. —C.Fred (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I wonder where in all of this defamation(sp?) of the author, the wikipedia civility is being taken onto place. --Ori Klein 11:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Vapourware. Encise 05:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Game is not vaporware. Game can be downloaded and played on a PC as well as sample music files from the game. The downloadable portions of the game are playable and contain a scenario to play. In essence, it can be considered a demo, or a short game in itself. The playability of the game is however not complete of what the author wants, as the game will continue to grow and become bigger, and will be released upon the web accordingly. There is no crystal ball, no predicted event, game is playable and has already happened and has been online for 10 months. With each version release, new content and new gameplay will be added and changed. Viperg 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I probably should shut my mouth, but I'm too much a passionate, truthful and tactless person to do so.
1. I am the other developer. 2. I would login but wiki refuses to deliver my new password.
Onto the matter at hand: I find it highly amusing how wikians and their admins love to talk about vanity while they're measuring everything upto their humangoose ego and penis sizes. I always thought it is entertaining how ERROGANT wikipedia is to discuss the likes of Jack Thompson when they're so not too different in their behavior themselves.
This game is a project, a highly ambitious one to admit (and since when reaching far is wrong? Would you like to go bash Will Wright now?) which strives to satisfy the lacking needs required of today's games for ourselves and whomever may share our gaming desires. If you think what David wrote constitute as crystal balling, then I have no problem editing it out to stick to the facts. It will take years to develop, it will contain what I have in mind for it to contain and as was detailed and more.
But I think the problem really is, as said, phallic in nature. Simply put, BlackSky doesn't have the huge hype of celebritation which wikipedia require, though unlisted and I doubt you'll acknowledge its existance, it's a MAJOR consideration for you. So, just like you removed Pet Professional for it, I expect this to go down. Of course, if Pet Professional become a successful webcomic enoguh for you to notice, you'll come running to create an article for it. Sad hypocracy, is all I can say. Then again, the wiki rules never mentioned wikians need to be holding any virtue, merely trollish behavior to jump on every new post and nitpick it for violations, like any common forum trolls who got nothing better than 24/7 crawling around looking for someone to post something they can beat up like little nerds.
Anyhow, I never liked wikipedia, it is a failure and a good lesson in socio-dynamics, its "citizens" are more like an elitist geek society than a community of researchers and historians. So do whatever, not like I expect you to keep this. Don't know what David expected by posting this, I guess he doesn't know wikipedia too well. I'm off to work. Shrug. --Ori Klein originally —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.39.117 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, vaporware. Catamorphism 03:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep WTF is vaporware? This thing had a few notable google searches so stfu --DragonWR12LB 07:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You may want to read Vaporware (as well as WP:CIVIL). Catamorphism 07:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Oh, certainly, let us adress the biased wiki as a source of knowledge, there be a laughter. Vaporware:
<jargon> /vay'pr-weir/ (UK "vapourware") Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not actually take place). The term came from Atari users and was later applied by Infoworld to Microsoft's continuous lying about Microsoft Windows.
Seeing as how there was a release taking place, quite a few at that although the content of these releases may well be argued of, prior to announcements of any nature I don't see how this applies. Quite frankly, I don't see what is the big problem.
History is written by the winners, and wikipedia is no different. The eggorant presumptionous of its admins/users to believe or psuedo-aspire to have anything writtin inside being nothing but an objective account of facts is completely bogus as well as ridiculous. Wikipedia is entirely made out of "common's concensus", simply put, the most favored/popular oppinion is that which takes place at the center of the stage with fragments of what-may-be factual information taking sidekick placements to decorate the former.
The best example I have for such and the earlier claim I made regarding popularity/celebrity/hype/phenomena being the most considered factor for placement on wikipedia is how something as silly and rather sideline as Leeroy_Jenkins having an entire article dedicated to him. The simple first statement in the discussion area sums it all.
"This article has had a long journey to its current version. It has been the subject of mutliple deletion reviews and finally was unanimously voted for undeletion"; Indeed, wikipedia is motivated by nothing short of masses admiration. It is not, never was nor ever will be the online-dictionary-recordsholder it claims to be or claims to strive to be.
And before you jump on the "he's envy" cry-wagon, allow me to say this much: I could care less about BlackSky being listed on wiki in this context, I certainly see no good coming out of it. Personaly, I've been objecting to any sort of advertisment as I believe and forsee public reaction being nothing short of the leeching troll's "this isn't finished, this got bugs, where's my game" yawn-der and as you wikipedias reacted thus far (GG for the courtesy to say David is one full of vanity, he's nothing BUT, let me tell you, or this "article" at that, if anything it's a sincere obligation/mission statement. I would rather walk out with the project, or at least the game engine being half-done and then letting people I know of it and asking for feedback. But as said, this is not about BlackSky, this is about my grasp of wikipedia and how I see its denizen's.
This is what I'm angry about, what I "care" about. "You people" act immoraly and errogantly while forcibly applying rules of virtues and make self-proclamations regarding things you hold dear...if anything, YOU are the vaporware which has failed to deliver since then, now and ever. Hypocracy at its worst, and it is nothing short of utterly disgusting me.
One good thing did came out of this though, it grants me the notion of looking upon pushing further morality as part of the game's core design. Richard did good with ultima 4, sadly he forsoke soon the ideals of teaching good vs evil in his games since. He said once that games, especialy mmorpgs, should be made to educate people proper social behaviour, I believe that in a sense he is quite right. We'll see... --Ori Klein originally —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.39.117 (talk • contribs)
I'll continue to attack this on the merits of pedia's definition of vapourware, for the sake of argument since I'm such a righteous-aspiring person. Since I believe I've covered the "release" issue, skipping a bit forward..."The term implies deception, or at least unwarranted optimism; that is, it implies that the announcer knows that product development is in too early a stage to support responsible statements about its completion date, feature set, or even feasibility."
Deception this is not, never was, nor intended to be and I apologize if it has been grasped as anything of the sort.
Unwarranted optimsm, perhaps, unorginized amatuer indie developing always is and I'll be the first to admit and say that I've been part of many such and watched 90% falls through. Being a pessimistic in nature myself, this isn't easy for me to defend against, but...sigh, here's hoping. David, fail me and I'll crush your scronie(sp?) neck. ;)
Too soon? I'll acknowledge, as the article statements succinctly (and I could expand without a problem) that we're in "too early a stage" to make responsible statements probably other than "this is what we're setting out for - and this is where we are currently".
Feature set, by most is definitely something I could make a responsible statement about, of course it isn't set in stone and is subject to change, yes yes yes, but for the most part this is what I'm looking to achive (hell, the "article" is so...generic&minimized, it doesn't begin to describe what -I- will refer to as feature set), if anything I'm looking to expand and append features rather than to decrease (from the get go I'm looking at this as designing a strong highly capable engine rather than just "a game", so if anything even featuers which won't be used in the game will be available to the engine, why the fuck this is important? because "the game" will be 100% modifyable, er-go, you can use anything in the engine to change the game, IE, we're making it ships, you could make it tank wars or I dunno...does aerial monopoly sounds too far fetch? meh (lemme think about it for a few bits...well it own't be transport tycoon (aw, sweet game, thanks sawyer!) but I can definitely see key engine feature elements being redirected and geared towards such).
Completion date? Always moving, can't, didn't & won't make a "responsible" statement about. Personaly, deadlines always flactuate, I forsaw mid 2006-2007 as a good deadline with the initial progress rate for finishing the engine, however, with the current delay and to factor in a beta (as in having actualy begun to create the actual game's content) I predict it to slide well within deep 2007, perhaps even 2008? We'll see...
Feasibility? As said, independent developments tend to turn vapor/canceled/dissipate/however you may wish to call it. If we (David, or if need be ever sadly (here's hoping not) his predecessor(sp?)) stick to it I'll say that its 100% most definitely feasible, the scope is large so it simply takes time - being independant and all, but feasible? The current programing technology and what limited resources such an almost non-budget development is by far, wide and large more than the required to lunch such a thing. Of course, go pitch it to a publisher (they're all looking for quick&easy money cows that has AWEEEESOME 3D gfx and utilize the latest 3dfx card or something to the like) - it won't fly, which is why indie devs games are known for their type/genre which the pubs are scared to do and why this one is being made for free and is&will be provided for free. Meh. ^_^
Someone should sue Interplay for misusing the "by gamers for gamers" motto.
Wow, I rambled lot, but at least I'm sincere, can you say the same? What you read is what you get. Off to do some actual productive actions. --Ori Klein originally —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.39.117 (talk • contribs)
Comment: I'm not at all sure why you're apparently so interested in having an article about this game remain on Wikipedia when you also seem to be so convinced that Wikipedia is laughable and irredeemably biased. Can you explain? Catamorphism 09:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
As said, I'm not. What I am is arguing against what I perceive to be an irrational and biased act of self-induldgment. It's in my nature (or alter-ego of sorts) to fight that which I grasp as stupid and/or derived of "dark side" (hate, tyranny, censorship, greed, corruption, etc. negative/malevolent human traits), typical corporate/government/dicratorship behavior, in an essence. I'm logicaly-righteous beyond repair, it's a character flaw... ;) --Ori Klein
  • Delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 10:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete Not as per yet-unproved reasonable logic for deletion. (not using the preview feature is yet another character flaw) --Ori Klein
  • Comment: The difference between Leeroy Jenkins and this article can be found about two sections into the article on Jenkins: "Leeroy was given a substantial boost in notoriety by the publication of an article in the August 2005 issue of PC Gamer UK by author Craig Pearson, entitled 'The Ballad of Leeroy Jenkins'." Jenkins was the subject of major media attention; he was something worth writing about before he got a Wikipedia article. Has anybody other than the developers written anything about Blacksky (other than in the AfD discussion)? —C.Fred (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: AKA, Hype. As said, popularity, nothing more, nothing else. Importance, weight of the matter - so to speak, ramifications of the event in question, etc. they are all negligible. Only one thing matters on wikipedia, the one thing "online geeks" can ever agree on (couldn't notice Everquest lacks an entry, I doubt its because none attempted to create one, but rather due to the, so-called, "contributors" being unable to agree on one single fact to be a fact and not a personal oppinion), the common's concensus of the masses. I found the leeroy movie funny, but nothing beyond that. To go onto the lengths that "article" assumes and try to go...sad. It was a short fad, nothing more. No more than the "juggernaut bitch" and that starwars3-trailer-parody and so on and so forth. Amusing, good for a laugh, but not something one is to give substance and weight for. Yet, there it is. Why? One reason: "everyone loves to ""hate"" leeroy", so to speak. And of course, the large masses love WoW as well. Ori Klein 14:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Re-add if it becomes notable after its release. —This unsigned comment was added by Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep What exactly do you mean by "notable?" Notable amoungst. . .? Since the game provides real demos (I know, I've actually played them, have you?) it is obvious that this isn't just some sort of elaborate gimmick or whatever. It is an independent, and currently freeware, game that seems far more developed than most all that I have seen in sourceforge.net or other games with non-profit development strategies. How many more releases are needed before this game becomes worthy of a wikipedia page? Or does it only become real when a commercial media organization takes a break from covering one of hundreds of US criminal cases (often no longer even relating in some way to a hollywood or sports celebrity,) and provides coverage of the project? --DS —This unsigned comment was added by 69.179.59.136 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Strong Keep Sorry this is a waste of time here, just let the article go up and end this useless debate. Clearly he has something that is real and which can be played. Otherwise what is the point of having a future tag to let people know a game is under development? Oh, only the "mainstream" games currently under development can be mentioned, bunhca crap imo 12.36.117.2 18:46, 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 01:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Time Machine books

Not sure why someone would bother, but this looks like a hoax. None of these titles googles (except the first, natch). No vote for now. Denni ☯ 04:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete seems to be a hoax, couldn't find a series like the one mentioned in the article on Amazon --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN and unverifiable, at the very least. Unable to google the first book, since it matches the H. G. Wells classic. The second and fourth don't google at all. The third shows up on Amazon, with no author name and a rank over 3 million, and only used copies available. Is it possible this is an old, forgotten children's series? Fan1967 04:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax, and redirect to the real series which is at Time Machine (book series) -- Astrokey44|talk 14:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jacek Rutkowski

This article is possibly vanity and falls under WP:NOT 7:6. RobbyPrather (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable and vanity --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seems like vanity to me.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 05:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as definitely non-notable. Joe 05:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:39, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wafflefest

Prod removed. Prod text was: Not-notable wafflevanityspamcruftisement made up in school one day--Fuhghettaboutit 04:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nonsense, though its interesting to note that there actually is a relatively notable comedy festival in Texas also called "Wafflefest" [9] (but its clearly different from the festival described in the article nominated for deletion) --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wafflefest is very much a real thing and so are the ideas behind Waffle World. This is event is the creation of a group of people who share the same ideas, passions, and personalities. The idea behind the article was to produce the entire history of the event from its inception to today. People have been requesting the history of Wafflefest, so I have produced it. In my opinon, it is very notable.--MickelMouse87 05:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom (great, now I want waffles)--Tony Fox 05:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete rubbish.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not notable enough to have a wikipedia article.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 05:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not for things made up in school one day.  (aeropagitica)  06:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, WP:NFT and WP:VSCA apply. --Kinu t/c 07:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: In the case of the new article about the Austin comedy festival, I'd say no vote... my delete extends only to the original content about the non-notable Wafflefest. --Kinu t/c 08:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This appears to be the output from a forum, wdwmagic.com. How come they can't host the article, or the history of Wafflefest, on their own site? --Elkman - (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A user has changed the article to point to the comedy festival. You must go to history and open prior version to see the text underlying this AFD vote. --Fuhghettaboutit 17:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am very disappointed with all of the negativity towards Wafflefest on here. Wafflefest is far from being just something that was made in school one day. It has been in planning for month and has a good following. I'm sorry that you do not see the relevance. I felt that it was interesting thing to share with the world. Do as you wish, but I do not see the harm of restoring the article.--MickelMouse87 03:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep If the local paper writes about it, it should stay here --DragonWR12LB 07:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm assuming you're referring to the new version about the Austin comedy festival? --Kinu t/c 08:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I'm going to change the article back to the prior version. I think it's too confusing to have an open AFD with the article text not at all what is being voted on. --Fuhghettaboutit 13:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirect; if there's disagreement in the future, feel free to reverse the redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accretion_theory

My understanding is the theory is called the "nebular theory" or the "solar nebula theory" and is already covered on the article solar nebula. This Accretion_theory article is barely a start anyway. It should be deleted, and all references to this article should be directed at the existing solar nebula article. Can some other people with astronomy backgrounds concur? Myrrhlin 04:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect article to Solar nebula. However I do not know a lot about astronomy, so I'm not very sure --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to either Accretion disc or Solar nebula, as both appear to be relevant.  (aeropagitica)  06:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm borderline on this because the solar nebula article is specific to our solar system. Accretion disc is a part of the Accretion thoery, but I don't think it's the whole story. It's possible that protoplanetary disc may be closer. But "accretion theory" is the valid over-arching name, so I'm favoring keep. — RJH 16:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
(I'm new to this process-- I hope it's appropriate for me to respond in this fashion!) Can you give a reference to your statement: 'accretion theory is the valid over-arching name?' My original objection is precisely that that term is -not- the 'valid over-arching name'. Furthermore, the nebular hypothesis and theory referred specifically to our own solar system historically because there was only one solar system known-- that does not mean planetary scientists think it is not applicable to other systems, it simply means they only recently began to test it and think about revising it. an article about the solar nebula theory can't be written with complete generality to other solar systems, because there is no consensus yet in the scientific community how to improve the model. we are still very early into this process! — Myrrhlin 15:16, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Student Exchange

Subject does not seem notable or relevant ("idiosyncratic non-topic"?). Article was added by an anon user (their only contribution) in July and has not been edited since. No talk page, no internal links to or from the page, and no categories. -- Chris 05:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep if someone is able to expand it or at least make it a stub with relevant information. Dreadlady 05:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep,expand, and clean up. Its a notable organization, though I'm not sure if its only limited to Canada --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable organization. Feezo (Talk) 07:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Fine guys, have it your way. (Just kidding) Ok, I cleaned it up with some info from their website and added some links to and from. Anyone is free to clean it up further or add some info from third party sites. I don't know how long these normally stay listed (this is my first AfD), but I'm fine with keeping it since that seems to be the consensus so far. -- Chris 09:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, no, it's not (I learned this the hard way). This will have to be sorted out by an admin. However, thanks to your edits, I vote Weak keep, as it seems just notable enough. ProhibitOnions 20:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Now it works Evillan 21:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not sure how the article looked before, but it seems to be a reasonable piece about a notable organization. 23skidoo 22:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but redirect International Student Exchange to point to the existing article at student exchange. The organisation seems to be notable, but the article title implies a more general viewpoint. Ironfrost 04:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty■ 11:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claw Your Way to the Top: How to Become the Head of a Major Corporation in Roughly a Week

Page is essentially a book review, albeit one with many excerpted quotes. As a compilation, it would seem to fail WP:OR. In any case, if it is to remain as a book summary, it would need serious cleanup. Because there doesn't seem to have been a clamor for a synopsis of the book before (especially in view of only one Dave Barry work's having gotten a page), I think the article should be deleted In view of the changes made (and those that editors will surely continue to make), the article surely no longer seems to fit any particular criterion for deletion and surely belongs; consequently, keep. Joe 05:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable book, ranks #1,354,465 on Amazon --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ... and the paperback ranks 262,543, but still non-notable. Merge basic info to Dave Barry. Sandstein 06:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Add the title of the book to Dave Barry's bibliography and delete.  (aeropagitica)  06:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment The title appears on the bio in the non-fiction section. Joe 07:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Then there is no further need for this article.  (aeropagitica)  07:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable book. JIP | Talk 14:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep, non-negligible book by conspicuously notable author. Just being a lousy article isn't grounds for deleting the subject, and saying that an article should be deleted because parallel subjects don't have many articles is arguing that Wikipedia should not improve its coverage in areas where existing coverage is inadequate. Monicasdude 16:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
CommentOf course, I expect we'd quibble over where existing coverage is inadequate. Many new pages extend coverage to areas that were not previously covered, but many of those areas are not covered for a reason. When I noted that only one of Dave Barry's non-fic works has a page, I meant to suggest that a consensus already existed to the effect that the books were non-notable; one may perhaps disagree as to the propriety of my making this inference or to the validity or veracity of the inference. Notwithstanding that, I adduce the Wikipedia page for Al Franken's wonderful Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations. The differences between that page and the current one are readily apparent. It is always my policy to vote "delete" where a page is wholly substandard, even if I believe the topic of the page to merit inclusion here. General policy would seem to suggest that my voting is inappropriate, but one also observes that, at WP:DGFA, it is suggested that, as one deletes an article, he/she may, believing that the article should exist in a different format, instead list the article at WP:RA. I am always concerned about votes to keep deficient articles, because those who say that the articles should be cleaned up rather than deleted don't often take part in the cleaning up (I don't fault anyone for this; it's very easy to take on other projects here and to forget what one intended to do). Joe 20:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep. Notable book by a very notable author. The only one of his non-fiction books with a blue link, which makes me very sad. These need to be filled in, not erased. Grandmasterka 20:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Good point. The subject matter is certainly notable in my opinion, but this should be deleted and started over (I could probably write about a few of his red-linked books...) Grandmasterka 23:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Keep rewritten article. Grandmasterka 05:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, rewrote article - it's still a stub, but it's NPOV and rewritten with a stub tag, a category, an ext link, etc. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not every book by every notable author needs an article. Catamorphism 03:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Dave barry is very notable. He writes for the New york times. He has sevral books published. I own many of his books. He is very notable. I hear people talking about him all the time. There are articles for far less notable books. Tobyk777 05:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, reasonable book stub for notable work. -Colin Kimbrell 14:43, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan Institute of National Affairs

  • Delete as article on a non-notable organization. Google search yields under 200 results. Topmost being this small article from Wikipedia. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete as non-notable organization --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom unless notability established. Does not assert it, so could maybe be speedied by applying various CSDs per analogiam. Sandstein 06:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if it were notable, address information does not belong in Wikipedia, and what would be left then would be a useless sub-stub. - Andre Engels 08:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Nigelthefish 16:26, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upside down font

Not particularly verifiable, it's written as though it's a very weak spoiler encryption technique along the lines of ROT13. If there's a page on "webpage spoiler hiding", it deserves to be merged there, otherwise it should probably be weakly deleted. I've listed it primarily because it was tagged as speedy, which I don't think applies. stillnotelf has a talk page 05:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as having no sources and nothing on Google, original research, WP:NFT. Sandstein 06:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The Upside Down "font" is intended to be read left to right, but only as if the monitor is rotated 180 degrees. This is notable in what way? Original research covers this - look for the guy with the upside-down monitor.  (aeropagitica)  06:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and speedy BJAODN, as it reads like it's honestly trying to pass itself as a legitimate "encryption" method. --Kinu t/c 07:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. - Andre Engels 08:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN or plain delete. OR and non-notable. JIP | Talk 14:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm the original author. I'll accept deletion due to original research criteria. I've used the font/encryption method personally for several years. Crythias 16:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per author. Perhaps BJAODN too. --Karnesky 16:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real music

Prodded as original research rant, and that's what it is. PROD contested by author, so here we are. Sandstein 06:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Joe 06:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research, random list of Myspace band pages, no claims to notability or authority of such a list.  (aeropagitica)  07:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any article that announces itself as "(sarcasm)" has no place here. · rodii · 13:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR. From myspace it came, and to myspace it should return. Fan1967 13:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a great source for new bands for people to learn of.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahProffer (talk • contribs)

Including your own, which just happens to be on the list. · rodii · 21:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Do I know you? Anyway, that was for a little self-promotion, I meant it completely modestly, but I just thought that I would add it onto the list. How did you know that anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahProffer (talk • contribs)

I assume that's intended for me. It's because you used your real name and my magical friend Google checked it out. Self-promotion, or, really, promotion, is not what Wikipedia is about; not is it a web directory for people to find new bands (or stuff). It's an encyclopedia. I applaud your impulse to share good stuff with people, but not here. Actually, your user page would be a fine place for this. (PS: Please sign your posts by appending four tildes, like so: ~~~~.) · rodii · 12:41, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 09:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Added {{deleted}} as well. — xaosflux Talk 01:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Room 21three

  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}}

Re-re-re-re-created speedy deleted room, ensuring conensus for last delete-- — xaosflux Talk 06:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • DELETE, I've already speedily deleted this article 3 times, yet the article creator keeps recreating it. I suggest a block. --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and protect, as has already been done with Room 213; consider a block. bikeable (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Truly Genius article. I saw a documentary on WHYY PBS out of Philly on this remarkable living arrangement. The comparisons to Haight-Ashbury were particularly poignant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.127.29 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment This is a film project put on by our film production company, these are the basic premises of a new modern/independent film we are making. It is just about college life/discussions in the modern era. It's a project for our school, we thought the ideas/rhetoric of common college students would be educational and deserved to be up on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thursday615 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment A rising success where many others have failed. Reminds me of the years of planning I went through in college to finish a similar project. Great to have for future research.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.123.190 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Joke article? --KJ 07:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Upon creating Wikipedia in 1992, I expected it to become a bulwark of academic discussion and a key point on the web for democractic dissemination of ideas. That being said, I think these boys' article might just be crazy enough to work. Let's give them a shot [User: Creator of Wikipedia] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.127.29 (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy delete: G4 and protect as recreation of deleted material. --Kinu t/c 07:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and protect per Kinu. --Khoikhoi 08:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and protect recreation of deleted nonsense. Weregerbil 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRCmax

Delete. Spam. CharacterZero 06:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Nonsense. Kukini 06:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert and per WP:WEB (no assertion or proof provided of notability). --TeaDrinker 06:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable website, advertisement --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisment for a non-notable web-based something, written in the first person by a sysadmin. WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  06:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    Comment How exactly do you think WP:WEB applies here? We are talking about an IRC network. It isn't content and it isn't distributed on the web. kotepho 22:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wash it off. Delete the patent nonsense.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, urgh, get it out of my sight. Disgusting. JIP | Talk 14:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely non-notable IRC network. Info from netsplit
17:21 [ircmax] -!- Welcome to the IRCMax IRC Network
17:21 [ircmax] -!- Your host is IRC.IRCMax.NET, running version Unreal3.2.3
17:21 [ircmax] -!- This server was created Tue Jan 24 2006 at 04:47:52 CST
17:21 [ircmax] -!- There are 42 users and 23 invisible on 9 servers
17:21 [ircmax] -!- 25 operator(s) online
17:21 [ircmax] -!- 25 channels formed
17:21 [ircmax] -!- I have 14 clients and 7 servers
17:21 [ircmax] -!- Current Local Users: 14  Max: 287
17:21 [ircmax] -!- Current Global Users: 65  Max: 544
17:21 [ircmax] -!- - IRC.IRCMax.NET Message of the Day -
Not to mention that the article is horrible too. kotepho 22:19, 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 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 123 Book

Advertisement for a Hong Kong coupon book. I fail to see the notability here. PROD removed without comment. Sandstein 06:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, a book of coupons is obviously not notable enough for Wikipedia --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable book, no Amazon rank. (I couldn't resist.) --Kinu t/c 07:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete now. obvious advertising. Dolive21 11:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Retain this is a product description, absent any sales pitch. it is no different than the myriad of articles written on other products. are the video game articles produced by user TBC any more relevant or notable? Are these advertisements? if you feel the description is unobjective, edit it. Major book sellers have taken note (other than Amazon), heaps of restaurants, and loads of charities have also taken notice. No reason to delete a simple product description & one that could actually help people (charities, consumers, visitors, businesses).
    • Then please refer us to another article about a book of coupons. (Those should probably go too.) --Kinu t/c 21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ratbot

The page is about a computer program used by a high school, so I'm guessing its not very notable (no hits for it on google). It also mentions a quake bot, no idea how notable that is. The article is badly written, so if it were to stay it would need a good clean up. I think the article should just redirect to Guided rat. - dr.alf 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable video game --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT for class projects Deizio 00:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons listed above. HistoryBA 21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Saribay

Apparent vanity bio: teenager whose claim to fame is that he founded a website that is of dubious notability itself. Sandstein 06:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO and WP:Vanity refer. Photograph is unappealing. Macteens gets an Alexa rank of 173,410, by the way.  (aeropagitica)  06:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, non-notable and vanity --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete wonderful, an article about myself. Flattering, but uh- I'm no more notable than others on the Mac web who do not currently have articles (of which, probably shouldn't either.) Photo was grabbbed from my userspace, it appears. I wouldn't support a AFD on Macteens for the same reasons/validation (Alexa on a site targeted to Mac users exclusively is not going to yield promising results), but this can go. Chris Saribay 11:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, nn. I don't see what criteria Macteens is notable under either, I've asked for its importance and WP:WEB compliance to be clarified. Deizio 01:10, 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 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Darius

"Darius is also the author of several self-published books..." Bzzt! Delete as vanity bio of a non-notable person (WP:BIO). Sandstein 06:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable biography of a self-published PhD student, WP:Vanity, Wikipedia:Autobiography and WP:BIO all refer.  (aeropagitica)  06:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable and vanity --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all Evillan 21:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete you beat me to it, I was just about to prod this. Darius is not notable within the field of comics scholarship as yet. I've spoken to User:Phil Sandifer and he agrees on this too. Hiding talk 23:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nothing in the current form of the article is worth keeping, including its basic approach to the subject. Phil Sandifer 22:56, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 09:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Games Guru

Delete. He does sound pretty unbeatable... CharacterZero 06:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, nn-bio. Mike (T C) 07:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete non-notable player, vanity --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, no matter how amusing, has no place here. Tombride 07:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  09:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earth Riser

Delete non-notable webcomic. Fails WP:WEB. No apparent media coverage. Very few relevant Google hits (many false hits for the brand of bicycle), and Google shows nothing linking to it outside of its host site.[10] These reasons were put forth in a {{prod}}; the article's only author removed it without addressing any of the issues (though he took the time to add such highly relevant wikilinks as fire, earth and life). Postdlf 07:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. (I was going to nom this but stopped after typing in the afd1 template, hoping someone else would come and do it for me. My laziness prevails once again) --Rory096 08:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable webcomic --TBC??? ??? ??? 08:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Comixpedia, then delete. -Colin Kimbrell 14:45, 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 both articles. Mailer Diablo 01:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ROFX releases publishing system, ROFX format

Delete - Alexa lists website as ~2million. No claim of notability. Also, corporate vanity/spam. Wickethewok 08:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advertisement. "Put your spam on Wikipedia and we'll NPOV it for you" should not be our way of working. - Andre Engels 08:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - user appears to be adding more spam, will add here as it appears. Wickethewok 08:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisement --TBC??? ??? ??? 08:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spamvertising. Feezo (Talk) 09:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a spam and some commercial links posting. The ROFX system is the free of charge system and helps for publishers to spread their releases using this system! Why don't you delete Electronic_press_kit page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rofx team (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - if it becomes widely used, then it will notable enough for Wikipedia. WP is not a place for getting the word out on your new products. Wickethewok 23:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WTF, press release? Haikupoet 03:48, 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 15:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zikan

Continuing the clean-up of Soviet WWII articles, this is another highly suspect article which deals with a person never identified by name, but referenced once in a single non-authoritative book. Wikipedia cannot afford to be misused to further misinformation, simply because much of the Western world is ignorant of Soviet WWII personalities. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 08:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete as unverifiable. The book "Stalingrad" does mention Zikan — in exactly the one sentence mentioned in the article. Googling for "Zikan sniper" seems to reveal that same sentence copied verbatim (and a lot of Call of Duty players with that nick). Since Zikan means "cheater" etc there is a good chance he was a war propaganda hoax. Unless sources surface either delete, or mention the probability of war propagaganda in the article. A published book and a couple of hundred ghits — just on the fence of being a notable hoax. Weregerbil 13:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless better verified. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note possible propaganda as per Weregerbil. If Zikan really existed, Wikipedia should have an entry on him(or her), and if not, the possibility of a hoax should be clearly noted, rather than allowing people to make conclusions without all the facts. Yvh11a 17:00, 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 01:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Bischoff, Jeff Bischoff, Herr Wunderbar, Jeffrey David Bischoff

Delete - was prodded, upon a google search few relevant notable results. Wickethewok 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable person, only 191 Google results --TBC??? ??? ??? 08:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable person, possibly vanity. Feezo (Talk) 09:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, vanity. Deizio 01:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:11, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Baptiste Sipido

CSD was challenged on th talk page, therefore we need a discussion on this one paragraph entry with no context, references, or statement of notability. I'd vote delete. Harro5 09:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable person, only 29 Google results [11] --TBC??? ??? ??? 09:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was never a legitimate speedy candidate, as mentioning somebody as having attempted to assassin the Prince of Wales is, at the very least, an "assertion of notability". I've found a few references. The Times (obviously) reported on the case, There is an article by a "Dr Speyer" (no first name is mentioned), "The Legal Aspects of the Sipido Case", in the Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 1900. There is also an entry for him in the WBIS Online with a reference to a Belgian biographical dictionary (I'll see if I can find that one in the library). As an alternative, we could consider deleting Sipido and adapt Wikipedia policy to report on things in exact proportion to the number of Google hits, in which case we really need to get up to speed with increasing our coverage of naked blonde women with big boobs. u p p l a n d 10:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Except they dont need to be blonde Im ok with that Defunkier 13:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I challenged the CSD, so here's why: Sipido took part in a real, if minor, historical event that played a part both in the history of anarchism and the history of the British Empire. An assasination attempt on the heir to the British throne during a time of imperial war is important and notable. I'd like to see a better article here (it should be tagged {{expand}} and probably {{cleanup}} too) but I don't believe this should be deleted. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should cover this sort of material. Gwernol 13:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Back from the library. The Belgian Biographie nationale, vol. 42 (1981), has a fairly long article on Sipido on pp. 662-679. A Google Books search also turns up a couple of useful hits. u p p l a n d 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if expanded. At the very least, the article needs to decide whether it is about the event (in which case the title changes) or the person (in which case it needs to be rewritten as a biography). JPD (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see anything in notability criteria that distinguishes between assassins who shoot and kill, assassins who shoot and wound, and assassins who shoot and miss. Squeaky Fromme, John Hinckley, Leon Czolgosz. Monicasdude 16:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep An assassination or attempted assassination of an important person makes him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 23:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up per above Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs work, but worthy of coverage. -Colin Kimbrell 14:48, 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 01:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ossanz

Delete - webspage with no Alexa.com info, makes nn. Also spam/corporate vanity. Wickethewok 09:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as spam. Feezo (Talk) 13:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam Nigelthefish 16:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of notability Deizio 01:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Makeaquiz.net

Seems largely autobiographical, numerous grammatical errors, no pages link here, seems to add nothing to the content of wikipedia

  • Delete — vanity for nn site. Feezo (Talk) 10:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable site, fails WP:WEB --TBC??? ??? ??? 16:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per TBC --Karnesky 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:11, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agenparl

Delete. Vanity or vain page. No link to this page. Panairjdde 10:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep, article appears verifiable, press service is presumably notable, and vanity alone isn't grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 16:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If it is important, why no other article links to it? Are we going to have an article for every press agency in the world?--Panairjdde 16:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Those aren't even close to grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 17:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let's revert the question. Is it important? No, delete.--Panairjdde 18:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Unimportant isn't the same as non-notable, otherwise articles like Bulbasaur, Air Force Amy, and Phil Linz would be long gone. Monicasdude 19:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Phil Linz?! Why are we picking on Phil Linz? He hit two home runs in the 1964 World Series - not too many people can say that! —Wknight94 (talk) 22:24, 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 02:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Nackman

Delete This article appears to have been written by the subject of the article. Sperril 10:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Needs some cleanup, but appears to meet WP:Music. Feezo (Talk) 13:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Vanity alone is not grounds for deletion, article plainly asserts notability under WP:MUSIC criteria (national/international touring), and nominator doesn't challenge accuracy/verifiability of article. Monicasdude 16:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It does seem to be a musician of enough standing as to deserve his entry, but as it stands, it's badly done and does not quote any sources for the very upbeat assertions in the entry. Needs significant cleanup to turn it from a press release to an entry, but that is not enough for deletion, I would think... Evillan 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'll clean up in a minute. Allmusic.com verifies. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, cleaned it up some. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since meets WP:MUSIC, Monica, please remember WP:AGF. I don't see any evidence of bad faith here. JoshuaZ 04:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. We can disagree about whether there is sufficient evidence of bad faith, but to say there is no evidence at all is not, I think, a reasonable position. Nominator 1) stated an invalid ground for deletion and 2) ignored a clear assertion of notability satisfying WP:MUSIC. Monicasdude 14:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks to me like nominator simply had a misunderstanding of the rules for vanity articles. If you prefer, replace "any evidence" with "at all strong evidence." Furthermore, such an error probably is under WP:BITE. JoshuaZ 14:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      WP:BITE applies to newcomers, not to somebody who first edited about nine months ago. Isn't it also fair to ask you to apply WP:AGF to yourself and consider that some of us might actually check on that point when making a statement here?Monicasdude 15:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, I guess we looked at different things. You looked and saw that the user had been around for 9 months, I looked at his contribution list, of which he has a total of 150 or so edits, only about 6 of which are to deletion related pages. So for all intensive purposes Sper is a newcomer IMO. (I think I may need a wikibreak when I'm arguing over the proper application of WP:AGF and WP:BITE ah well...). JoshuaZ 15:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm also sorry, but I do still consider myself a newcomer. After reading the relevent links that both of you have posted, I agree with the sentiments of those who voted to keep. I assure everyone involved that I had no prior knowledge of who Alex Nackman was, and did not act with any bad faith or malice whatsoever. I do maintain my position that persons who are intimatly involved with a biographical subject should refrain from creating articles about the subject because of the possibility of bias. I also disagree with the definition of notablility that is used under WP:MUSIC. That being said, it is an agreed upon policy that I'm now familiar with and will abide by. I was also unaware that the very act of putting an article up for a vote could be considered bad faith and I promise to use a lighter hand in the future. Upon reviewing the history of the article, I think that MusicMan5 has done a very good job in updating the article to be more in line of something approaching encyclopedic, but I still think the article reads like an advertisement for the musician. I have found reviews online that are both supportive of, and critical of the artist and the article falsely indicates that the press is only supportive of Nackman. In any case, I will not edit the article because of the accusation of bad faith on my part. -- Sperril 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the author, but not the artist. I used to manage the artist, so I know him well. I certainly wasn't deliberately trying to break any rules. I hope the article can stay. I tried to correct some of the mistakes with citing sources. -MusicMan5
  • Keep. The notability of the subject is clearly established by the article. Carlo 15:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be notable enough per WP:MUSIC. I see no bad faith in the nomination. --kingboyk 13:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject seems important enough. But the article needs significan restructuring. --Soumyasch 13:21, 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miloš Zahradník

  1. Substubby, unmaintained.
  2. Founded by his co-author (of an elementary undergraduate textbook) and obviously friend.
  3. I sincerely doubt his notability: he's just another of dozens (or hundreds?) of Czech assistant professors (? the Czech title is docent) teaching teaching mathematics, or whatever it is - even his official department page is pretty much empty template, no publications to be seen. Nothing much elsewhere in Google, except from white noise from a TV station manager of the same name. --Malyctenar 10:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Apparently notable as published author; having a lousy personal web page isn't grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 16:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per MD. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Long way from convinced subject is notable as a published author per WP:BIO, certainly not as a professor. Deizio 01:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment mathscinet returns 17 papers mainly in mathematical physics and statistical mechanics, none of them seem to be in very notable journals, although two of them are in the Journal of Statistical Physics which may be a significant journal in that field (I don't know much about mathematical physics). No vote for now. JoshuaZ 04:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    Comment -- JSP is a pretty strong journal in its field. --Deville (Talk) 05:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I get 29 hits at MathSciNet. [12] -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm sorry, I just redid the search and got 29 also. I have no idea why I thought it was 17. JoshuaZ 06:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It certainly doesn't appear to me that his linear algebra book is all that well known. For all I know, it could be just another one of hundreds of textbooks that appear and vanish into oblivion every few years. If any of the folks who found reason to find the book notable care to explain to me why, I would be more than happy to change my mind. Otherwise, I don't really see how it benefits Wikipedia to accumulate articles on random textbook authors. --C S (Talk) 03:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Deville's comment and 29 general hits on mathscinet. JoshuaZ 05:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noran bakrie

Non-notable web artist. 12 Google hits. Instead of speedy, I chose prod, but the prod tag was removed, so I am taking this here. Delete. Kusma (討論) 10:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Feezo (Talk) 13:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, possible vanity ect... Nigelthefish 14:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN, promotional. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:11, 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 gone. DS 15:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foglerapz

Non-notable rap song, scores a magic 0 googlehits [13]. Eivindt@c 11:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No evidence of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Obvious hoax. Feezo (Talk) 13:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. --Hyperbole 23:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Tagged. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 14:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted article or A7 biography. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Gnass

Someone's nn high-school teacher. Article was speedied but author deleted the tag and inserted a reference to him being named as an important philosopher, which is probably bogus. Article doesn't claim any actual philosophical achievements, for one thing --Aim Here 11:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Edgar181; 3 Google hits. Feezo (Talk) 13:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Web-cv of nn teacher. Work experience as "Assistant bovine hormone injector and Feedlot Grunt-worker" is not notability. Deizio 01:21, 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. Sango123 (e) 02:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gapping

Neologism from the future? Crystal bollocks? Eivindt@c 11:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This has got to be a joke. Nothing else links to it. Dolive21 11:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pure nonsense. Davelong 12:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Crystal bollocks sounds quite a delicate condition!  (aeropagitica)  13:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as patent nonsense. Feezo (Talk) 13:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Patent nonsense, as is the other article created by Scorpio 518 (talk · contribs), Round buildings. Fan1967 17:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. He can't even spell "vestigial ". Gwernol 18:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Vestigial's not that common a word. I'm more bothered that he can't spell "rabbit". Fan1967 18:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Obvious silliness. Evillan 21:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete G1 patent nonsense. Deizio 01:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: Hoax. (Although I think there is a real term 'gapping' with respect to spark plug adjustment.) Peter Grey 06:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to spark plug per Peter Gray. Haikupoet 03:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:11, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casandra Stark

This article was written by User:Roger Quid thirteen days ago, which amounted to his only contributions ever. It has been tagged for verification, importance explanation and clean-up, but looking at the history or the user contributions doesn't look like it will ever be fixed. Delete as a non-notable film maker. JIP | Talk 11:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Cult film-maker of little note. No claims to notability in article. Did her films win awards or receive critical acclaim? There may be a case for retention if evidence to this effect could be provided. WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  13:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup, following addition of references to article and comments below.  (aeropagitica)  14:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable - I came across this when I was AfD listing Wooden Thomas which was deleted. I doubt it'll be fixed and even so I don't think it's a notable person. MLA 13:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, bordering on strong keep. Films are verifiable, treated as notable by press which covers "transgressive art." Probably best seen as a cult figure, but her work has been anthologized in the company of clearly substantive figures like Ferlinghetti. Monicasdude 15:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Aero. Deizio 01:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. again, per Aero Deizio 14:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep assuming she is the person listed as IMDB here: [14]. JoshuaZ 04:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I added a reference, IMDb link, categories and fixed a red link from Cinema of Transgression where she was already named but with the wrong spelling. Could still use cleanup. Esquizombi 13:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Would anyone have any objection to me removing the "importance" tag? The citations and cleanup ones should stay. Esquizombi 02:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep reasonable notability; the Sonic Youth/Richard Kern association is significant. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Boatman

  • Delete as biography of non-notable person. I did not speedy it as some claim of notability has been made, but is not substantiated by any evidence. Google searches confirmed my suspicion. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete No apparent notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep on the basis that his company[15] is the sole distributor of the Taser in Britain, and it is a controversial weapon. He has been the subject of some articles and interviews on the topic of non-lethal weaponry. He may also be somewhat controversial as he held a 50% stake in the company while still serving as a police officer. — RJH 16:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If the company is notable, the article should be on the company itself. Note that he is just a Director of Operations. When there isn't an article on the company, should there be an article on its Director(Sales). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable as a figure in an ongoing public controversy in the UK. Interesting. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please elaborate the controversy you are talking about so that we can take a better(informed) decision. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
A primer - (article from the Times). Guy's a real slimebag, and the Taser thing is an emerging issue everywhere as a new form or arbitrary and uncontrolled police power over civilians. Notable issue, notable controversy, notable player in controversy. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bobby. JoshuaZ 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, of marginal notability. I added a badly needed source to the article. In my opinion voting To my mind, opining keep for an article that lacks any verifiable sources is not good practice. Sliggy 10:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Afd is not a vote. -Colin Kimbrell 14:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You are of course quite right, and I'm sorry for my sloppy English. Sliggy 15:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No Google news hits, a little over 50 non-Wikipedia regular Google hits. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:10, 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 SPEEDY KEEP. Harro5 05:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Island Sound

non-notable, almost no google verification, only results are for [16] which has nothing to with this--152.163.100.13 11:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

my mistake. change non-notable baseball team, to non-notable basketball team, still falls short of notability, as the new google search obviously confirms--152.163.100.13 15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since the sports organization the team belongs to already has its own article, the team should have one too. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 11:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep This team meets every single criteria for retention as a professional sports team playing in the American Basketball Association. The nominator seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that the Strong Island Sound is in fact a basketball team, despite the fact that it is the seventh word in the article, within the name of the league in which it participates. The first Google search provided only lists 40 hits, which could be because the nominator appended "baseball team" to the search; that anything was found by that search is a borderline miracle. The second Google search provided as "justification" for the AfD lists 11,700 references to the team itself, which has everything to do with why it should be retained immediately as a Speedy Keep. This is yet another unfortunate example of how the AfD process is misused and abused, and why AfD's should NOT be accepted from IP Addresses. Please actually READ the article before ignorantly suggesting it be deleted. Alansohn 12:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a nice lecture and everything, but since you wrote the article, obviously you feel it's notable, but thanks for making a cheap shot about how anons shouldn't create afds, guess what, anons can't create afd pages or any pages for that matter, seems like someone else should pay more attention before pointing fingers, and it isn't me. A non-notable basketball team isn't any better than a non-notable baseball team--152.163.100.13 15:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The "Strong Island Sound" Google search is up to 11,800 items, almost all of which are clearly referring to the professional basketball team in question. The fact that a search appending "basketball" yields a smaller number of hits is not only irrelevant to justifying an AfD (after all, most people don't refer to a team with the name of the sport included), but the nunber of pages found, in and of itself, is evidence of notability. The fact that this IP Address user's entire experience on Wikipedia consists of two AfD's should also be cause for concern. Alansohn 15:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • and by the time you get to the 3rd or 4th page of strong island sound the results haven little or nothing to do with the team, and are simply puns of the phrase "strong island" and "long island sound"--152.163.100.13 15:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, not to mention only 260 unique results anyway, and that's for 'strong island sound'--152.163.100.13 16:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I am NOT the author of the article, as a prefunctory review of the article's history would have shown. I did not touch this article until some three months after its creation, when I linked here from another article (that I had also not created) that was in my sphere of interest in Wikiproject New Jersey. The article was wikified and copyedited and -- both then and now -- deserves to be retained. This article meets every single objective criterion for notability for a professional sports team. Google is simply not enough to justify keeping OR DELETING an article. There is no arbitrary threshhold number of pages that you could specify that would justify deletion of this article, given its content and nature. Please find some objective standard that this article doesn't meet and let's stop with the Google War. Alansohn 16:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speed Keep per Alansohn. Bucketsofg 12:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This appears to be as notable as the other blue-linked teams on the American Basketball Association article page. A Google search provides 540 hits with the search term '"Strong Island Sound" +basketball'. This could be a bad-faith nomination on the part of the IP adress nominator.  (aeropagitica)  13:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not everything with google hits is notable, and certianly 500 or so hits is not automatically criteria for notability--152.163.100.13 15:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Minor league professional sports teams are generally notable, certainly as notable as Pokemon characters and Air Force Amy. Monicasdude 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong (almost speedy) keep. Minor leagues and their teams are usually notable, but especially a team that's a part of something with the history and recognition of the ABA. If its an expansion team it might not google too well right now, but it is notable. Grandmasterka 18:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Professional basketball team. As notable as any other new-ABA team. No contest here. --Kinu t/c 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep As the anon obviously made a mistake and didn't know what they were nominating. Mistakes are ok, if you can admit when you make one. One more reason not to allow anon noms. --Rob 19:31, 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 Speedily deleted since the intersection of notable musicians and musicians with Myspace pages is the null set. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loyd

Non-notable amateur musician. Author deleted {{db-bio}} without comment. Henning Makholm 11:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete stick the {{db-bio}} back on it.--Blue520 12:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sacred Knights

I doubt this passes WP:SOFTWARE[17] Eivindt@c 11:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penguinoids

Simple flash game which has no features that distiguish it from the thousands of others out there. At best it may warrant a mention in the "variants" section of breakout. Deli nk 13:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable flash game. JIP | Talk 14:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Un bidonville

Badly named article, with content half original research, half already contained in shanty town (where bidonville already redirects). No sources. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is offering an explanation to the word 'bidonville' in addition to the aticle mentioned above. It should not be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordj005 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eivindt@c 19:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Etheridge

  • Delete: My name is Dan Etheridge, and I'm not entirely sure how my details got logged onto Wiipedia in the first place. Flattering as it is, I would agree that I'm a non notable, so do delete me... but surely you must have heard of Derrick Evans, my good friend?

Non-notable biography. {{db-bio}} tag deleted without comment. Weregerbil 13:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete as Mr Etheridge is an integral person in the Soul Action and Soul Survivor charity. His ongoing work and research into social injustice is important for the devloping world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.163.70 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete the article seems to be mainly a list of the reasons why Mr. Etheridge is non-notable. Makes its own case. Gwernol 14:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. The article is not about his charitable work. The article describes an amateur DJ and record collector, and does not establish notability. Fan1967 14:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pretty much just vanity.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 15:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -Andrewduffell 21:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Irrelevant. Befriending someone as an achievement reads as groupie talk, not as a reason for inclusion here. Evillan 21:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Squelchies

This is a non-notable online game. Where (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This isn't really of sufficient importance to warrant inclusion. The article looks nice though - hopefully User:BioTube will contribute some more. Politepunk 23:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable webgame. Stifle 20:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: BioTube (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) removed the AFD notice from this article in this edit. Stifle 20:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I removed it because the article is just fine. I include a new template to explain my reason. Check the top of the page. BioTube
  • Delete Whether a subject is notable and verifiable does not depend on how many other wikipedia articles link to it. If this was a notable web game (e.g. had been written up in a computer mag for use of new technology, or is verifiably the first or most something) it would be notable period. Thatcher131 22:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave it: The article expands on an otherwise ambiguous list. Therefore, there is no reason to delete it other than personal vendetta. BioTube
  • Comment: As a side note, the "policy" this article is proposed for deletion under is not official, only proposed. BioTube 20:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This is true. However, it has been a de-facto standard for quite a bit. If we included an article on every little thing, it would be harder to maintain article quality. If you would like to discuss why you think the article should be included, please state your reasoning. Where (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Game names mean little. Without a description, nothing can be concluded from the name. Since one game on the same list had an article(Lottso!), I believed it acceptable to start one for another two(Squelchies and PoppaZoppa(which I notice is not up for deletion)). Unless you want all three of the game articles deleted, do not target any of them. BioTube 01:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that game names mean little without a description, so perhaps it would be a good idea to shorten the list to just a couple of games, or just to add a short one sentence description after each game. I'm not sure. I think it would actually be a good idea to put the other non-notable games up for deletion, but that we should wait for this debate to finish first. Where (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
For most games a one line description should do. We'll have to wait and see if others require a larger one. BioTube 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into main article about website and Delete. -- infinity0 15:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 13:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see any evidence of encyclopedia-level notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with the list(Pogo.com). BioTube 17:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Eivindt@c 18:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Impossible to have articles on every little online game found somewhere, so unless this is a particularly noteworthy one (article does not indicate this is the case), it should go. Henning Makholm 23:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn webgame Deizio 01:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, webcruft. Catamorphism 03:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN game. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daystar (hacker culture)

Unverified non-notable neologism/dicdef. This search returns a lot of mirrors and other sites probably not consider reliable sources. Even if it is a term it wide use it should be moved to Wiktionary. --CrypticBacon 21:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Already in Wiktionary, actually. I'll add a link accordingly. If this is deleted, Daystar (the disambiguation page) should be updated to have a link to Sun in place of the link to this article. My vote is Keep, because this term is not a neologism. I've found use of the term (in this sense) on USENET as early as 1999; earlier usage might be found with a more thorough search. Here are some early (1999/2000) uses I've found:
Reference from 2000: [18] Another reference from 2000: [19] From 1999: [20]
For reference, better search terms than "daystar hacker" would be something like "evil Daystar" or "rumors of the Daystar". Those appear to be the primary early usage contexts, although we cannot discount "Daystar" by itself. Unfortunatly, the prevalence of other meanings makes it hard to distinguish. "Hacker" as as search term is pretty useless, though; there's no indication that "hacker" would be likely to be found in close proximity to "daystar". Powers 02:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok, so even if it's verified, notable, and not a neologism, isn't it still just a dicdef? I mean, how is this word, as a concept or an idea, notable? My vote still stands for delete. --CrypticBacon 07:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    It's hard to say. I'm not entirely clear on what constitutes a dicdef, really. I'm not going to put up a big fuss if the consensus is to delete. =) Powers 12:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral I think it is certainly not a neologism and has seen decently widespread usage. I'm pretty sure you could count the Penny Arcade strip where tycho is in all black with his girlfriend and a motorcycle helmet and buys ice cream in the same light (even if it does not specifically use daystar), but I cannot seem to find it on short notice. Can this grow beyond a dicdef? I'm not sure... thus the neutral. kotepho 17:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge into Daystar as a dicdef. Nifboy 18:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: *raised eyebrow* I'm not sure this needs its own article. — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep This might not be the most remarkably notable term, but it can still probably be fleshed out into something beyond a mere dicdef. -Rikoshi 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. Mukadderat 18:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - top three google entries are from wikipedia. -- infinity0 21:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 13:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef Eivindt@c 18:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it can be expanded. How did the term originate and such. Dicdef only applies if the page can never be more then a dicdef. -Mask 18:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef. Nothing encyclopedic to say about this piece of jargon. Henning Makholm 23:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef, plus I hang out in geek circles and have never heard anyone say this. Catamorphism 03:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Catamorphism. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. --Khoikhoi 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CKX, Inc.

Advertisement, text copied from the company's website. I PRODded it but it was contested by the article's creator [21]. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 14:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Keep (changed to Keep following Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr.'s edit) there's so much to dislike about this article. The content is a direct lift from the one linked webpage (could be copy-vio?). Its horrible vacuous management speak. As it stands this article is horrible. But, the company owns Graceland and the rights to Elvis Presley's image. That's pretty notable. I'd much rather see this properly wikified and expaanded than just deleted. Like it or not, companies like this are an important part of our contemporary world and an encyclopedia should cover them. Sigh, Gwernol 18:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and keep - It owns the rights to Elvis and part of the rights to the Idols franchise; that's notable enough for me, even if all we can get is a stub.— stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 18:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and keep as above; the company's notable. ProhibitOnions 21:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As much as the company itself may be relevant, the entry is badly done and shouldn't stay there until someone does rewrite it. If there are wikipedians knowledgeable enough about the topic, they'll do a new entry. Meanwhile, it is against the purpose of Wikipedia. Evillan 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - gotta agree with Evillan on this. You can't just slap up your corporate spam on WP and expect others to NPOV it. Wickethewok 23:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrote - keep Notable company. Cleaned and rewrote; now a valid corp-stub with useful info. Still needs verification and some work. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Elvis connections creates reasonable notability. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:15, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Almighty Saints

Original research, gangcruft. While this may be a legitimate gang, all of the information in the article comes from "Official gang websites" and not from other sources. As gangmembers themselves are likely writing this page and the source sites, this thus qualifies as original research. I had tagged it at one point for cleanup, the successive editors 70.235.210.206 (talk · contribs) and Samtron (talk · contribs) simply removed the tags without further edits. The first editor has only done one edit to WP, this article. The latter editor has only worked on two articles, this one and People Nation, an article which may be gang/listcruft, but at least it's not original research, as it has a valid reference. み使い Mitsukai 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Article was recently blanked by 70.225.237.242. --Hetar 20:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. --Ezeu 02:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Gang life is a real in this world; don’t just put it in the back burner.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samtron (talk • contribs) 14 March 2006.
  • Delete, nn-gang. Stifle 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep what is the Difference between this page and the Latin Kings page???—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.221.242 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: Frankly, that one is close to gangcruft as well, as the vast majority of it is unverified and original research. It hasn't been AFD'd because 1. it's got a legitmate link, unlike the above article, and 2. I wasn't aware of its existence. Bear in mind that now that you've mentioned it, it will probably be looked at and some editor may decide to put it up for AFD as well.--み使い Mitsukai 18:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Gang life is a real in Chicago. As for what I know about the Roman Saints, or the later the Saints, the author has taken great pain in putting together the history of a club where there wasn't a lot of references. Considering that Wikipedia allowed someone to refer to the Hells Angels as a motorcycle Gang verses a MC Club, I think the Saints entry has a lot of merit. Unless Wikipedia wants to eliminate the history of gangs altogether - which means Al Capone, John Gotti, and any organized crime must be deleted, I think gangs are a big part of American History. PS: There are people who are interested in gangs and study them, plain and simple, and are not gang members.151.198.117.251 06:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)151.198.117.251 18:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)jbutera

I suggest this author then provide some links that prove the gang exists or was a part of Chicago History like: The Saints to help the people understand better. jbutera 00:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)jbutera

  • Keep. This gang is real and the article probably just needs to be cleaned up. Not sure why people think this is a hoax when the Chicago Tribune did a feature on the gang and its history in 1998 [22] -- JJay 03:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't recall anyone saying it was a hoax. What the charge is that it is original research, which is a different problem altogether.--み使い Mitsukai 03:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Please read the comments on this page. Other than that, large swathes of the article are confirmed by the TRib and I think there are other good sources available. -- JJay 03:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I am reposting what I mentioned to Jbutera on his talk page:

The problem with the two articles is not that they're fake - I'm well aware that these gangs likely do exist (I'm not from Chicago, so I don't know). The problem is that they are both original research, and not cited for the most part (in fact, when I nominated the Almighty Saints article, it had no sources, and it wasn't until the first one was AFD'd that both articles got some sort of slap-dash citations). The websites they lead to are written by gangmembers, not news organizations, law enforcement agencies or whatever, so they can't be taken as accurate, even if they likely are. As an extreme example, someone could write on one of those pages that "We have nuclear weapons", and there'd be no way to verify it, other than to take them at their word. That's original research, and that goes against WP:NOR, which is WP policy. If someone can actually give valid (news, law enforcement, etc.) references, that may sway the vote. But until then, my vote on it stands, and if Latin Kings isn't fixed in another week, I'm going to recommend that article for AFD as well.

It's been a few days since, and I have yet to see any real change on either article, despite others stating that it's all verifiable, even from the Tribune, as you say. If that is the case, then citations need to be made, not just slapping an article from the web as has been done with both articles. I have no problem with gang pages being on WP if they're notable. I do have a problem with the original research. If an editor is calling it a hoax, it's not because (s)he doesn't know, it's because there's nothing to back it up.--み使い Mitsukai 04:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Look, I just discovered this AfD last night and it took me just five minutes to find the Trib feature. Why didn't you post the Trib feature? Why didn't you correct the two editors on this page who followed your lead and called this gang a hoax? Why didn't you leave a message on the article talk page asking for more references? Did you even try to find references for the article yourself? Its very easy to call something OR when you know nothing about the subject and then refuse any that are provided. Lastly, where is the proof for the bizarre, and borderline slanderous accusations that "gangmembers" are writing this article (not that it even matters)?-- JJay 13:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 13:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & work with it Needs work, possible cutting of OR, and better verification, but this is a case for the cleanup squad, not AfD. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep still problems with OR so still some further cleanup required despite the addition of some sources. Also I'm further concerned re notability - is this really a notable group of people? A google search for "almighty saints" gang doesn't throw up too many responses. I have a lot of sympathy for Mitsukai's position and it's only my lack of context to compare notability of minor gangs that makes me lean away from delete. On the subject of gangs, it is right to be cautious about fansite style references and if I had come across the article, I may well have AfD'd it myself as a google search for "almighty saints" doesn't throw up a promising start as Southampton football club dominate the early hits. MLA 10:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The print citation seems to address some questions of verifiability. If it's stripped down, I think there'll still be a reasonable amount of meat left. -Colin Kimbrell 14:54, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blades of Heaven

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with RPG Maker. Eivind 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, I intended to do this vote together with the Laxius Power games from the same "maker" but forgot about this one. Basically, it seems like all the Laxius Power articles will be deleted and this article is even LESS notorious than Laxius Power (only 4000 google hits). By that logic this should obviously be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 13:18, 8 March 2006 (talk • contribs) Mackan.
  • Merge into RPG Maker or delete kotepho 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Angr/talk 21:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks non-notable. At the very least, merge with the game's creator, Indinera Falls. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment no point in merging, seems like Indinera Falls' entry will be deleted as well. (I'm confused, does the re-listing mean I should vote again? If not, please make this a comment. Mackan 03:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Changed to comment per request; no you don't "vote" again but you're welcome to make another comment of course. --kingboyk 14:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 14:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete per above. JPD (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:13:18. The "this game is illegal" in bold doesn't help convince me much either. --kingboyk 15:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems almost like an attack page with all the comments about it using "stolen" images. Catamorphism 03:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable game. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franczek Piper

Delete - Not notable, possible hoax. This article was bravely created in the ongoing campaign to reduce WP:AR2, usually a good thing ... however, after consideration, I think it should go. Other than Wikipedia Requested Articles there is only 1 hit on Google, only one source that such a person ever existed, or said what he is supposed to have said, and that source is ... let's say controversial. I'm all for keeping notable crankcruft, but this is non-notable crankcruft. GRuban 15:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Probably non-notable, but definitely unverifiable. An alleged witness for holocaust-denial needs more backup than the source listed. Lacking any other source to say this person ever even existed, get rid of it. Fan1967 15:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverified and probably a tendentious hoax. Bucketsofg 16:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. Gwernol 17:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and block the subject as long as no new, verifiable, trusted evidence, appears. This is too serious a subject for hoaxes or untrustworthy claims. Evillan 21:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I was the one who created this article, indeed because it was at WP:AR2, and I tried to balance the info as the only site available belongs to a nut. But considering the site, there is no way to know that the information is indeed reliable or truthful and so I agree that it should be deleted.D'Iberville 01:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of charities

A list with greater scope than can be covered in a wikipedia article. The number of charities in the world is likely to be at least many thousands given that it is a legal status rather than anything to do with doing good. It is not possible to document the entire list and in any case this list is redundant with Category:Charities. The prospect of deletion has been raised on the talk page. MLA 15:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete A complete list of charities for all of the countries listed? The Charity Commission in the UK listed [167,466 charities on its register by December 2005. How many hundreds and thousands of others would be needed from each country to make this list approach comprehensiveness? The list would be useless to a researcher.  (aeropagitica)  15:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This page is always going to be prone to POV, systemic bias, linkspam, and fraud. It also gives the appearance that Wikipedia endorses or recommends the listed charities, or that a listing here implies legitimacy. An earlier deleted version was created as a way to promote disaster relief (even Jimbo weighed in on the edit war). This is a bad compromise based on very good intentions, and it can be covered better as a category. Jokestress 16:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I used to like lists, but I'm having it beaten out of me by the proliferation of undiscriminating listcrufters. Slowmover 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete permanently extremely incomplete listcruft. Smaller charities deserve coverage too, this systemically leans towards the big boys. Deizio 01:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Much better as a Category. --Midnighttonight 01:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Horrendously unmaintainable as a list, great as a category. Grandmasterka 06:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was this is why AfD ain't a vote -- delete. On second thought, I suppose a redirect makes more sense. Johnleemk | Talk 15:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Aleutian Islands detailed account

This article is an almost direct copy-and-paste of one of its external links. Oberiko 15:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as copyvio. --maclean25 02:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. As the article is a direct copy and paste of a US Army pamphlet (which, I assume, is not covered by copyright) which is freely available elsewhere on the internet reproducing it here serves no purpose, especially as the US Army publication is referenced in the Battle of the Aleutian Islands entry. --Nick Dowling 09:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nick Dowling. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:15, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michel Kostovic

Non-notable person; fails to meet WP:Music. Previous version of the article contained link to his company web site, so it's likely a product of wikispamming. Duja 16:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable person. Only 17 Google results [23] --TBC??? ??? ??? 16:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep, a pop musician with comparable credits/touring schedule would be undisputedly notable. Classical music performers with lengthy careers are at least as notable as Ewa Sonnet, and Google is not where I'd look for information about classical musicians who retired twenty years ago. If Google was that reliable/determinative, why would anybody need Wikipedia? Monicasdude 22:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete on verifiability grounds. If the article is correct, he may well be notable enough. However, it cites no sources and Google comes up with nothing outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. A search of sources including Grove Music and an Australia/New Zealand newspaper index came up short. I would consider voting to keep if we had any verifiable evidence. Capitalistroadster 02:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:Music test which is fairly generous. -- Ian ≡ talk 09:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; fails WP:MUSIC. Harro5 21:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ian. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Furthermore, whilst an orchestra might be notable it's individual members generally are not unless they have some other claims to notability. --kingboyk 13:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santa,_the_animator

Delete This person does not appear to be deserving of inclusion .. much hype about nothing Jcbalding 17:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable, vanity page. Candidate for {{db-bio}}> speedy IMHO. Gwernol 17:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN vanity/promo. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Chairman S. Talk 22:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AmaderGaan

Non-notable website's advertisement, spam. Fails to satisfy WP:WEB. --Ragib 17:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: as nom. --Ragib 17:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:19, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norouz

Some Iranian users are removing the Kurdish Newroz article and by trying to merge it to Iranian article of Norouz. I wanr every body clarify for them that evey people have their own traditions and must be respected. If this article should stay then the Kurdish Newroz also should saty.Diyako Talk + 10:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep, the article is a current event, its complete and well cited, infact its celebrated today, there is no reason to delete it. --Kash 22:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, obvious WP:POINT nomination. No opinion on the question of merger with Norouz. Bijí Newroz to everyone nevertheless, or whatever you guys prefer to call it now. Lukas (T.|@) 23:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. It is well cited. --Sina Kardar23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This deletion proposal is not very fruitful for reaching a compromise on the Newros articles. There are no substantial arguments for deletion. Bertilvidet 23:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep.--Joe Dynue23:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. as per above. --Fooladin23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. as stated above, it is a WP:POINT nominiation. -- Jeff3000 23:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. I'm not sure what's going on here. It seems the nominator is not nominating deletion but somehow expects that we reject deletion in anticipation of someone else's nomination. I suggest that we not vote on deletion until someone actually proposes it. Bucketsofg 18:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and close AfD as violation of WP:POINT... No reasoning for deletion of Norouz given. Dispute over Newroz merge discussion is ongoing and is not a reason for AfD. Suggest Diyako take it to RfC if this dispute can't be resolved. (I also fixed the nom "=")--Isotope23 20:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. --Khoikhoi 04:15, 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 02:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pajax

Not notable. Does not meet WP:Software. I am a Ajax-developer and have never heard of pajax. Sleepyhead 18:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn, bad article. Catamorphism 03:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- nn neologism, garbled article. Haikupoet 04:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:19, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NAJAX

Not notable. Does not meet WP:Software Sleepyhead 18:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Catamorphism 03:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:19, 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 02:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XOAD

Not notable. Does not meet WP:Software Sleepyhead 18:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn, poor quality article. Catamorphism 03:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:19, 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 closed, to be settled by CFD. Mailer Diablo 02:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:SOL_theory

Here's the article in question:[24]. Fan1967 20:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to link to this page since it seems to be both an article and a Category page. SOL_theory, Category:SOL_theory, or [[Category:SOL_theory|this link]]? What ever it is, it's a mess. If you can't see it, click on the Category link at the bottom of the page... you'll see. Inappropriate category, wrong place for an article, poorly written fictional entry. Front243 19:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The article is in the wrong space, but isn't this nom as well, WP:CFD would be better. Delete regardless Eivindt@c 20:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Speculative OR, matches content at Satelitte Ordance Laser. Fan1967 20:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR.--Isotope23 21:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, insufficient context for fictional article. The way to link to categories is to put a colon in front of category, like this: [[:Category:SOL_theory]]. ×Meegs 04:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed top link per Meegs...--Isotope23 14:00, 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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-122 Gemerl

Article for "Gemerl" already exists--"E-122" is an unofficial "fanon" name. The information contained herein is inconsequential. --Matt S. 19:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect and merge any useful info. --Midnighttonight 01:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article should be deleted, and the term "E-122 Gemerl" should redirect to the Gemerl page. --Shadoman, 22 March 2006


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vendredi Cheveux Style

I don't know what our guidelines for hair cuts are, but I'm pretty sure this article will fail. Can't find it on google. Eivindt@c 19:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as not verifiable, one-line stub with no content, and test page; this is the only WP edit by new user. Slowmover 20:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverified, unreferenced assertion.  (aeropagitica)  20:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Friday Hair Style? shaving it bald sounds good; DELETE 132.205.46.156 22:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be expanded and sourced. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:19, 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 Speedily Deleted as author/only contributor's request. — xaosflux Talk 02:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characters of Spriggan

Was a mistake. Don't need this article for now Ominae 20:04, 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. Sango123 (e) 02:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satelitte Ordance Laser

Poorly written fictional entry. Front243 20:10, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G. Patrick Maxwell

Handsome, no doubt a good surgeon, and clearly merits footnotes on some pages, but is he encyclopaedic? Midgley (talk · contribs)

  • Delete NN. Also, despite attempts to tone it down, still reads like an ad for a boob-job, face lift, lipo and botox clinic. Fan1967 21:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If the claims in the article can be verified then Mr Maxwell may well be encyclopædic. Someone who has refined surgical procedures and started continuing plastic surgery programmes & enjoyed a Fellowship at Johns Hopkins shouldn't be brushed aside without at least a chance to determine their notability status.  (aeropagitica)  21:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If he is that important in the plastic surgery community, someone will come and write a non-advertisement-looking entry. Too many unsupported claims. Evillan 21:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep: AfD seems woefully premature, as the article's creator has not had a reasonable chance to provide verification of notability claims. As the article stands, however, the claims seem somewhat marginal. Ombudsman 21:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, apparently viewed as notable by those who cover his field [25]. Monicasdude 22:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment are there many fellows at Johns Hopkins? http://search.jhmi.edu/query.html?qt=fellowships&imageField.x=0&imageField.y=0&imageField=Search Looks like quite a lot. In the UK Fellowship seems to be registrar level, and everyone is expected to publish something. Midgley 23:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment reply Yes there are lots of Fellows at Johns Hopkins at any one time. Dr. Maxwell was there almost 30 years ago. It's his contributions in that interval which have been pretty extraordinary Droliver 03:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • (I've indented that) FOr a general encyclopaedia it probably needs to be brought out rather more what they are. Free flaps are very clever, but would a reader be given an understanding of what they are, and what the improvement by the subject was that is notable? We are clearly going to keep this one, but WP:IS NOT a directory of surgeons, and WP:BIO should not be a hagiography, and should provide context. Midgley 11:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per MD; notable achievements Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As someone who actually practices in the field of Plastic Surgery (and was one of Dr. Maxwell's former fellows) I can tell you that he is arguably THE premier breast surgeon in the world & one of the world's authorities on cosmetic and breast surgery. He travels all over the world as the featured invited lecturer on symposiums on breast cancer and plastic surgery. In an era where Dr. 90210 is Plastic Surgery to TV viewers, Dr. Maxwell is kind of an "inside baseball" celebrity (ironically Dr. Rey from Dr. 90210 sent 2-3 patients a week when I was there that he was afraid to operate on to Nashville from California). If someone of his stature in the field doesn't meet standards for inclusion here, then I don't think anyone would. Droliver 02:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, he certainly seems to have enough publications. Catamorphism 03:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • comment There are actually a large number of publications that he has that I know don't show up on Pubmed including a large number of papers, textbook chapters, instructional inserts/videos Droliver 03:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • comment textbook chapters are notable, I'd say. A reference in publications with title and ISBN would be appropriate. Midgley 11:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • comment reply I added some more references I found google-ing. I'll try to figure out the ISBN tags. I edited some of the text to tone down what someone felt was too promotional (which is ironic as he doesn't advertise his practice at all)
  • Weak delete. While he has an opinion expressed in public and a number of journal articles, there is little to suggest he is more notable than the 1000s of other US plastic surgeons. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • In other words, we need proof that he is more notable, e.g. description as "THE premier breast surgeon in the world" by an authoratitive source. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If dozens of peer reviewed papers, book chapters, visiting professorships, and the like aren't enough to convince our community her, I don't know what it would take? If you know a Plastic Surgeon, ask him who Pat Maxwell is & I guarentee 100% of them will tell you exactly who he is and his level of respect in the field around the world. He is a really heavy-hitter in the field and recognized as such Droliver 01:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Monicasdude pointed out press coverage, the guy's got a 20-year publication record, and not just any doctor gets to be a professor of medicine: unlike most other fields, profs of medicine are not junior academics. And he's a prof at Vanderbilt, a reputable university. More importantly, plenty of decent, verifiable information. Mangojuice 20:35, 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 keep. Flowerparty■ 12:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Michael Fiels

Delete. Person is not notable enough to merit an entry. Satch 21:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep In the librarian profession, he's quite notable, being the director of the largest library association in the world. As far as WP:BIO goes, he's co-authored six books which I think meet the author guidelines. I'm aware that WP:BIO doesn't do much to address people who are notable in their field and unknown out of it, but probably every librarian in the US knows this guy. Jessamyn (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He is a notable person in his profession and the claims to notability are easily verifiable. Evillan 21:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jessamyn. Monicasdude 22:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the author and I went to the criteria for inclusion [26]. Here are the criteria that Mr. Fiels meets:
  1. Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. [While he is not strictly political, it is a national/international organization which he runs.]
  2. Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more [He has written six books for the profession, and regularly writes for American Libraries which has a circulation of over 70,000 monthly.]
  3. 100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?
  4. 100 year test (past speculation) -- If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today?

Keep the entry for Mr. Fiels Michael Golrick 22:41, 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 15:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vash (Star Trek)

All this information already exists at List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters#Vash. Philip Stevens 21:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No need to retain this article as it is a straight lift from the above referenced page. If a researcher requires any more detail on the character then the link to Memory Alpha will suffice. The character only appeared in three episodes, after all.  (aeropagitica)  21:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evillan (talk • contribs)
  • Merge and redirect to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters, since a number of articles link to here already. BryanG 23:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Make that List of Star Trek characters, see the comments below. BryanG 04:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Does it really belong on DS9 if the charecter was introduced in The Next Generation? She's a former love of Picards. -Mask 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to mention: She appeared in more TNG episodes then DS9 ones. If anything, put her on a Next Generation list. -Mask 23:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Star Trek characters. In fact, I'd consider merging the other list there too. -- Grev 02:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per BryanG. Hera1187 20:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Star Trek characters since she appears in more than one series. Jtmichcock 03:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, or merge as per AKMask; relatively minor character who appeared in more TNG episodes. Preferably, I'd actually advocate for developing a List of Star Trek: The Next Generation characters (a la dedicated DS9 list) and merging it (and other minor characters) with that: the current single list of Star Trek characters (which can link to sublists) is already somewhat long and unwieldy. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries

This page fails WP:WEB, which states that a site is notable if "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself; the website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation; or the content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries does none of these things. Its biggest claim to notability appears to be a brief traffic spike due to a YTMND page about it a couple weeks ago. Its Alexa rank is in the neighborhood of 250,000. Delete. JDoorjam Talk 21:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:WEB. If we can find that this topic has gotten significant coverage in reputable sources, I may reconsider. We don't need to document the internet as it happens- the Net itself does this. Wikipedia is not google. Friday (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: if we can find significant coverage in truly reputable sources, I will, of course, withdraw the nom. JDoorjam Talk 23:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Friday Bucketsofg 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on the talk page is mention that this site was the home to the (briefly) famous "OS X/Darwin is evil" article, which was featured on slashdot (the ./ story links to an old host, so is 404) and elsewhere, and still gets mentioned every so often. Not sure if that tips the scales for anybody. I say keep, but I'm a fan of the site, so not very objective. Staecker 00:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Staecker, also note that there are many usenet posts by people who don't realize that its a joke and are either shocked that its real or are actual fundamentalists posting stuff from it. JoshuaZ 04:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there a good source that cites that? Simply googling it and posting the results would violoate WP:NOR; did a reliable source ever document this confusion? JDoorjam Talk 05:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Not that I am aware of, but that's an issue for verifiability, so it wouldn't be able to go in the page. However, it valid as evidence of notability. JoshuaZ 05:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The slashdot story itself was posted by somebody who believed it to be a non-hoax. Many user comments showed further confusion. Staecker 13:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic --Doc ask? 09:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article doesn't provide much of a claim to notability, and what's there isn't externally sourced. Xoloz 13:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's an encyclopedic topic in my view, except for apparently low notability. Alexa may be all wonky because of the name changes of the site... it may be higher than it looks. I couldn't find many inbound links via a search on Google though so I'm thinking not MUCH higher. Unless further notability information is offered in which case I'll try to come back and change my sentiment, Delete ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is such a well done hoax site that we should be cognizant of the likelyhood of people coming here to verify its status as a hoax or real. I get over 20,000 hits on Google (search term: "Objective Ministries" OR "Objective Christian Ministries" OR "ObjectiveMinistries" OR "Objective 4Kidz"), with only a few false positives. Even if it doesn't strictly meet WP:WEB, I think we should make an exception here because Wikipedia is not paper and the site is close enough to notability under WP:WEB that other considerations should be taken into account. Powers 13:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I recall perusing this site a year or so ago; might have been mentioned in the same context as Landover Baptist. Web notability is probably hard to verify via Google because of name changes. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I for one wanted more information about this site, and since it is such an elaborate hoax plus it has gone through several name changes, it's not an easy task. This site has been also been discussed at The Mac Observer.Bjorneven 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable hoax site. Agree that the general slipperiness of the site makes verifiability difficult, but also agree with the fact that the poker-facedness of the site makes it a likely Wikipedia target. (Incidentally, if anyone can find a valid source for the fact that it's a Zapatatopi side project as asserted on the talk page, it belongs in the article.) Haikupoet 04:06, 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. Flowerparty■ 11:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate-jet conservative

Non-notable neologism. It gets only four unique hits in Google.[27] Will Beback 22:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn neologism created to mirror the non-nn "limousine liberal" with no usage other than by its creator and a few bloggers. Contrast to the historical usage of the latter by political figures. Maybe recreate when it gains notability, but today, no. --Mmx1 22:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mmx1. Grandmasterka 06:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of political epithets#Corporate-jet conservative. GCarty 12:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. If it's non-notable it shouldn't be on that list either. -Will Beback 18:49, 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 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Localads

Non-notable website / advertising. Prod tag removed by User:Localads. -- Cnwb 22:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertising, nothing more. Alexa rank of 169,584 makes this website non-notable, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  22:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above ~Linuxerist L / T 23:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. —C.Fred (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:20, 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 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kathy Fray

Non-notable author with 94 Google hits. Fails WP:BIO (I originally listed this article for speedy deletion, but inexplicably, someone didn't think it qualified under CSD G7). The article is also highly nonencyclopedic in its tone and reads more like a press release than a Wikipedia article, but since the subject is non-notable in the first place, it's not really worth anyone's time to improve it. Catamorphism 22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable author, who coined the neologism "Uterosexual" whose AfD is being debated above. Fan1967 22:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the position of the nominator, who is well versed in things sexual and political. Brian G. Crawford 23:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do NOT delete. Article wording has been amended. Wikipedia's purpose is to serve as a worldwide encyclopedia, including servicing users from Austalasia - and this is an author well known in Australasia.Triple-x 00:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable -- Astrokey44|talk 01:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:N for books. Harro5 02:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails notability criteria. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:20, 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 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ASV83

Delete - This article appears to about a specific bus in Hong Kong, and there is nothing specifically interesting or encyclopedic about this vehicle or even the route it serves. I can't see any purpose to the article - imagine if there was an article about every bus ever built! RXUYDC 22:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, busfancruft. Hong Kong alone has thousands of buses, WP:NOT a index of all buses. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 23:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. ADS190 01:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. picture could be uploaded on commons though -- Astrokey44|talk 01:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable (although no doubt perfectly fine) bus. No Guru 05:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete while it would be rather interesting to have an article on each of the world's buses, it would take an incredibly enormous amount of space and wouldn't meet any of the current requirements for notability and wouldn't be especially encyclopedic. Perhaps someone should start a wiki on buses though?? :-). Cool3 22:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- believe it or not, there is a place for such information, but it sure as hell isn't on Wikipedia. There is no possible way an individual bus (or subway train car) could be notable. Haikupoet 04:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Its not as notable as AL1. --Wrightbus 14:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Good Marketing

Delete as advertisement for telemarketing software. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am working to remove all advertisement from this article. Any guidance on specific verbage that is problematic would be appreciated. Jared 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I have made some substantial changes to the page. Rather than just opting to delete the page please advise on any additional changes to the article if possible. Jared 23:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 'From my comments on the Bill Good Marketing Talk Page:
  • No offense, Jared, but a simple internet search would tell people what your company does...it doesn't take a Wikipedia article to figure it out. From what I have found on the company, I find it difficult to believe that anyone "reading about it" would need any further background information that requires a Wiki article. The fact that you work for the company doesn't help, either, but rather makes it look more like an attempt at advertisement. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 23:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable business (irrespective of whether the article becomes less of an ad, although surely I'm happy that Jared was willing to try adapt the article to Wikipedia standards). Joe 23:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I also have to question the validity of the article Bill-Good, which is written by the same author, and contains uncited claims which seem to make the subject notable at first glance, but (to me at least), if you look closely, these uncited claims to fame are not all that notable (e.g. "Fresh out of college, Bill was a statistical analyst in New York with Alan Greenspan"--that's awfully vague about the relationship with Mr. Greenspan). I'll refrain for now from making any move toward deletion, but if someone is so inclined to look into it further... --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 03:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising for a non-notable company. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 17:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up, as discussed in AfD on the owner, notable business in its field, even if that field ought to be wiped off the face of the earth. Monicasdude 20:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. Harro5 21:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, WP:VSCA applies. --Kinu t/c 21:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, advert. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete also per WP:CORP Melchoir 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 13:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn company. Catamorphism 03:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:20, 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: Speedily deleted as apparent vandalism (hoax/attack page). - Mike Rosoft 15:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Burke

This page is ostensibly about an Australian footballer but turns out to be bizarre when read closely. Smells like hoax, but may also be attempt to attack little-known real person. The googles, they find nothing! Henning Makholm 23:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable biography (as Henning says, perhaps it's a hoax, perhaps it's an attack page, but in any case it doesn't belong). Joe 23:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as mentioned, likely an attack page. Gwernol 00:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete additionally, this pic looks too recent to be from this ~40-year old's youth. Brun8 00:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Astrokey44|talk 02:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this article were true, he would be notable enough as a 200+ player in the VFL/AFL for the mighty North Melbourne Kangaroos. However, as a Kangaroos supporter I have never heard of him and a Google search for him comes up with nothing. [28] Capitalistroadster 02:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He is definitely real, it's slightly satirical but he did play for the Kangaroos. He didn't play 250+ games with the Kangaroos though he did play that many with North/Port Melbourne combined. The picture is of his son, but I've been told they are spitting images of each other. edit - it appears that it has become an 'attack page'. I will endeavour to fix it --Bobbertinho 04:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: Bobbertinho is the creator of the page. First version not visibly better than the current one, and recent edits show no clear direction towards encyclopedic trustworthiness. Henning Makholm 10:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Robert Dauth falls into same category. I'm also wondering if User:Burpengarry and User:Bobbertinho may be related somehow. - Ian ≡ talk 09:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I fold Do as you please... --Bobbertinho 10:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as probable hoax, per nearly everybody else. -Colin Kimbrell 14:59, 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 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Toland

Notability claimed but not established. User:Jauma23, the article's author has been asked to provide some verification on the article's talk page but has not done so. On this page, Jauma23 claimed he is James Toland. Spondoolicks 23:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, article provides no assertion of notability, refer to WP:BIO. 514 google hits, but for the (apparently unrelated) writer of an Ireland travel guide. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 23:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per Kimchi.sg, no assertoin of notability. --lightdarkness (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. Gflores Talk 02:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:20, 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 userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden democrats Nordic Council story

This seems to be a statement of personal opinion on a current event. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Schzmo 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Userify, Wikipedia is not a newspaper's "letters to the editor" page. (It reads exactly like such a letter.) — Kimchi.sg | Talk 23:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Vote changed to "userify" in light of original contributor's purpose for the page, see below. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 03:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not only is it POV and argumentative it's probably a copyvio as well. // Liftarn 08:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep You have missuderstood!. Søren Espersen is the spokesman for Danish Peoples’s party regarding foreign affairs and a member of the Nordic Council. This was brought to the highest level and was answered by the Swedish minister for Democracy. This story was reported in Danish and Swedish Media.

There is of course official dokuments on the Nordic Council's website regarding this. I want to include this story in the Swedish Democrats page, but its to big so i thougt its better to make just a summary there and refere to the whole story. I needed a place to work with it. If there is a problem i will ask Søren Espersen permission to translate this document.SweHomer

The letter is from Søren Espersen own homepage, and a copy if this letter was brought to the Nordic Council as an official matter. I will of cource put the whole story there, but i must start somwhere.SweHomer 23:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment: "I needed a place to work with it." — you should have created this as a subpage of your user page, then. Preparations for a full article should be done in user space, not in article space. No one would have complained. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 03:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oki, Newbie as i am. So delete is. I work with it on my page...11:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I dont exactly understand Userfy but if its something like "work more" on the page I be happy. My english is far from perfect, and then i can get more help... SweHomer 03:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 11:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effectivity

Delete. Apparent commercial/vanity page (article's creator is one of the subjects and all his edits appear to be done to point at this page.) --Calair 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as clearly advertising for non-notable company. Joe 23:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. →AzaToth 23:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but remove individuals names. Effectivity is currently used with different meanings, among which definition mentioned. It is not the same as effectiveness and/or efficiency. The word cannot be found in older dictionaries.
  • I'm not opposed to a genuine article about effectivity (either here or on Wiktionary, depending on content) but I think it would be better to delete and start over than attempt to salvage this version. While some of the more flagrant bits have been deleted, it's still written more like a sales pitch than an encyclopaedia article. (Note that it still claims 'effectivity' as a trademarked term - so this is really an article about one non-notable company's marketing of the concept, rather than the concept as a whole.) --Calair 22:17, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad ibn Ja'far

Non-notable →AzaToth 23:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Although from this link it appears that he was "a companion" to the Prophet Muhammad, the article doesn't assert his notability, and I'm not sure how significant companions to the Prophet are. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 23:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's important to the national security of the U.S. of A. (Love it or leave it!) to have as much information as possible about Moslem historical figures. The Danes got their asses handed to them for offending Islam. We don't want to make the same mistake. Brian G. Crawford 00:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notability standard for historical article is different to current topics - if theres still information on them after 1500 years than its notable -- Astrokey44|talk 02:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Companions of the Prophet are inherently notable (see Sahaba); however, I can't find very good evidence through google that he was one. If he was, it's a definite keep. If not, he may not be particularly notable, but I see his name in lists of hadith transmissions, so he does have some notability there, in which case I would downgrade my vote weak keep. It'd be nice to know the details, but probably requires an Islamic library to which I do not have access. bikeable (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on the genealogy provided, the man was a first cousin, once removed of Muhammad. His father Ja'far ibn Abu Talib was a son of Abu Talib ibn Abd al-Muttalib and a nephew of Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib. Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib was the father of Prophet Muhammad. Perhaps his familial connections should be clarified? User:Dimadick


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elena Maria Vidal

Delete - prod tag deleted without explanation by author. Does not seem to be notable enough. Also clearly vanity. Wickethewok 23:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup, 186 ghits for "Elena Maria Vidal" [29], 778 for "Elena Vidal" [30]. "Madame Royale" ranks 274,912 on Amazon. [31] That should be some measure of her notability. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and keep I agree with Kimchi.sg. I'd rather see this article improved, as Vidal seems to be notable. Perhaps appropriate {{cleanup}} and {{expand}} tags is a better way to go? Gwernol 00:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep I concur with Kimchi.sg and Gwernol. This is a notable historian and author. User:Georgette
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable per the Amazon listings and rankings. (Also, while the article appears to be vanity, kudos to the author for keeping good NPOV in writing it.) —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and looks like it has been cleaned up. --64.12.117.8 16:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Randell

Vanity/not-notable. Child actor with minor role (none, or one line?) in second Harry Potter film. ed g2s • talk 00:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UKSPI

  • Delete - This page was added by User:Anglokurisu who has simply added the same link to UKSPI to a range of pages related to the paranormal, UKSPI is obviously an organisation he/she has affiliation with. Therefore this page is simply self-promotion and of no value to Wikipedia. Solar 00:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - UKSPI is concerned with research within the paranormal, and is recognised by a number of institutions include Universities in the UK. Other people who are affiliated with the paranormal have added their own articles such as Jason Karl and Phil Wyman, all of which are no long affilated with the paranormal. Also UKSPI was the only research group added to the links, the rest were from information relayed from the research conducted by organisations such as UKSPI. UKSPI is relevant to Wikipeida as it fields research into the paranormal, not only by existance of ghosts, but also the on going psychological study of paranormal experiences in the UK. This is not against the Wikipedia rules as the theories and ideas have not been added to Wikipedia. - Anglokurisu
  • Delete - non notable quack group with 100 members dr.alf 01:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - same as above --Phenz 01:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dr.alf. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Get 224 ghits, almost all are irrelevant. (Wikipedia is #5.) Non-notable. Grandmasterka 06:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the link doesn't work. -- Zanimum 17:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

- The link did work this morning, it has been edited. I have repaired it now. AngloKurisu.

  • Delete nonnotable. mikka (t) 23:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:20, 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.

[edit] Sockpuppet or Anonymous Votes and Comments

  • Keep - UKSPI seems to have a lot of information on their website that could be vital to people studying or researching the paranormal. I do not believe this is self advertising, they are trying to help others by sharing their information and facts. They are one of the only paranormal links on this website that have such information avaliable to anyone who may need it.

UKSPI is a non-profit research group from he United Kingdom, and aims to answer one of the most debated questions through self-funded research. Spiritseekers are also linked on the paranormal webpage, yet only have 15 memebers.

  • Keep - This page does have significance to the field of paranormal research. There are a large number of groups who have their links on several paranormal groups, and from looking at their website they seem to be the only group with any sort of scientific research into the paranormal. I have seen other groups who are just as official as them such as Torro, who have been allowed to keep their page on there. It maybe self promotion, but it appears as if their research is vital to the paranormal field.
  • Do Not Delete- UKSPI seems to have a lot of information on their website that could be vital to people studying or researching the paranormal. I do not believe this is self advertising, they are trying to help others by sharing their information and facts. They are one of the only paranormal links on this website that have such information avaliable to anyone who may need it.
This comment is by user:Evenstarbabe, who has no other edits. She is certainly a sock-puppet, thus this vote is discounted. -- Zanimum 15:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I will delete the article, nothing is worth this hassle. I believe UKSPI to have significance to Wikipedia, but it appears that a large well known English Organisation cannot be added onto Wikipedia. I believe this to be a mass injudice, but I will no longer risk the professionalism of UKSPI but arguing with the members of Wikipedia. I am deleting the article now. So don't bother with the voting, enough people view our website on a much more dignified website such as Google, who have always been supportive of us.

Google records everything. It doesn't support anything (ignoring Google.org). There's simply no way to verify the information. Sorry. -- Zanimum 21:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)