Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< March 27 March 29>
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] March 28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dead or Alive characters

this page doesn't serve a purpose anymore that Template:DOA and Template:DOA Character already does --Philo 12:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. Character lists are common on Wikipedia (such as the List of characters from The Simpsons and List of characters from Family Guy), and the templates don't provide a description of each individual character.--TBC??? ??? ??? 16:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems that every character on this list already has an article, so it's less useful than some, but it still should be kept since it's nice to have an annotated overview of the characters without having to visit lots of pages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are also lists for episodes and vechriles, how can this page be any different? -Dynamo_ace Talk
  • Keep savidan(talk) (e@) 22:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure fancruft. Brian G. Crawford 23:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Templates don't always substitute lists, neither do categories. It's much better to have "List of foo game characters" article than a) a gigantic template message and b) a separate article for each minor character ever. It can also serve as a good overview to a much larger set of Stuff. Also, these lists contain the fancruft to specific articles, and that's a good thing. If you've got to have fancruft, at least do it this way! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge This belongs on the Dead or Alive page. It's ridiculous to have to click through to another screen just for the character list.213.208.117.47 23:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sticktoitism

Neologism, 3 Google hits. Prod tag removed by original contributor without comment or editing. Accurizer 00:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn neologism. --Hyperbole 00:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless neologism. Royboycrashfan 00:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sticktoitiveness is kinda-sorta-almost a real word, but this isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - horrible newspeak. --MacRusgail 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - doubleplusbad quacknonsense. --Jay(Reply) 01:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe you mean doubleplusungood kotepho 03:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleetitquicklyism is a principle that advocates deleting wikipedia articles that create neologisms or otherwise offend against the wiki-gods. Bucketsofg 01:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Neologism --lightdarkness (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Rob from NY 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per above reasons. --Spook (my talk | my contribs) 02:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete wp not a dictionary.. slang guide.. idiom guide.. NOT this. kotepho 03:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 04:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Axl 09:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 10:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT Jdcooper 18:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 21:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Jon Calla 03:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Options for College

This entry is not encyclopedic, and is largely an advertisement. RPIRED 00:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --MacRusgail 00:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn vanity. --Mmx1 00:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. Brian G. Crawford 00:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete This entry is a portal to educational articles on:

  • student centered approaches in Education Update
  • Education resources in Boston and New York
  • Harvard University Graduate School of Edcuation
  • Yale University
  • Bank Street College of Education

It is indistinguishable in content from many other educational program websites. Without it, a number of information cycles are broken. There is no inclusion of promotional language, no superlatives, and no external links beyond what is relevant. This organization was featured in the March issue of Boston Magazine, and should have a placeholder for user reference. SIgned -- User:deusyali

  • Delete as non-notable, just like Keith Berman. Royboycrashfan 01:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --Jay(Reply) 01:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic; non-notable; probable advertisement Bucketsofg 01:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and advertisement --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete whoa - this aint the guidance office. --Rob from NY 02:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all and especially Rob. This is a straight ad, and aren't we so nice as to have free servers hosting ads? --Deville (Talk) 02:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 10:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Totally unencyclopedic NN advertising. ProhibitOnions 20:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 21:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Berman

Non-notable individual, largely self-aggrandizing. RPIRED 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a CV database or a place to promote one's business. Brian G. Crawford 00:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as A7 for unnotable. --Mmx1 00:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy A7, doesn't seem notable. Royboycrashfan 01:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete --MacRusgail 01:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Do not delete."" This site links non-profit organizations at Harvard University to educational programs (Crimson Summer Academy), and has implications for national research (Harvard CAC). Information is factual, nearly devoid of adjectives (the stuff of "self-aggrandizing"). Not notably different from profiles of American businesspeople, educators. Signed -- deusyali
  • Delete not notable. Bucketsofg 01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails per WP:BIO. Also, the person is only notable in an article being listed for deletion. --Jay(Reply) 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable; fails WP:BIO; 212 unique Google results [1]--TBC??? ??? ??? 01:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Not a speedy in my opinion, as president of organization is a claim to notability; just not one that is likely to gain consensus. Editor "deusyali" is advised that the purpose of a WP biographical article is not to serve as a portal to non-profit orgs whether notable or not. If evidence of notability is shown for this individual, article will need cleanup of non-encyclopedic resume material. Lacking such evidence, the article need not be kept. Barno 01:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • User is advised that deleting other editors' AfD comments and votes (which happened while I was editing my previous entry) is against WP policy and is more likely to hurt your case than to help it. Comment added (while deleting others) follows; note similarity to deusyali's words. Barno 01:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete:

Portal to two important non-profits:

  • Crimson Summer Academy
  • Harvard CAC

Language is factual, few adjectives. Very similar to boilerplate language in American businessmen category.

  • Delete as per all, and just like the last nom. --Deville (Talk) 02:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete there are portals for this, and it's of very specific, local nature, rather than encyclopedic Evillan 04:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC) .
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 10:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all --Ugur Basak 21:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1990 Daytona 500

The article has been merged into a new Memorable Daytona 500s section in the main article Daytona 500 Royalbroil 01:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, There are no other articles for other Daytona 500s, so why keep an article for one specific race? I brought anything relevant from this poorly edited article into the Daytona 500 article. Royalbroil 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, reads like a fanboy summary of the event. Royboycrashfan 01:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: if the relevant information is already metioned, a branch off is unnecessary. --Jay(Reply) 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I personally cannot stand watching cars drive around in a giant left turn, but this is the biggest race in what is, by some measures, the most popular "sport" in the US. Individual Daytona 500s (and no other NASCAR races) should be included, just like individual Super Bowls, FA Cup Finals, World Cup Finals, World Series, Indy 500s, etc. If the article is in weak shape, it should be expanded and/or cleaned up. The information to expand this article is out there and is likely one OCD NASCAR fan/wikipedian away from being a proper article. youngamerican (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, though expand and clean-up so that it can merit its own article --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • From the article: "Boom!" "He knew it was oveer for him." Nonetheless, Keep and expand per Youngamerican. While the Daytona 500 is not a championship final, it is clearly the most important and most noted event in its form of the sport. In the last two decades, it's become more notable by Wikipedia standards than the Indy 500, the Le Mans 24-hour race, or any Formula One event. Barno 01:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per YA and Barno, but presumably we should edit Boom! The right rear tire blew up. out at some point --Deville (Talk) 02:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The fact that a tire suffered a blowout, costing Earnhardt (misspelled in the article) the race, was the most publicly discussed fact about the race, making it encyclopedic if the article is kept. "Boom!" and "blew up" are not encyclopedic, and need to be edited in the Daytona 500 article regardless of whether 1990's separate article is kept. Barno 03:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Sure, keep the tire blowing up, lose the Boom --Deville (Talk) 05:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, if my opinion counts for anything.Baconpatroller 03:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect unless anyone saying expand actually expands it before the end of this vote. Average Earthman 04:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep there should be articles for the individual years -- Astrokey44|talk 05:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If the relevant info has already been merged to the main article space, why keep this? Eusebeus 06:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up further. Notable enough sporting event for mine. Capitalistroadster 07:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, notable event imo. --Terence Ong 10:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Daytona 500 should remain an overview, with specific articles for each race. If not, the main article will become an unwiedly and unpleasant mess, just like the global warming it contributes to. ;-) SoLando (Talk) 13:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Aw, hey now. The race cars' exhaust contributes far less to atmospheric change than the exhaust from the fans' cars getting there or the hot air blustered by Darrell Waltrip. Barno 19:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough. Monicasdude 14:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We can cover it in Daytona 500. Recury 15:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no consensus criteria for event notability, but surely this shouldn't meet it. -Jcbarr 22:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. The Daytona 500 is the most notable race for Nascar. Sue Anne 22:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per youngamerican. ClarkBHM 05:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. incog 23:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treasure trooper

NN M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Advertising/refereal spam. --lightdarkness (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam. Bige1977 01:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam --Spook (my talk | my contribs) 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable website, advertisement. JIP | Talk 06:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 13:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, wish that we could speedy adverts. Kuzaar 15:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fives days of free advertising. Kuru talk 00:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Pretty popular via Alexa's ranking, but too spammy. --Shindig Me 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dryve

This now defunct band does not meet criteria for inclusion at WP:MUSIC and asserts no notable attributes for inclusion, Arbusto 01:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Looking at the WP:MUSIC criteria, I would say a very weak keep. Royboycrashfan 01:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable band, has an allmusic profile [2]. As quoted from allmusic, "Their self-produced debut album, Hum, released in November 1994, included the winner of a San Diego Songwriters' Guild competition, "Happy Song", and was nominated for “best rock album" at the San Diego Music Awards. Their first nationally released album, Thrifty Mr. Kickstar, which received a San Diego Music Award as “best adult alternative album"" --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. This isn't the basement band listing. --Rob from NY 01:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Just barely meets WP:MUSIC. dbtfztalk 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does meet WP:MUSIC. It really does not matter by how much, just that it does. Kukini 07:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - appears to meet 4th and 7th points of WP:MUSIC. Dan, the CowMan 08:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above, WP:MUSIC apparently satisfied. Monicasdude 14:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. In allmusic, album release- that's good enough. -- JJay 20:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep meets the definition of WP:MUSIC well enough. Yamaguchi先生 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the sum of the items on their resume is enough. Royalbroil 15:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Never Among Friends

Non-notable film, vanity. Sure it's on IMDB, but as the AfD for the article's creator (see here) said, this film is a textbook example of why existance of an IMDB entry alone doesn't establish notability. I agree. The IMDB takes submissions from anyone. Even the rating there are suspect, there is a large group of people sounding suspiciously alike who just can't wait for the DVD release - and all of them have only one entry; yup, you guess it, for this movie. Seems like IMDB has sockpuppets too. Ifnord 01:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable film created by non-notable crew. Royboycrashfan 01:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; non-notable movie; an IMDb profile does not make a movie notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Internet Movie Base data? Royboycrashfan 01:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, accidental typo --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete what is this crap. --Rob from NY 01:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, canonical red link farm in full effect. They had more filming locations than screening locations? Yikes. --Deville (Talk) 02:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. A budget of $7,000, and every single person involved is a red link. Oh, and the movie's website is begging for a distributor. That's a nice touch. Is every student filmmaker in the world trying to promote themselves through WP? Fan1967 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and the website also begs people to go to IMDB and vote for the movie, which presumably explains the glowing ratings. Fan1967 03:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete on the basis that the list of screenings indicates it is not on general release, plus concerns above. Just zis Guy you know? 10:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn film. Advertising??? --Terence Ong 13:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my original PROD: "Vanity page for film produced by creator of article. Some IMDb information, some Google hits, but nothing indicating widespread distribution, i.e., screened at one or two non-notable film festivals and no video availability. Your typical non-WP:ENC, dime-a-dozen indie film." --Kinu t/c 05:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I live in South Jersey, an admitted film buff, less than 15 miles from some of the screenings, and I've never heard of this film. MusicMaker5376 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Four Winds Bamboo Flooring

seems to be an advert, along with Bamboo flooring M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertisement; fails WP:CORP --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, article is an advertisement as it is. 46 unique hits, which goes to show this company is non-notable. Royboycrashfan 01:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Bige1977 01:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this aint the business directory. See ya. --Rob from NY 01:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just plain Bamboo flooring, however, may be a notable enough industry--the article at present is pretty lame, but could be improved. Sustainable materials are a growing segment of the construction market. Note also Bamboo floor which covers some of the same ground and has had its own layer of spam applied. I would merge and clean up Bamboo floor and Bamboo flooring, though I'm not sure which should be the main article. · rodii · 03:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete cue the vikings. Just zis Guy you know? 10:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. --Terence Ong 13:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Four Winds Bamboo Flooring -- they're just a local installer in the Denver area. Merge Bamboo flooring to Bamboo floor. --Elkman - (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad --Ugur Basak 21:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. Haikupoet 23:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable corp and ad copy. Kuru talk 00:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James_Cutts

This article is about an un-noteworthy person, and is purely vanity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toryboy (talk • contribs)

Delete This article is not of any note whatsoever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toryboy (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paradise point cook

Delete. It's a nickname that brings up zero Google hits. The article was originally prodded, but the notice was removed with no explanation or improvement. discospinster 01:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable term. Royboycrashfan 01:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; non-notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Rob from NY 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Evillan 04:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC) .
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-article. Just zis Guy you know? 11:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom and nn, definitely uncyclopedic in tone. --Terence Ong 14:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds like a nickname for a temporary base, or something. The article is just hard to read. --Elkman - (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Ugur Basak 21:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Brereton

unknown in the diplomatic community Lesothoman2005 01:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no real notability asserted. Royboycrashfan 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, delete no name, he has done nothing special talent or contributed to the Canadian Government. User:Lesothoman2005 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, reads as a fluff piece. --Rob from NY 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Only 140 unique Google results [3]. --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete behind the scenes diplomat - impossible to tell what he has done.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lesothoman2005's request. --maclean25 02:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Ardenn 07:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Who? Just zis Guy you know? 11:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under CSD 7: "Author requests deletion... provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Article history. A little past a day after creation, creator and to that point sole editor User:Lesothoman2005 blanked it and replaced the words, "Delete this article!" It was reverted presumably on the assumption it was vandalism. Nobody else has added anything to the article since. There are no inbound links. By the way, the subject has a strong chance to become notable as the new Canadian consul-general to Buffalo when border issues are especially pressing to both countries, but his article can wait. Samaritan 16:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Ugur Basak 21:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. All articles to be re-submitted individually. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Reopened, briefly, for splitting - all articles now re-submitted individually, as per suggestions. Grutness...wha? 08:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahoeitu, Aremata-Popoa and Aremata-Rorua, Atonga, Auahi-Turoa, Avaiki Tautau, Bulotu, Eau, Ele'ele, Hahau-Whenua, Havoa, Hine-Kau-Ataata, I'i, Ilaheva, Iva (mythology), Kahomovailahi, Kalamainu and Kilioa, Kanae, Kapua, Kapuku, Kiwa (goddess), Losi (mythology), Maero, Mahiki, Mahiuki, Makutu, Nga-Atua, Ngaro, Ngaru, Paliuli, Pia (mythology), Pitua, Pua Tu Tahi, Pukatala, Rohi, Rua Tapu, Sava (mythology), Tahekeroa, Tairi, Tapairu, Taringa Nui, Te Toi-o-nga-Rangi, Tele (mythology), Tevake, Tonga-Hiti, Tongatea, Tu-Mea, Tukoio, Tumuitearetoka, Ua, Uekera, Uranga-o-Te-Ra, Vitu, Wahie Loa and finally, Whatu

Huuuuge batch nomination for a number of articles all purporting incorrectly to be items from Polynesian mythology. All seem to originate on the same (extremely dodgy) website, which has caused problems with Polynesian mythology articles in the past. None of these items seems to have much - if any - basis in real Polynesian folklore or myth. I'll leave User:Kahuroa to explain further - he's the one who suggested these for nomination (I'm largely just doing the donkey work of nomination). Grutness...wha? 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all of them, per nom, I agree with the proposal for seperate nominations. --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is a waste of my time. --Rob from NY 02:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and re-nominate. I'm pretty uneasy about a block-delete this large. I'm sure that Kahuroa knows more about all this stuff than I do, but it is against my nature to accept this many deletions on someone's say-so. I think before we can delete an article we need a specific problem. In this case, I'd like something like 'Ahoeitu' is not in the Oxford Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology, etc. But that's something that has to be done one entry at a time. (Is there a wiki-policy about multiple deletions? If not, should there be?) Bucketsofg 02:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to you splitting it up into smaller batches if you wish, but I've just spent the last hour merging them all together into one, so I don't want to do that myself! All the articles do have the same failing, however (they are false), so a batch nomination seemed the logical way to go. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • In which case don't get involved in the debate and vote at all. I sure wouldn't vote to delete in an area about which I knew nothing, but likewise I damn well better not be voting to keep in an area about which I know nothing. RGTraynor 19:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The majority of these articles were added by user TUF-KAT over a day or two in late September 2002. He tells me that they derive from a dubious source - Encyclopedia Mythica. Some of these so-called gods are in fact the names of natural elements (like Ua, which means simply 'rain'. They often do not tell you which Polynesian culture the so-called god came from. There was no such thing as a unified 'Polynesian mythology' anyway - altho there were themes that were shared, each island, each tribe had its own tradition and its own stories and if the article does not tell you where the story came from it is meaningless. This causes confusion between the various cultures and languages - often the names in the story are obviously from different cultures yet they are presented as if they were a cohesive whole. Consider the article Kahomovailahi which purports to deal with a Samoan myth. This is impossible because there is no K or H in the Samoan language. Others purport to be Māori yet the names contain letters not found in that language. Kahuroa 02:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
comment. Thanks for the clarification of your reasoning. On the other hand, if one googles 'Whatu', one finds lots of references to a Polynesian hail god. Maybe they're all based on that one bad website, or (as is often the case now) on Wikipedia's article. But if we need verifiability to keep articles, don't we also need it to delete them? Bucketsofg 02:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right - they derive from the sources you suggest. Polynesian HAIL GOD??? How much hail do you think you get on a tropical atoll at the equator? Kahuroa 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
But Whatu is a Polynesian word for hail, no? And as a natural phenomenon it is not impossible to imagine a divinity associated with it. Bucketsofg 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Read the entry above for Ua, I think it explains what's going on with Whatu. Crypticfirefly 06:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, it does hail in Hawaii (though not often). In fact there was a hailstorm there this past weekend. Crypticfirefly 07:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

*Delete, as nominated. Everything seems to be in order. In any case, bad information does more damage than lacking information. Brian G. Crawford 02:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. But how do I know that it's bad information? I'm not trying to be difficult. I just don't think I can give someone a blank cheque this large. Bucketsofg 02:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
No offence, but it does seem to me that you're asking us to do the equivalent of proving the null hypothesis in scientific method. It's hardly likely that there will be any written or internet source which states outright "Kiwa was not the Maori goddess of shellfish". Grutness...wha? 02:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Obviously that's true. But, as I said earlier, there should be a standard reference work on Maori mythology that someone can look at and say that the standard reference work has no entry. Bucketsofg 03:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, on the topic of Kiwa, see the entry for Kiwa hirsuta. Someone at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute thinks Kiwa is the goddess of shellfish to the point that they'd name a newly-discovered animal after her. Good enough for me. Crypticfirefly 06:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Further comment: User Kahuroa may be able to point to a reference which states that Hinemoana is the Maori goddess of the sea and that her husband is Kiwa. See Hinemoana and Tangaroa. If "Kiwa" is a god rather than a goddess, it would be rather easy to fix the article. Crypticfirefly 17:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC) I would suggest that he or she drag out "A Concise Encyclopedia of Māori Myth and Legend" again, "Kiwa" is listed in that book, contrary to the statement below. Crypticfirefly 18:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all except those (if any) that provide at least one reference. I agree that the nomination should have been broken up into smaller batches. dbtfztalk 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Additional comment: These all appear to be substubs created with very little care, so I don't feel bad about deleting them en masse. If anyone truly cares about these, he or she can recreate them one by one with more attention to verifiability. dbtfztalk 02:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • A pertinent passage from WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. dbtfztalk 02:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep all unless individually nominated. There is no way to discuss this many articles in one batch nom. The failure to examine them destroys the integrity of the whole AfD process. If there was a problem, these should have been prodded. -- JJay 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • see my comments above. if you wish to split them up, feel free. Grutness...wha? 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I was aware of your comments above. Since I just tried to verify Tapairu and quickly found around 15 printed sources [4], I would instead recommend withdrawing this mass nomination. -- JJay 16:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Merge I randomly clicked five articles, and none have been expanded with any significance in the last six months. If they were worth merit as individual articles I believe more work would have been done. They could all be merged into one article, short of that delete as cleanup. TKE 02:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to merge because I don't know the language discussion mentioned, and I didn't see the creater was an admin. So merge until concensus. TKE 04:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since the creator of the articles is an admin (User:TUF-KAT) I'll assume good faith. There's something fishy about most of these articles, but I think it has more to do with poor research than an attempt at a hoax. Eivindt@c 03:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment some of articles should probably be deleted, but it should be on a individual basis, not a mass-nom. Eivindt@c 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • firther comment. No-one is accusing TUF-KAT of purpetrating a hoax. All that is being said is that he created the articles using a reference which has since been shown to be unreliable. It is the website that is to blame, not TUF-KAT. Grutness...wha? 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've notified User:TUF-KAT about the mass nomination. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to notify a registered editor that you are bringing his/her article up for deletion. Everyone should be allowed a chance to defend an article. I think my voting delete above was a little hasty. It is a large nomination, so I think that the most prudent thing to do in this case would be to merge everything with Polynesian mythology, and let any interested party aggresively clean it up. I'd be willing to do the merges, if necessary. Brian G. Crawford 03:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
TUF-KAT should have known about this, since Kahuroa has approached him about these articles. Grutness...wha? 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Good idea - see my talk page, TUF-KAT was ok with nominating. If we merge these with Polynesian Mythology, how do we avoid giving them credence they don't deserve? Kahuroa 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote at the moment. As noted, I wrote these (most of them? maybe all?) based on a source that is now proven to be unreliable, especially for some reason in the area of Polynesian mythology. (I used the same source for some bits in Celtic and other kinds of mythology, with no significant problems with errors that I know of) The source wasn't cited and is perhaps inherently dubious, but none of that was really considered very important in 2002. I guess I lean towards delete, but I won't vote that way without a source on Polynesian mythology that doesn't use these words at all. Tuf-Kat 03:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Tuf-Kat, I looked at their Celtic section, BS detector goes off all the time, particularly in the case of "Scotia" article. --MacRusgail 03:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you go to Amazon, you can "look inside" various books. If you look at the index of Myths and Legends of the Polynesians by Johannes C. Andersen, some of the terms above seem confirmed: Atonga seems indeed to be a canoe-builder; Avaiki Tautau, a name for New Zealand; Bulotu, a Tongan paradise. Now, one or more of these may fail notability. But each should rise and fall on its own merits. Bucketsofg 03:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Further comment. Whatu, discussed above, is in the index as 'god of hailstorms' (p. 206); Uranga-o-Te-Ra is called fifth netherworld in Andersen, 'underworld' in WP entry. Bucketsofg 03:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Anderson's book was written in 1928. Not considered a reliable source these days - but thanks, you might have discovered where they Encylopedia mythica got its dodgy info from.Kahuroa 03:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, one way or another, I don't think that we should block delete all these articles. Bucketsofg 03:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I have ‘A Concise Encyclopedia of Māori Myth and Legend’ by Margaret Orbell, Christchurch: Canterbury University Press, 1998. Orbell is a serious, respected researcher. None of these names appear. "Whatu' by the way is Maori for 'stone' - it could not appear with that spelling in any other Polynesian language, so how could it be a Polynesian god?Kahuroa 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to accept that for each of the entries that identifies itself as explicitly Maori. But, as you say, Polynesian cultures are pretty diverse, so should Bulotu (Tongan paradise) be deleted because it doesn't appear in a Maori reference work? (I'm asking this as an honest question.) Again, each entry has to rise and fall on its own merits. Bucketsofg 04:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Valid point - but nor should something be called Polynesian when it can only possibly occur in one Polynesian culture - Anderson maybe generalised where today we would be specific - sounds like he labels as Polynesian anything that occurs in any culture within Polynesia. Tongan words aren't usually spelt with a B, so that should probably be Polutu anyway. I would doubt that there is a single work that covers all of Polynesia that one could turn to and say 'it's not here'.Kahuroa 04:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now - pending further investigation --MacRusgail 03:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. These must be individually nominated. For example according to the New York Times article on the "Yeti Crab," (Kiwa hirsuta), Kiwa is a Polynesian goddess of crustaceans and the source of part of the name. Spot-checking others: Paliuli does mean "paradise" in Polynesian Hawaiian. Crypticfirefly 04:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. I found some excellent resources at The Hawaiian Electronic Library. Crypticfirefly 05:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Further comment: I disagree strongly with merging, these articles do not all share the same problems. Please see entries for Paliuli, Kiwa, and Kapuku-- not all are necessarily "false." Crypticfirefly 06:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Pua Tu Tahi is also verifiable. Are any of you actually reading any of these articles before saying "delete all" or "merge all"? Crypticfirefly 06:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge maybe they could all be merged to a list on Polynesian mythology, which is a fairly short article at the moment. -- Astrokey44|talk 05:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge these tiny articles into Polynesian mythology, and attempt to deal with their verifiability and/or expand them from there. --Hyperbole 06:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Hyperbole. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Its too large a batch to investigate properly. Merge them all into one, and then re-nominate. We can have a proper look thenafter. --Soumyasch 06:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That's why you shouldn't merge: too large a batch of too many different things. Each should be nominated and considered individually. Crypticfirefly 06:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all into one list. Unverifiable entries (or, more likely, incorerct or misleading ones) can be simply removed from the list. -Sean Curtin 06:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We should be grateful to both Grutness and Kahuroa for bringing this matter to light. Whilst I agree that such a long list poses a dilemma, the fact is this is the kind of thing that gives WP a bad name, even as the effort by the nominators is itself (or should be) redemptive. The ones I looked into seem rife with inaccuracies (e.g. Paliuli referenced above). Bottom line: the nominator has identified a corpus of material whose source is highly dubious, a point which I think has been fairly made above and which gives this mass nomination credibility. He's done his homework, seems knowledgeable about the subject and raised a serious set of issues about articles that have all been authored by a single source. That's yoeman work dammit and we should refrain from whingeing about process and instead be happy that someone has taken the time. I'll vote to merge but would support delete as well. Eusebeus 07:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Question: what exactly have you identified that is "inaccurate" about the entry for Paliuli? In my opinion it is oversimplified, perhaps, but not "purporting incorrectly to be an item from Polynesian mythology" or "not having a basis in real Polynesian folklore or myth." Agreed, of course, that many of these should have been nominated and Kahuroa was right to bring up the issue. Crypticfirefly 08:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Please accept that I have exactly NO knowledge on this subject. But digging around, I found in Kumulipo (subtitled a Hawaiian Creation Chant) [5] Paliuli is a she, according to Bastian's Die heilige Sage der Polynesier: Cosmogonie und Theogonie. The garden of Eden discussed in the article seems to be a conflation of the reference that Paliuli herself makes to an ever verdant land of the gods where abundant food grows without labor. - that's from Bastian I think.) Eusebeus 09:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't have your Bastian source, but the linked creation chant has Paliuli as a place, not a person. I think you are being thrown off by the line: "Paliuli names an ever verdant land of the gods where abundant food grows without labor. The name is given to fertile spots in deep mountain valleys where in old days children of high chiefs were taken to be reared." It is an odd sentence construction. It doesn't mean someone named Paliuli gave a name to something, it means "Paluilui" is the name of something. If you keep reading, you get to the sentence, "Some say that each district had its Paliuli. Perhaps the name was given to whatever secluded spot was chosen in the district for the rearing of taboo chiefs from infancy without any form of labor on their own part." And then the translated chant itself: "A sea of coral like the green heights of Paliuli . . ."; and "the impenetrable land of Kuaihealani in Paliuli . . ." Crypticfirefly 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Also, refer to the references in the article itself, including the recent U. of Hawaii Press dictionary of Hawaiian place names. Crypticfirefly 14:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You're quite right - I confess my ignorance. I was also basing itthough on the stanza below, that reads : Born is a child to Po-wehiwehi, Cradled in the arms of Po-uliuli[?] which I read as a derivative.... But I really have no clue! Eusebeus 15:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you will find that "Pouliuli" is a completely different word than "Paliuli." Hawaiian has only eighteen letters so there are many words that look similar. Crypticfirefly 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all: per Dbtfz, clearly the burden of proof has not been met for these articles, they need to go. --Hetar 08:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Kahuroa seems to be the only expert on this issue, and voting to merge articles that are spurious and of dubious accuracy (in the opinion of the guy who knows the subject) is dangerous. If one or two of the above nominated articles are real, they can always subsequently be recreated with verification and a decent source. I think in this situation, the best thing to do is clear out all the rubbish, and start again. Proto||type 08:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow. I say Delete all for now, and if someone can provide a reliable source for the recreation of a specific one, they can. It seems very suspect that these articles were introduced 4 years ago and no one has expanded on any of them; if they were real, you'd think someone would have added something by now.--Cúchullain t c 09:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Crypticfirefly. If a spot-check on a few shows they're legitimate than a wholesale delete is inappropriate. Marskell 10:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment as they might be a little disputed...--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as they appear to be unverifiable from reliable sources. WP:V is non-negotiable. Just zis Guy you know? 11:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain what you mean "unverifiable from reliable sources"? Picking a term at random, Tapairu, I immediately found roughly 15 printed sources that would seem to verify the article. [6]. -- JJay 15:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 14:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per CrypticFirely. The articles should be judged individually, since there's clear evidence that some are either verifiable as they stand, or at least can be repaired. Monicasdude 14:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (again). The Dictionary of World Mythology lists 'Ilaheva as a Tongan worm goddess; presumably this means that Ilaheva can be kept. Bucketsofg 17:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into one large list, pending further investigation and expansion of these article into something that's actually worth reading. Ashibaka tock 17:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Polynesian mythology and let the cull begin by the experts. Alternatively, if that would bring down the quality of that article (which presumably bears more hits and is thus more important), maybe we could merge them all into one list, then contact some of the main stars of the Polynesian mythology article history to let them know it needs their attention? Jdcooper 18:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Further Comment. The Sava and I'i entries seem confirmed by (dependent on?) this book through google boooks Bucketsofg 19:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep
  • Most of these articles are too short to have any worth, and can be recreated if appropriate sources for them are found and cited. This probably seems like a backwards-ass suggestion, but can we just PROD them and see what gets improved enough to remove the tag in five days? Ziggurat 21:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • We apparently don't have a single Polynesian mythology expert here at Wikipedia. If we prodded them they would just get deleted. If we keep them or move them into one list, eventually someone can take out a book from the library and do a run-through. Ashibaka tock 23:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • AIUI "prod" can't be used if there's an even debate as to deletion or keeping, and shouldn't be used on anything that's been kept via afd. As to no experts, we have one - User:Kahuroa. And it was his idea that these should come here in the first place. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Most if not all of these are of questionable validity. However, from the discussion some of these appear to have verifiable sources. Perhaps the best process would be to put a prod notice on them all. Those which lack any verifiable evidence from reliable sources should be deleted. The editors who claim that there is evidence supporting some of these articles can add verifiable sources and remove the prod notice which may lead to these coming back here. They should not be merged into Polynesian mythology unless we have verifiable evidence that the relevant gods exist. Capitalistroadster 23:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've got a Polynesian Mythology book from the library and will start going through these. Aremata-Popoa and Aremata-Rorua can be kept, I think. (I've started editing it.) The suggestion to abandon the block deletion and PROD them all is the best idea. Bucketsofg 00:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as based on flawed verification, an unreliable source. Any of them can be still re-created if information based on reliable sources can be found. Gene Nygaard 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Comment Per WP:IAR with the goal of improving the encyclopedia I suggest removing the AfD tag from those articles that can be sourced per discussion above and allow the rest to be deleted. Listing all the articles as separate AfD's will take more time and effort and end up with the same result. Keep per rewrite and merge are terrible ideas given the acknowledged factual problems with some of these articles. Meticulously following the process should not result in leaving bad information here for all to see. Thatcher131 16:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal

Given the length and complexity of the above debate, I propose the following:

  • to pull the batch nomination;
  • to re-submit these items individually, over the course of the next few days.

Normally, withdrawal of a nomination would entail a wait of a considerable time before re-nomination, but in these circumstances I doubt that that is necessary. I'll wait a day or two in case there are any objections to this proposal (which should be lodged here). Grutness...wha? 03:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • agree. I've been working through some of these articles to see if they are worth saving. Quite a few of them should be simple deletions. There are some, however, that are salvageable. Bucketsofg 03:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Heartily agree. Though I think you might get away with small batches in some cases where the entries are of similar quality and are logically related. For example, Ngaru, Tumuitearetoka, and Tongatea all seem to be part of the same story. Crypticfirefly 03:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • agree. The issues are complex in some cases - and require an in depth understanding of Polynesian language, culture, and history, as well as of the mechanics of the oral transmission of traditions. Which is why someone can say 'Avaiki-Tautau is a Polynesian name for New Zealand' without realising why that is impossible given the geography involved and the nature of the oral tradition. And I don't think this kind of mass deletion was the right way to go. My main aim is to guard against Wikipedia becoming another source of 'tradition feedback' where incorrect printed information ends up being incorporated in the traditions of the peoples involved - like the 'Great Fleet' hypothesis - made up by European researchers in the case of us New Zealand Polynesians. Kahuroa 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree - I don't fault the nominator for trying the batch approach initially, but evidence has arisen in the discussion above to show that the articles need to be considered individually. Johntex\talk 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree - smaller batch. You might also want to put a fact tag on the articles. --MacRusgail 18:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree - merge is a terrible idea given that these articles are not merely stubs but have multiple levels of factual defects as well. The suggestion to prod the articles and allow thost that can be sourced to be rescued should also work in principle, however as there is no requirement that the "deprodding" editor actually improve the article, we'd just end up here anyway. Thatcher131 16:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay...

since there seem to be very few objections to the proposal, I'm going to start re-afd'ing these individually, starting at the end of the alphabet, in batches of 10-12. I'm putting all of them up - that way any which appear borderline can hopefully get a bit of scrutiny before they're kept (it'll also make it less likely that I'll miss one in the crowd!) Grutness...wha? 05:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently all those from Tevake on have been resubmitted. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
...everything from Paliuli on. Two more batches of 14 after that should finish it. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
...everything from Kahomovailahi on. Grutness...wha? 03:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
OK done. Grutness...wha?

[edit] NOTE TO ADMINS

Please do not close this document until the last of the afd's have been re-done. That should occur within the next 48 hours. Grutness...wha? 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but it sure needs a lot of work. Mailer Diablo 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Mathews

Non-notable, vanity, fails WP:BIO, and possible hoax. Only 788 unique Google results [7], only some of which are relevant. --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I haven't found the link through Google, but it looks like a copyvio to me. TKE 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If it were wikified, it'd be nothing but blue link name droping. I'm finding a lack of verifibility and notability without verification is shot. TKE 05:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's the website for this person: http://www.scottmathews.com/ I have no idea if it's accurate or not. --Xyzzyplugh 03:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I found the same website, and a number of other mentions of this guy. If this is a hoax, someone has gone to a lot of trouble . . . Crypticfirefly 03:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Not sure about website's accuracy, as it could be vanity. Could someone try to verify it? Doesn't seem to be any mention of Scott Mathews on the Beach boys page. --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Not so much vanity as perhaps stretching the importance of things a bit? I've done a ProQuest search and have found references in early 1990's issues of the San Francisco Chronicle and Downbeat to this guy being a studio musician (playing drums on an album for Keith Richards, for example) and being a record producer & songwriter with Ron Nagle. (Apparently a song they wrote together was recorded by The Tubes?) The March 21, 1993 issue of the Chronicle says he was one of the "busiest and most prolific musicians/producers in the Bay Area." For what that's worth. Crypticfirefly 04:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep If the Rolling Stone reference is accurate, then he seems vaguely notable. JoshuaZ 04:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Considering the tone, this seems like vanity. Royboycrashfan 06:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy to creator, User:Tikitown, which is the name of the guy's studio, it seems. Just zis Guy you know? 11:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and userfy, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, hack and slash down to verifiable stub. Monicasdude 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Leaving allegations of hoax aside, Delete as non-notable vanity. RGTraynor 19:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. And improve. --Shindig Me 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, though it's in desperate need of cleanup. His Allmusic page makes him look pretty good, and this discography on Yahoo music comes back with credits on 126 different albums. -Colin Kimbrell 22:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified. Stifle 22:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K. G. Childs

non notable, vanity, bio Leppy 02:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Leppy 02:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, published author, see WP:BIO Delete per Badgerpatrol --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • reluctant Keep relieved Delete per Badgerpatrol, below. The subject of this article clearly wrote both this article, and the one on his book. In addition, the reviews on his book on amazon.com all (in my opinion) look suspiciously enthusiastic. However, it seems that any published author is notable. Article should be cleaned up, though. --Xyzzyplugh 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Not a published author in any objective sense- his book appears to have been (self-) published by a vanity publisher ([8]). Asphyxiating prose. Look out for the amusing spelling mistakes on his website also. I also wonder how he managed to join the army aged 15, although I concede rules may have been different then. A vanity page and nonsense in a whole number of ways- delete.Badgerpatrol 02:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Constitutes a cautionary example that appearing on Amazon does not in itself mean that a subject is notable. Unfortunate and misleading that this sort of vanity material makes it on there. Badgerpatrol 02:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, "vanity published" does not mean published. --Deville (Talk) 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per bio, not an advertisor, nn. TKE 03:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment assuming this is deleted, The_Fortress_City should go as well. --Xyzzyplugh 03:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - that picture hurts my eyes. --Khoikhoi 05:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 06:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Badgerpatrol. Bucketsofg 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since AuthorHouse UK is a self-described self-publishing house. I also nominated The Fortress City. Creator has no edit history outside of this author and his book. Just zis Guy you know? 11:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vanity press books require very clear evidence of significance, and "a copy for a relative" motive only sharpens that need.
    --Jerzy•t 16:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Ugur Basak 21:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birch_nubbe

The source for this material is a personal webpage. All google hits link back to that article, or to ours. As "a guy in sweden with a webpage" is not a reliable source, Delete. Xyzzyplugh 02:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating this related article, as it comes from the same source and the above applies here as well: Spruce_nubbe. --Xyzzyplugh 02:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by The Epopt with summary of (no disagreement with proposed deletion for over five days). -- JLaTondre 04:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W00f

Nominated by EivindFOyangen for PROD, it could become a good article if expanded; 45,100 Googles indicate some notability. I vote keep, but I'm bringing it to AFD after removing {{prod}} since two people wanted its deletion. King of Hearts talk 02:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete or merge with leet, agree with Eivind, List of Internet slang is a better article to merge into --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge I'm only getting 578 ghits, so merge with List of Internet slang. Eivindt@c 02:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of Internet slang or leet--Xyzzyplugh 02:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Eivind --Deville (Talk) 03:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment by the way, in the unlikely event that people want to expand the article... this is just another way of spelling the word "woof". The term wasn't invented in 2000 as the article implies, I find useage of it as early as 1992 in a usenet search. This is just typical internet leetspeak, where o's in words are replaced with zeroes. Because, of course, that makes words more k3w1. --Xyzzyplugh 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As WP:NOT an idiom/slang/whatever guide List of Internet slang is quite horrible already. kotepho 03:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. An alternate spelling of "woof" will never be a good article. This is the kind of thing that should have been quietly merged. It's really difficult to get slang definitions deleted on AfD, even if policy is ostensibly against dictionary definitions. Brian G. Crawford 03:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was on WHEELS!!!...Opps, I mean, keep. :P Mailer Diablo 02:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WoWWiki

This is just an article about a WoW wiki. It's not important enough for a Wikipedia article and doesn't belong here. A Clown in the Dark 02:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: WoWWiki is one of the biggest fansites for World of Warcraft. Many WoW articles on wikipedia reference it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per CyberSkull; notable Wiki --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep When I was still playing WoW I actually visited this site more often than Wikipedia itself. WoW has a huge fanbase and this Wiki managed to establish itself early enough that it became one of the definitive fan sites for the game. Which, incidentally, is the exact same thing I said when Template:Wowwiki came up for TfD (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 3#Template:Wowwiki). –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Alexa ranking of 7,913. I know these aren't officially used, but this is a pretty good alexa ranking and indicates this is a popular website. --Xyzzyplugh 02:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This site has an alexa ranking of about 7,000. It's plenty notable. --BWD (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with WoW --MacRusgail 04:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't see why a Wiki wouldn't deserve an article. Royboycrashfan 06:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's already link from a prominent place in our WOW article, I'm not sure its own article really provides any significant information. --Hetar 09:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, all wikis are notable. --Terence Ong 14:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would just like to say that in this particular instance, how is this wiki any different from a common fansite? Really the only difference between this wiki and a fansite is the fact that it's a wiki. According to wikipedia policy, fansites should only be allowed if they actually had a change on the game. I think anyway, but i can't remember what page i got that from so i may be wrong. | A Clown in the Dark 22:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not all wikis are notable, but this is. Punkmorten 07:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep pschemp | talk 04:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RUOK

Delete 172 Google hits for "RUOK IVR", including Wikipedia and some mirrors. User who created the article has added external links from the same commerical web site to various related articles. It looks like RUOK was created as a hosting ground for those external links. Mrtea (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologism change to Weak keep per the wub and Pgillman's comments --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. A google search for RUOK shows it seems to have been adopted by several police departments. Also an album [9] by Meat Beat Manifesto that appears to meet WP:MUSIC. the wub "?!" 12:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Author of Article) The arguments for deleting this article are flawed. "RUOK IVR" is not a legitimate search term for the program described in the article. (Probably less than 5% of organizations that refer to this service use IVR. Many communities provide this through volunteer service). Using the Google search term "RUOK Program" returns 34,000 hits and all of the results viewed in the first 5 pages are related to the exact program referred to in this article. And these are only a subset of the actual number, many of whom do not have websites or do not have information about their RUOK program on the web. These include police departments, fire departments, social services, private organizations, etc. Discussion regarding other external linking was noted on another talk session with Mrtea(talk). If links provided on this article (list of providers and private funding sources) are objectionable, offensive or inappropriate, then they can be removed without detracting from the substance and value of the article. At a minimum, the list of providers should be retained and perhaps included in the body of the article. This list of providers contains organizations that are categorized by state. Most of the police and fire departments consented to be listed with contact information on how individuals in their communities can subscribe to this nearly universally free service as well as testimonials about the individual lives that have been saved using the service.Pgillman(talk) pgaz 12:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts talk 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per the wub. --BWD (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above. Royboycrashfan 06:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as a real organisation. JIP | Talk 06:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a (very, very rare) ad hoc exception to the rules on promotion in Wikipedia. Haikupoet 00:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of incidents Bloo has caused at Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends

listcruft ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. List about imaginary stuff. --BWD (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft and fancruft --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this one should have been {{prod}}ed, no encyclopedic value. Eivindt@c 03:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, bloocruft --Deville (Talk) 03:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm a fan, but this level of detail is too much, IMHO Evillan 04:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC) .
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic listcruft. Royboycrashfan 06:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Listcruft, better suited to a fansite than to WP.  (aeropagitica)  06:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Axl 09:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Real delete imaginary content. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, bloocruft and listcurft. --Terence Ong 14:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obvi. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - verifiable. Ah, I'm just kidding - Delete non-notable list-cruft. Johntex\talk 07:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 making no claim to notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 12:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nayeb Uddin Khan

There is no documentation or context as to why this person is notable enough for an article Dlayiga 03:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete May be speedyable as there appears to be no claim to notability. Fan1967 03:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable person, fails WP:BIO --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per nom. --Soumyasch 03:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --MacRusgail 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no claim to notability. Royboycrashfan 06:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Alphax τεχ 03:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaughan Watch

Local politics website which appears closely connected to a highly biased, ongoing and virtually unkillable sockpuppet campaign relating to municipal political figures in Vaughan, Ontario (which is not a sufficiently large city that its local politics are clearly encyclopedia-worthy in and of themselves.) No evidence of genuine notability, and the article makes a subtle but unsuccessful attempt to couch an inflammatory statement about political corruption in just enough weasel words to make the statement seem more NPOV than it actually is. I think it's a delete, though feel free to prove me wrong if you disagree. Bearcat 03:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and Expand So in other words you're saying the article is written with neutrality? Despite it being a controversial topic?

In the MOST recent edit to main Vaughan, Ontario page, you included Vaughan Watch under the external links as, and I quote, "Vaughan Watchdog website, unofficial". See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaughan%2C_Ontario&diff=45683657&oldid=45678795

If they are important enough to be on that page, and are notable enough to be referred to (and is in fact) the Watchdog of Vaughan Council, surely that is evidence of "genuine notability"?

They are the watchdogs of the most corrupt city council in Canada. That makes them worthy of an encyclopedia article. See http://vaughanwatch.ca/ Skycloud 03:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Actually, no, I'm saying it's not written with neutrality — Wikipedia has no business describing any city council as "the most corrupt city council in Canada". The statement is neither neutral nor verifiable, and has no business being anywhere near a Wikipedia article, let alone in one. Bearcat 03:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not describing it that way, I am. The page itself is pretty objective... as you've noted Bearcat. Skycloud 04:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
        • No, the page itself isn't objective, and I didn't say that it was — I said the page is written in a way as to give off an illusion of being more objective than it actually is. Meaning it isn't neutral; it just wants people to think it is. Bearcat 04:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - The key here is, no one outside the political circles in Vaughan knows, or cares about this organisation. I believe the fact that User:Skycloud (a sockpuppet) refers to Vaughan as "the most corrupt city council in canada", proves my point that this group is biased and contravening WP:NOT by continuously using Wiki as a soapbox. pm_shef 03:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn and nonsense --Deville (Talk) 03:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn and nonsense --Ardenn 03:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

-Vaughan Council has been noted as the most corrupt council in Canada by the Toronto Star and many other national publications. Vaughan Watch is the most often cited watchdog of Vaughan Council in the media, appearing in the Toronto Star between 5 and 10 times last year. See: http://www.yorkregion.com/yr/newscentre/vaughancitizen/story/2857035p-3308590c.html

  • Delete, non-notable organization, website has no Alexa ranking [10] --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Over 700 hits on google. Many newspapers article in national publication over a 3 or 4 year period. That's notable. Skycloud 04:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, but only 134 unique Google results [11]. Also, what newspapers are you refering to? --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • For Clarification Vaughan Council notes in its minutes in January 2004 the following: "Communication – Paul DeBuono, President, Vaughan Watch, January 20, 2004, forwarding editorials from the Toronto Star and the York Region Newspaper Group regarding the investigation into tickets issued to Mayor Michael Di Biase;"

This refers to the police investigation into why Di Biase had several traffic tickets 'lost' by the police station. This is just one reference allusion to corruption. See http://www.police.york.on.ca/psb/agendas/2004/january/jan21public.pdf

  • For Clarification Noted Toronto Star articles featuring Vaughan Watch and its President, Paul De Buono, found through google.

1. "Hand over Di Biase probe, York police told" Jan 16, 2004. Toronto Star. Description: ..."It's a general principle that a police force should not investigate itself," said Paul De Buono, a family-law attorney who started Vaughan Watch last year 2. "Police Clear Vaughan Officials" Toronto Star Story - 22-Nov-2004 by Phinjo Gombu and John Duncanson.

And why is any of this notable enough to be in an international encyclopedia? Items of purely local relevance do not belong here; this has already been clearly spelled out in both WP policy and AFD precedent. Bearcat 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It has national significance, and that's enough for wikipedia. Skycloud 04:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • For further clarification Vaughan Watch and its founder Paul De Buono not have appeared in many national newspapers over 3 years, but are present news items as well. See "Rental Tribunal Adjudicator Resigns": www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb. php?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=001284

Above unsigned comment by User:Skycloud

  • Delete per nom. —GrantNeufeld 05:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Bucketsofg 05:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 06:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Organization has been a catalyst for similiar organizations formed across Canada. Is the premier watchdog organization of the Province. VaughanWatch 00:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You have proof that it's the "premier watchdog organization" I'm assuming? pm_shef 00:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No indication that this organisation is notable outside its hometown. Capitalistroadster 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 07:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep :*I think Bearcat is a sockpuppet. 69.198.130.82 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Please note, User:69.198.130.82 has made 6 edits, all on this page, or the talk pages of users involved in this discussion pm_shef 17:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you even know what sockpuppet means? I'm an administrator and have been around Wikipedia for years. The word applies to me in no conceivable way whatsoever. Bearcat 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What's your point? You have probably made 20 times that many edits on this subject. Please note, that was not a personal attack. 69.198.130.82 17:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia AFDs are supposed to be a consensus of established users. New users who've never edited Wikipedia before suddenly showing up in an AFD with an agenda can be, and often are, excluded from the tally of opinion at the end of the process. Look up the phrase "gaming the system" if you don't understand why. Bearcat 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I think you can tell from my posts that I am the same guy as a month ago. As for the sockpuppet comment, I was just joking with you. Lighten up a bit when you're dealing with this Vaughan stuff or else you'll go crazy. The ridiculousness will hopefully end in Novemeber for a few of Vaughan's councillors. And maybe the Mayor too. 69.198.130.82 18:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, if I'm in any danger of going crazy it's going to have a lot less to do with Vaughan politics and a lot more to do with certain Wikipedia editors who think their own personal view of Vaughan politics legitimates a six-week-long revert war protecting unencyclopedic trivia about lunches, biased POV edits and blatantly false accusations of vandalism against longstanding editors who are simply doing their job in keeping WP articles neutral and verifiable. Not that I'm naming any names. Bearcat 17:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as promotional for non-notable, local political group. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Luigizanasi 18:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per skycloud. Leotardo 23:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --maclean25 01:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vaughan Watch is a nationally-known organization is definitely incorrect. Peter Grey 06:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vaughan Watch and Paul DeBuono each get 2 Lexis/Nexis hits in the last two years related to the government of Vaughan. "Paul DeBuono" also pulls up some hits as a former Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal adjudicator involved in a tenant eviction dispute. Even if this is the same person, one person's crusade against an allegedly corrupt town government is not encyclopedic. Thatcher131 16:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bearcat, Thatcher131. I'm thinking of two vaguely similar civic activist groups in Ontario communities which would absolutely merit Wikipedia articles: Citizens for Local Democracy in Toronto (defunct) and the Lanark Landowners Association in the Ottawa Valley (now the Ontario Landowners Association). How do they differ any from Vaughan Watch? Both of those had visible mass followings at regular meetings, organized large demonstrations, were led by or courted by prominent politicians, attracted persistent national media attention substantively discussing the organization, program and methods, etc. If Vaughan Watch has uncovered such corruption as claimed, I'm sure its time will come and an article can be recereated adding such history and sources. Samaritan 03:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vaughan Watch is certainly not nationally known. I doubt too many people out here in the east have even heard of Vaughan, let alone Vaughan Watch. Kirjtc2 19:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  06:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CybertOOn's CartOOn Campaign

Creator removed PROD tag with no discussion. Article about a website with no evidence of meeting WP:WEB or WP:V. --W.marsh 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable website, doesn't even have its own domain--TBC??? ??? ??? 03:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. It's been around for nine years and it still doesn't have its own domain? That docks points on the website notability test. Royboycrashfan 06:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nine years without its own domain probably means that it has negative notabilitty. Just zis Guy you know? 12:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Angr (talk • contribs) 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep pschemp | talk 04:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The puppy channel

advertising for a small cable channel business, fails to assert notability. Dismas|(talk) 03:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - I created the article and I'm in no way connected with the puppy channel, there is nothing left to advertise if it was advertising. It's important enclyopdeic information because it is the puppy channel, the first vision and attempt at execution of puppies(and very very small partial execution in terms of 3 channels playing it two hours a week) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 203.112.2.212 04:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable cable channel that failed years ago. Fan1967 04:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, checks out on Google. Anyone can get an hour on public access, but setting up a 24-hour channel in four markets takes some effort... and in this case, some very naive investors. Gazpacho 04:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see http://207.70.82.73/pages/descriptions/03/233.html for it's notablity 203.112.2.212 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep --MacRusgail 04:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup. --RPIRED 05:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if someone will rid this article of the POV advertising stench. Royboycrashfan 06:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable cable channel. Although 203.112.2.212 gives the impression it's a cable channel about the execution of puppies, which would be awesome, and I would watch it all the time. Proto||type 08:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought the same thing too the first time I read it, lol --Hetar 08:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Be careful with what you say. When I put this up for deletion, the creator of the article vandalized my user page with the non-existant user box "user hatespuppies". Dismas|(talk) 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Article should be renamed to The Puppy Channel if kept, per grammar, WP:MoS and sanity. Proto||type 11:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete uncited, largely unverifiable (which channels carried it?), no longer existent, no evidence it was influential (no spinoffs, no followup). As stated above, the execution idea has legs; a channel about puppies? Anyone watching it would surely lose the will to live almost immediately. Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The channel is an obvious inspiration for the Puppy_Bowl a major Animal Planet yearly event. 203.112.2.212 14:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 14:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but decide on correct capitalisation of name, and some tidy-up needed. Sure, it's not a major channel and isn't likely to be, but there are many far less notable things on Wikipedia. Fourohfour 15:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, oh and the "puppy executing" comment jumped out at me when I read it as well. I put it in BJAODN for posterity. I apologise if it sounds like I'm mocking the contributor's English; it's not really that bad, it's just one of those unfortunate uses of language.... most of which are made by native English speakers. See Colemanballs for some good examples. Fourohfour 15:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep cable networks are notable, and the main reason to delete doesn't make sense--it can't be advertising if the network no longer exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Something that was only carried in four small markets, and then only briefly? Does this mean I get to write an article about the Boston community access cable channel, because at least half a million people could watch it if they chose? Delete the hell out of this puppy! RGTraynor 19:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this an all cable channels past and present. They are inherently notable. The nominator must hate puppies (lol). savidan(talk) (e@) 22:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I just heard an ad on NPR for a program that's going to cover the Puppy Channel. A google search indicates that it's been covered by NPR before, too. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and fix grammar: Civilization needs this information because sooner or later someone will try to start a Puppy Channel. Peter Grey 06:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fayette County Productions

NN. http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Fayette+County+Productions%22 produces zero hits. Josh Parris 02:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Ezeu 03:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google isn't everything, but any notable indie film maker has a website or is at least mentioned on the web somewhere. - Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_28&action=edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Network Services

advert for business that fails WP:CORP, PROD tag was removed ➥the Epopt 04:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertisement for a non-notable company. Only 267 unique Google results [12]--TBC??? ??? ??? 04:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. Alexa data for their website is not exactly impressive. Royboycrashfan 06:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn company. --Terence Ong 14:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 21:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boulvevard Trail

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Patrick Adams

Trying to list properly. Another user asserted this person was non-notable. MacRusgail 04:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. Only 10 unique Google results [13]--TBC??? ??? ??? 04:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable web designer trying to up his Ghits profile - the inclusion of search terms in the article is a giveaway. The first Ghit returned is the WP page. {{db-bio}} candidate.  (aeropagitica)  06:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:VSCA. 10 is downright lame, especially when half of them are Wikipedia. Royboycrashfan 06:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, VSCA. 10 google hits? Definitely nn. --Terence Ong 14:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Ugur Basak 21:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy to User:Sl45. Stifle 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


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

Previous nomination here closed on 2006-03-05

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, minus the socks. If there is a consenus to merge and redirect, just go ahead and do so, no sysop action is required. Mailer Diablo 16:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ook! programming language

Unbelievable rubbish (though probably true), if keeping this non-notable language, please consider a redirect to David Morgan-Mar

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

MacRusgail 04:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge to David Morgan-Mar (as I tried a few weeks ago.) David Morgan-Mar is probably just notable enough to warrant an article, but his languages are not (and Ook! just being very lame Brainfuck rip-off.) Even Esolang lists it as just a joke language. —Ruud 04:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete all. On second though I think DMM will not pass WP:BIO and that his languages are just not notable enough to be included. —Ruud 21:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom, does exist though not notable. Only 135 unique Google results [14] --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It was invented as a joke, but it was a good joke. I first learn about it from Wikipedia and it made my day. Everybody (mostly professional software developers) I showed this page liked it too. By the way its description as Turing-complete is correct. Also, article is well written. --Vlad1 05:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Being a good joke is not a sufficient criterion for getting an article (or I'd be off to write The Priest, the Minister and the Rabbi walk into a bar...). GRuban 17:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Additional comment. This is an article with long edit history and multiple contributors. Wikipedia contains several articles of this type, see for example COW_programming_language, but Ook_programming_language seems to be the most detailed one among them. The article does not contain any incorrect or unverified information, and it is a good and amusing read. To those who want to merge, may I suggest a principle: if it is not broken, do not fix it. You cannot merge it withDavid Morgan-Mar (which is a shorter article than this one) without either loss of information, or having the combined article look ugly. Confirming Keep vote --Vlad1 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm confused. If you wanted them to be merged into his article and redirected... why didn't you? kotepho 05:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually I don't. I want them to be deleted, but not everyone would agree... --MacRusgail 06:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect but certainly not delete. I've heard of Ook! before but I don't think it is notable for its own article, but surely we can have them all in a lump. kotepho 05:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to David Morgan-Mar. Royboycrashfan 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect per nominator, or to esoteric programming language. There are languages of this kind and I don't see how Ook! is particularly notable among them. JIP | Talk 06:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep quite good and relevant if it's Turing complete. And Vlad1's comment shows it's relevant to programmers too. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete cruft. How many people are using this to write actual code? What academic sources have discussed the significance of this language? Whan new ground does it break? This is the programming equivalent of something made up in school one day. Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect to any suitable article. --Terence Ong 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Since when are gags encyclopedic? RGTraynor 19:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Wikipedia is not paper. David Morgan-Mar's languages ought to be regarded as subpages of his page. So the question is: Would his page be too long if all content about his langagues was merged to his page. I feel the answer is yes. At any rate, this is clearly a matter for his article's talk page. Maybe merge all to Programming langauges of David Morgan-Mar? JeffBurdges 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and redirect to DM. It's just a trivial translation of Brainfuck. If that deserved an article, I could make a program to generate an infinite number of Wikipedia articles. GRuban 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although these are clearly "jokey" languages, each of them is, in some way, illuminating, and I can quite easily imagine these languages being discussed in a classroom environment. Ook shows in an amusing way that a Turing-complete language can be superficially very simple, Chef explicitly draws on a common teaching metaphor, and so on. I fully agree with Just zis Guy you know?'s point that people don't use these languages to write actual code, and that they don't break any new ground. These languages are useless for programming, but useful for the light they shine on their underlying concepts. If the general feeling is that these articles are merged into some larger whole, I wouldn't mind too much, but keeping them as separate pages isn't killing any extra trees, so for now I'm minded to vote Keep. WMMartin 20:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: please stop renominating articles just because you have failed to have them deleted or because you don't understand the contents: repeated nominations have been in the past seen as disruption. Furthermore, the point of an encyclopedia is not to look up stuff you already know about: the point is to discover stuff you didn't already know. It should therefore come as no surprise if the content of an article is unfamiliar or even looks stupid. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I didn't know this bad joke had already been nominated. --MacRusgail 17:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep if everything had to be deadpan serious, a lot fewer people would use Wikipedia. I wouldn't. (note, anon addition by 213.222.35.125: first edit)
  • Keep: Because this is similar to other joke languages like Brainfuck or Malboge does not mean it should be deleted. It is still funny and we need fun. (note, anon addition by 195.6.25.114: first edit)
  • Keep Even though it's not used for serious work, it's still a perfectly valid, Turing-complete programing language. (note, anon addition by 194.144.31.172: first edit)
  • Keep As as demonstration of how pop culture infiltrates everything. (note, anon addition by Akaihyo)
  • Keep: It doesn't violate any of the "grounds for speedy deletion" criteria; and if usefulness were a required feature of every article, Wikipedia would be a lot smaller! It's an actual language, it properly illustrates programming principles, and is also amusing to boot. I say Keep; the purpose of an encyclopedia is to gather knowledge, not to exclude it. (note, anon addition by Eringryffin: first edit)
  • Merge and redirect per Ruud - program cruft. --ImpartialCelt 18:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Ansud

  • Hey, what happened to free encyclopedia ? As we know it's a storage of knowledge, but why that programming language (may be written for interest or like a parody) can't be stored in here ? It's just a knowledge like others articles. And if your children ask ypou @daddy, WTF is Ook language, you can't say "RTFM, darling."
  • Notable enough for me (see the handy chart at User:R._Koot/Esoteric_programming_languages) and by a notable author. Keep all 3 languages. Failing that, merge to David Morgan-Mar's article or to a Programming langauges of David Morgan-Mar as JeffBurdges suggests. I will do it if that's the outcome, just userify the articles to me and let me know. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BALLS, I think. Stifle 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not everything that falls out of David's brain on a friday afternoon is notable. Give me some reliable external sources, and I may change my mind. - Hahnchen 00:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - how many times will you nominate the same article within a month? Ambarish 02:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Sure, it's a joke language, but it's an informative article, and it could be used to write programs (being equivalent to Brainfuck). No reason not to keep. Rwald 10:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Angelo 11:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Can't believe this is up for deletion! Speedy keep and expand! Misza13 T C 17:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it. I didn´t knew what was Ook! until I read it on Drupal. Those guys told the community that they wanted to migrate from php to Ook!

It is nice to know that when you are told about something, you can always read more about it here, at wikipedia. Ook! is a joke (I don´t care if it is a good one or a bad one), but it exists and that´s the important thing here. Why deleting it? Wikipedia is not (or shouldn´t be) a Judge, it is just an encyclopedia. If it exists, it should be here. Period.. Rosamunda - Buenos Aires - Argentina This is the user's only contribution to Wikipedia

  • Extremely Strong Keep - I saw a reference to Ook! but did not know what it was, so i looked it up here. Yes, Ook! is a programmer’s joke. It is also part of our culture. This article is informative, well written, accurate, and referenced by other sites. Just because some may find it irrelevant, offensive, or fail to find it amusing doesn’t mean others won’t find value in it. The suggestion it be deleted is preposterous. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; it is not limited by the number of articles. There is no harm in having such entries and no reason to remove useful reference material; Wikipedia would be diminished by such a loss. We shouldn’t even be having this discussion! – T.O. Rainy Day 1 April 2006 user's 4th contribution
  • Save the baby Ooks! - Yes, OF COURSE this is a joke language. So what? The Drupal page mentioned above lists code written in this language. That page links to this article. I got a chuckle out of the Drupal article and followed that link to learn more about the language. Isn't that what encyclopedias are for? If the article had been removed, I would have clicked on a dead link. How would that have made my day better? The next thing you know, we'll start deleting articles about comedians who tell bad jokes. Michael Geary 01:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am aware of this discussion, but will not contribute, as I do not believe that I should participate in any such discussion on articles about me or my programming languages. -dmmaus 05:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely Strong Keep Any page that links to Terry Pratchett has worth.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinaxina (talk • contribs) and is the user's only contribution to Wikipedia

  • Delete or merge with Brainfuck. Ook! is not a different language from Brainfuck. —Felix the Cassowary 06:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Ook!. It is one of only a few joke programming languages that are widely enough known in the computer science community to deserve WP articles of their own.
    Note that the nominator of this article has also nominated Chef and Whenever for deletion, and has apparently merged the nominations with this one. This is wrong. Chef and Whenever are not widely known and would be good candidates for merging into David's article, while Ook! is notable and deserves its own. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to separate the nominations appropriately? — Haeleth Talk 13:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely Strong Keep OoK! and Chef. I find all these esoteric languages interesting (especially Chef); They have a certain beauty. As someone said, if it's not broken, don't fix it. I don't know what would be gained from the deletion of both articles, and believe that they are to big to be in sections of their author's article. On the other hand, the article about Whenever is just a stub, and could be moved. FiP 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. This is not an inherently interesting programming language, because it's similar or identical to Brainfuck. A single paragraph in the author's article will suffice to explain the language.-gadfium 03:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely Strong Keep - So what if its similar? It is a programming language, albeit similar, but it's an excellent article, and I was just looking for it; thankfully I found it! Putting it under 'David Morgan-Mar' is nonsense, it would make his page hugely long and complicated. 05:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Offhand? Keep almost any article whose edit history is long and varied enough that it is obvious we have enough interested editors to keep the article accurate. This criterion is less contentious than "notability" and does almost the same job. DanielCristofani 07:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Clear Keep. A couple of minutes ago, I remembered having read about Ook! several years ago and checked to see if we have an article on it - which should serve to demnonstrate that even articles on joke languages can have some research value. Wikipedia is not paper, and we don't gain anything by deleting these articles (I could live with a merge and redirect, though - but outright deletion is out of the question). -- Ferkelparade π 10:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamocklaquat

insufficient importance CleanSweeper 04:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable with only 69 unique Google results [15], though I'm also fine with a redirect to Lego--TBC??? ??? ??? 04:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I doubt a specific model, let alone an unimportant one, would make a good redirect. Royboycrashfan 06:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —This unsigned comment was added by 202.67.127.214 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 28 March 2006.
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an AFOL I can tell you that even amongst the Lego hobby community this is considered unimportant. TimGould
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 15:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete One model alone does not constitiue enough content nor importance to have a full page. Maybe this can be included as a footnote somewhere else...?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repcillin

Contested prod. non notable with only 90 Google hits WP 04:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as blatant advertising for non-notable product. Links to this article from other articles should be removed too. dbtfztalk 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I took the liberty of removing the spamlinks from other articles (except for Crocodile oil, which should also be deleted as part of the attempt to exploit Wikipedia as a medium for free advertising). dbtfztalk 04:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep minor interest. --MacRusgail 04:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisement for a non-notable product. --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 05:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in the same manner as Crocodile oil.  (aeropagitica)  06:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, though there are only 26 unique hits and several hits on the first page are Wikipedia. Royboycrashfan 06:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. topynate 00:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. If there is a general consensus to redirect, go ahead and do so, no sysop action is required. Mailer Diablo 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nurse Jennifer (Saved by the Bell)

non-notable, fictional character who appeared on one episode of SBTB. Already listed on the minor characters page. Ckessler

This page is clearly more in-depth (it's obviously long enough to merit its own page behind a simple paragraph) to that particular episode (one of my personal favorites). It's not like I'm going to devote individual pages to every single minor-character listed.User:TMC1982

  • Keep. Page seems to provide highly encyclopedic coverage of this character. No reason to degrade coverage of characters from this show. -- JJay 14:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your desire for in-depth coverage of the show, but this character appeared in one episode. A similar character page (Johnny Dakota) was just merged to Saved by the Bell Minor Characters. Ckessler 03:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment "Somebody on Earth thinks this is important" is not a valid argument to retain. If it were, we wouldn't have AfD--Deville (Talk) 14:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Neither is "this character appeared in one episode" a valid reason to delete. If it were, we could delete Juliet for only appearing in one Shakespeare episode. My arguments for keep are given above. -- JJay 15:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you really comparing Saved By the Bell to Romeo and Juliet? I'm sorry, but there's something slightly ridiculous about that. Ckessler 22:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments aside, JJay, the vote was still merge. Ckessler 04:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • "The result of the debate was not a lot of consensus". No merge was carried out. And I voted keep. -- JJay 13:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge --Siva1979Talk to me 06:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This really is an episode synopsis. If individual episodes of TV shows are generally considered notable (I don't know the policy on that), I'd agree with CanadianCaesar and reframe it as an episode synopsis. Otherwise, delete.
  • Redirect to Saved by the Bell Minor Characters. Royboycrashfan 06:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename and change into an article about the episode, not one character. I oppose a merge to Saved by the Bell Minor Characters as that involves lumping in a whole bunch of loosely related information together. --Rob 08:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect There's no need for an episode synopsis.--Cúchullain t c 09:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. Just being broadcast on television doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. There are too many frivolous, entertainment-related articles on WP. Brian G. Crawford 15:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Already mentioned in minor characters article and is an unlikely search term, so no need for a redirect. I would, however, favor a redirect over a keep for this article. youngamerican (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Saved by the Bell Minor Characters. Do not merge the "List of possible cliches" as it is original research. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per above. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per above. SorryGuy 16:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual WestJet

Fake airline (that is, a "Virtual airline", just a group of hobbyists running MS flight sims). Exceedingly nn. Was Prod'ed, but article creator removed tag. Related to the still prodded Darcy Broda, "President and CEO" of this group. Calton | Talk 05:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. --Soumyasch 05:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable flightsim-fancruft.  (aeropagitica)  06:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. 39 unique hits, Wikipedia has several hits on first page. Royboycrashfan 06:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above--Ugur Basak 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- the hobby itself isn't even notable. Let's not even start with individual organizations. Haikupoet 00:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troop 449

non notable as local sub-association of BSA, see WP:NOT#1.7 jergen 06:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 06:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't think individual boy scout troops are notable. JIP | Talk 06:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. There are 43,984 Boy Scout troops in the USA alone. [16] --Metropolitan90 08:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pure vanity and non-notable. Rlevse 11:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC), Scouting project coordintor.
  • Delete per nom. Also, for the record, under Category:Scouting stubs, this is the only article of the form "Troop N". There is clearly no precedent for these things. --Deville (Talk) 14:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey Ho, Gotta Go evrik 15:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Ugur Basak 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete individual scout troops unless they are notable beyond being a scout troop. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I wouldn't categorically say that no individual scout troop can ever be notable enough for a Wikipedia article - but there is nothing shown about this one to say that it should be the first. Johntex\talk 03:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 original research and/or nonsense bu JIP. Proto||type 08:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Involuntary Procrastination Disorder

Vanity page, with no references Nagle 06:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of obesity surgeons

Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory or a indiscriminate collection of information. (Note: I tried PROD first, but the article creator objected.) FreplySpang (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, indiscriminate listcruft. Royboycrashfan 06:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT the Yellow Pages. JIP | Talk 06:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Axl 09:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 10:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JIP --Deville (Talk) 14:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 21:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: If a significant number of obesity surgeons were notable enough for Wikipedia articles, it would be a different story. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan Feeney

Non-notable Allstar86 06:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, there's no way this guy is more than just an ordinary civilian. 30 unique hits on Google, which backs up this statement. Royboycrashfan 06:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nobody is a "stand in" for the singer/songwriter of Green Day. That's just silly. As for the above note, just because a search for "Jordan Feeney" brings up 30 hits, that means nothing. Search for Timothy McCarthy (which is a name I pulled out of my ass) and you get even 32,000 hits. Should he have a wiki article? 70.60.152.14 06:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I was agreeing with you about his lack of notability. Possibly I didn't word it well. 70.60.149.226 20:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The claims in the article are not credible. It seems he filled in for the lead singer of Green Day and studied law at the same time. Capitalistroadster 08:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete looks like a possible attack/hoax, and even if true, it's nn-bio. --Bachrach44 14:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sounergy

Non-notable website. Google returns 14 results, and only one seems related. Sulfur 06:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Dear Royboycrash I appreciate your trying to keep wikipedia as useful as possible i.e. We need more like you on the net! However, I added Sounergy because I thought it would be necessary to fully explain the wizor i.e. there is a link to it from the Wizor page I am working on. I respect you doing a google search and I to see that it comes up with limited results. However in the deletion policy it says articles have been kept with as little as 15 hits from google. I own a Wizor and am a big fan of the sound it gives my games, laptop etc... I could careless about Sounergy, Jebsen, or Rollei which are the only distributors of this product. (Also known as the Rollei Wizor). I do not work in the electronics industry I am a lawyer by trade. I hope you understand where I was coming from. Thanks Aaron.adams 08:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. I can see nothing about the Sounergy article that is "necessary to fully explain" the Wizor. It just identifies Sounergy as the manufacturer; well, someone had to have manufactured it, after all.RGTraynor 19:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Bad ideas 08:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per Bad ideas, nn company, 14 hits on Google is essentially nonePeter 09:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. -Dawson 05:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olmish

From all appearences, a hoax, and even if it were not, it is not notable. R. S. Shaw 06:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: This article had been {prod}'d; the proposed deletion notice was deleted by an anon editor, who later thought to remove the bulk of the article (in this edit), perhaps because it might make the hoax more subtle. -R. S. Shaw 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Search for Olmish yield 40 results, and a search for Olmish people returns 6 results (zero relevant ones outside Wikipedia). Royboycrashfan 06:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it by some miracle turns out to be genuine it can be redirected to Amish. JIP | Talk 06:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete In the off-chance there is some verisimilitude to this, simply merge it with Amish. It doesn't need a separate article for three sentences. 70.60.152.14 07:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom, Omish is recognised by the OED as an alt. spelling of Amish (in 1844). No sign of Olmish, though.Peter 09:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax --Deville (Talk) 14:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 15:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above --Ugur Basak 21:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Garbage. Fan1967 00:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete cj | talk 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 08:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Roisterer 03:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  06:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harel Malka

This article does not provide references and gives the outward appearance of being a vanity autobiography. Google returns approximately 180 hits for the name, but there may be an alternate spelling I'm unaware of. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that if google returns 180 hits for the name it should be enough to keep a wikipedia entry.
Furthermore I am the author, but NOT the person represented on the page. There are 2 different people editing this page from the same IP as we are on the same subnet. I don't think that's forbidden, either.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.58.72 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, asserts notability so can't be speedily deleted, but I'm not seeing much on the guy. No mention of being a co founder of Egg Beats, which seems to be the only possible source of notability (and Egg Beats would fail WP:MUSIC). Proto||type 08:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
From that link: About Egg Beats: Egg Beats is an independent, San Francisco based record label dedicated to nurturing undergound sounds. Formed by Bryan Dobson and Harel Malka in 2001, Egg Beats has been incubating for a few years. Things are cracking open in 2004 with several releases and events, including the debut from San Francisco's Moontrane Conductors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.58.72 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - On wikipedia, we have multiple page about programmers and musicians that are not world-famous, but famous in their own 'undergrounds'. Just try to ask my mother who 'jimbo' is. Because you don't know it doesn't mean it's not relevant to other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.58.72 (talk • contribs)
(second "keep" by this IP struck out by me) Hbackman 18:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Please don't vote twice. You're welcome to continue participating in the discussion, however. Thanks. Hbackman 18:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't vote twice. There are 2 of us from the same IP. Two of us = two votes.
  • Delete. Lacks independent sources and verification of notability. Gamaliel 09:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Co-founder of a micro-micro-micro-indie record label which doesn't even have an article itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 20:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a coder he's insignificant... as a musician he's still insignificant. The record label however is quite notable, Starblind dunno where you got your info from but the article doesnt state he founded the label, merely that he has released on it. As for it being a micro-micro-micro indie record label... thats utter hogwash. see here for a list of releases... I can point to probably 100+ reviews of stuff on that label, while it is independant it most certainly is not micro, several CDs released on the label have gone Silver or Gold. Suggest redirecting Harel Malka to Phonokol Records and adding a small sentance stating he's an artist on the label.  ALKIVAR™ 00:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Further up in the AFD it's stated that he co-founded "Egg Beats", a label which as far as I can tell has released one record since being formed in 2001. That record currently has a 112,471 rank among Amazon music items, meaning it's sold less copies than, say, a rare $33.00 Japanese import CD of Strawberry Switchblade's self-titled debut album, for example. As for Malka's involvement with Phonokol, it seems to be limited to one track on a verious-artists compilation titled "Morning In Space". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Ahh yeah that would be my bad... I think AFD posters should link to a static revision they viewed... because comments dont always follow... I assumed you were talking about Phonokol. I completely missed the Egg Beats references.  ALKIVAR™ 03:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE - WOHAA people. I AM Harel Malka, and this was done by some other joe-shmoes in the company. we all share the same IP. I didn't know this was here. Go ahead and kill this article.... Damn.... ;o) Its true - as a musician i'm micro (or was micro-ish). The label is micro. As a programmer though - I'm quite the macro but that is still not grounds for this article. One day i'll be emperor and have my very own wikipedia. till then delete me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.58.72 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP - hey! what's going on there! I AM Harel Malka, and I'd very much like my work to be recognized, no matter how 'underground' it might be. Don't listen to the jackass above - keep the article!
  • DELETE - Ok, this has gone far enough. I've signed in now - and I am Harel. The real deal. Please delete this article. It's an office joke played on me here... must admit it was funny while it lasted, but it did last too long. Yamagami 15:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --SushiGeek 00:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vitarich Corporation

Only contributor is Vitarich Corporation. Was originally nominated for speedy by AmiDaniel and then removed by creator without explanation. NN company advertisement, delete. --Hetar 08:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, the creator removing the speedy tag of an obvious piece of advertising doesn't mean it shouldn't be speedied. Proto||type 08:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - nn feed company, advertisement, vision=a copyrighted logo Peter 08:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • still in the process of learning how this wikipedia works... please consider, author is just a novice... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitarich Corporation (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete as I originally tagged it. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a speedy deletion, advertizing is not one of the WP:CSD. Delete, meanwhile, per WP:VSCA. Stifle 23:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This would have been an obvious keep given that Vitarich is one of the largest poultry and animal feed producers in the Phillipines and has been listed on the PSE since 1962. The Avian flu epidemic has also caused a bit of newsflow for the company in the last year or so. Of course, it is also a copyvio of the history page from Vitarich's corporate website. Instead of making up new CSD criteria - a particularly egregious lapse when done by an aspiring admin - I would suggest that participants check regularly for copyvios and follow procedure. -- JJay 00:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-1 technology

Article does not fall under Wikipedia's inclusion policy, as the content qualifies as advertisement. 128.42.157.119 09:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Abstain: I'm just moving this to the right place after the anon. nom. botched the Afd. No vote. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- ad, nn corp. Haikupoet 00:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [01:47] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Delete. Omphaloscope » talk 05:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. incog 23:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 14:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadowed Kingdoms

Nn advertisement that does not meet WP:WEB. When I first stumbled across this site I assumed it was notable and began to clean up the article and do some basic fact checking. However, essentially the only source for this article is http://www.shadowed-kingdoms.co.uk which ironically enough links right back to Wikipedia when you click on Eldea Chronicals on the left bar. The Game/Client link is disfunctional and a look into the forums reveals the game has not been released, and is still in the early stages of development. They apparently don't have the budget for E3, so they are advertising on Wikipedia instead. Delete. --Hetar 09:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Hetar who seems to have done his homework. Basically an ad for a NN web-game. Marskell 10:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per nom, and the forum's been up for over a month, and has 18 registered users. TimBentley (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 07:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primou

Appears to be a non-notable extension to a non-notable piece of software. Only incoming link created by the page's author Pak21 09:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — NN. Appears to be a very esoteric piece of software of interest to a small community. If the page described a notable algorithm or if the s/w had won some distinctive award... maybe. But right now I'm not seeing it. Sorry. :) — RJH 20:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename - PRIMOU is derived from PRIMO. Both are genome processing packages. If you Google on "PRIMO"+"Genome", you get over 86,000 hits. "PRIMOU"+"Genome" gets less than 1,000 hits. Therefore, I think PRIMO is plenty notable. We should move the article to PRIMO, and include a section on PRIMOU. Johntex\talk 23:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that I only got 405 hits for "PRIMOU"+"Genome". In some cases it is necessary to be cautious about counting google hits. They can include advertisements and mirrors. But a rename would work for me, although I'd be interested in seeing the whole topic of software analysis of the genome be better developed, rather than having individual package pages. — RJH 15:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree that a bigger genome sequence analysis software article would be very nice to have. I will add it to my lengthy to-do list, although I won't be able to do it justice on my own. I do think there would be several programs that would be worthy of their own article. PRIMO+PRIMOU would be one. GCG Wisconsin Package would be another (176,000 Google hits under that name alone, and it has gone by several different names).Johntex\talk 02:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or join with PRIMO. That way it is not lost in space. PRIMOU a strong improvement over PRIMO, but you only care about popularity, not quality. Michael Janich 07:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Untrue. I suspect that most people here like both notability and quality. :) — RJH 15:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Notability isn't quite synonymous with popularity...but there has to be something other than the editor's opinion (see WP:OR) to support the claim of its awesomeness. So like if it got some good write-ups in trade magazines or professional journals or something, it could still be somewhat notable, even if it never caught on. A large part of the concern with notability is actually derived from the fact that it's hard to find reliable information about stuff that isn't well-known or remarkable (see WP:V). Which, if there are some articles about it somewhere, references in the article would go a long way toward establishing its notability and thereby its keepability. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qward Board

Non-notable Internet forum. Fails WP:WEB as far as I can see. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: per nom. --Hetar 09:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. -Dawson 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hania Barton

The subject appears to be significant only as being the sister of someone famous; no other claim to her own significance is made. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Entirely non-notable random human, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  10:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete she is an ordinary person Curtains99 14:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 15:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Based on the history of the Spears and Simpson families, someone may decide to manufacture some celebrity for this sibling in the future, but they haven't done so yet. After all, we don't even know if she can lip-sync. Fan1967 00:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Fan1967, don't try to scare people! ;-) SoLando (Talk) 21:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you really think she could be more scary than Ashlee Simpson? Fan1967 22:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC
    • Alas, I've become very cynical about celebrity. So yes! ;-) SoLando (Talk) 06:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Renaming may be a good idea though. Mailer Diablo 16:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale to impeach George W. Bush

Agit-prop masquerading as an encyclopadia article. God knows I am no fan of the smirking chimp, but I can't see how this can be defended. In what way is this not a POV fork? Just zis Guy you know? 10:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete for failing to comply with NPOV/being a POV fork. OverlordChris 10:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, first show how this is a POV article. That has already been discussed and disproven. Even if it is POV that is hardly sufficient grounds for deletion. Second, it is not a fork but addresses the rationale in more detail since including it in the original article would make that too long. It is wikipedia policy to create a subpage when an article becomes too long.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll admit my first reaction was "Huh?" but at a glance it looks well-referenced. Maybe merge to Movement to impeach George W. Bush and break out some other section, such as public opinion? The title Public opinion on the movement to impeach George W. Bush wouldn't seem so POV. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 11:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with CanadianCeaser - the title reads more like the title to a persuasive essay than an encyclopedic article Trödel 12:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork and original research. The article tries to support each of the "Suggested reasons to impeach" without letting us know which notable figure has made the suggestion. EricR 13:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Response this statement can only mean the honourable editor -and those supporting this assertion- has not seen the multitude of references, let alone read them.;Holland Nomen Nescio 15:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename and clean up. This article was split out from Movement to impeach George W. Bush because that article grew unweildy long (and is still 41kb). This article should be moved to a title that reflects that these are the reasons being put forth by people in the movement, not just "hey, it's a good idea because..." statements floating out there in the mists of emprical truth. Something like Rationale provided by persons advocating the impeachment of George W. Bush. Clean up so as to reflect this as well. BD2412 T 14:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously POV, but as per EricR it seems like OR as well. It also seems a bit self-contradictory in parts, although of course this isn't the place to consider those issues. I'd go along with the others advocating a merge and move, but in that case that would require such a fundamental rewrite of this article that maybe it's best to clean the slate. --Deville (Talk) 14:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Very title is POV. Break out another section of Movmenent, such as "Public opinion" ifn necessary, but this is a poor way to do it.--Mmx1 15:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Renaming it using weasel words isn't a great idea. Eivindt@c 19:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Overwhelmingly POV article. Much as I too have no time for the chimp in question... Marcus22 19:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course the article puts forth a POV; how could it not? Is there not an article on Clinton's impeachment which likewise contains POV? RGTraynor 20:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The clinton article does not attempt to hide criticisms of bush under "rationale for impeachment", and it is fairly NPOV abou the acutal charges pressed. --Mmx1 20:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Response If the title is your problem then suggest renaming it. As to charges of POV, what part of the article is incorrect and does not adhere to wikipedia policy, please consider this:
  • WP:NPOV: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
  • Feel free to read about Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.
  • Neutral language When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be attributed and cited.
  • To those insisting it is POV, it is not prohibited to insert other views to counter these perceived problems. Improving an article is preferable to deletion. See: Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balanceAn article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it.
  • SubpageSometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. Provided that all POVs are represented fairly in the new article, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate a controversial aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious.Holland Nomen Nescio 20:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The content, if it remains, should properly be titled "Criticism of President Bush". I would have thought such an article already existed. --Mmx1 05:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Odd, I would think criticism is not equal to suggesting impeachment.Holland Nomen Nescio 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Since the legal criteria for Impeachment is the very broad "high crimes and misdemeanors", any categorization of a criticism under "rationale for impeachment" amounts to a POV argument that his actions rise to the level of impeachment. Until impeachment is carried out, any speculated "rationale" is just an extension of the criticisms.--Mmx1 17:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You are conflating organizations which have criticized or challenged President Bush's activities with ones which have actually called for his impeachment. These are two very different things. This article should be Mergeed back to the Movement article; it does not stand as notable as a standalone, nor as NPOV. It's notable that people believe these things, but does not justify a separate article on the movement and the specific charges it makes. Georgewilliamherbert 03:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Response surely you must be aware the original for which this is a subpage already is too large. But of course merging while retaining the information is better than unwarranted deletion. As to who said what, those "fringe" people suggesting impeachment: Center for Constitutional Rights, Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean and Jennifer van Bergen (from FindLaw), Ralph Nader, Katrina vanden Heuvel.Holland Nomen Nescio 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep a relevant and worthwhile subject, and one too long for the original article. In need of some editing, however. --Nerdydentist 22:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Movement to impeach George W. Bush. If a section is so long you actually have to split something from a split-off article, for God's sake, stop randomly typing stuff in and do some editing. Lord Bob 22:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep , duh. Anyone saying this isn't NPOV doesn't what NPOV is. The real world is POV. We just have to report on it neutrally. Cyde Weys 00:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. If there is a significant impeachment movement rather than a few people calling for this, it would warrant an article under the name of the movement. We should have articles on rationales for or against as it is inherently POV. Capitalistroadster 01:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There is a significant impeachment movement. You choosing to deny its existence speaks more to your bias than anything regarding the truth. There are more people for the impeachment of George Bush than there are people involved with pretty much any other article. There are more people in favor of impeaching George Bush than there are people living in any of the city articles on Wikipedia (and there are tens of thousands of those). --Cyde Weys 17:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitly isn't OR since everything is sourced. Yes, it is POV, but that means it should be fixed, not deleted. Rather than saying things along the lines of Bush violated the constitution, Bush sold his soul to satan, etc, it should say that by <insert group here>'s understanding of the law, Bush violated the constitution but there are other groups who disagree. The article shouldn't present a POV, it should present the fact that many people have a certain POV just as an article about religion should describe the religion but shouldn't actually say the religion is correct.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowoftime (talk • contribs)
  • Merge back into the parent article as per others. Also, as per Lord Bob, try editing a huge chunk of insinuation and jumbled PoV criticism down to an encyclopaedic article before assessing whether or not it should be split off. The name is inherently PoV and at the least, should be changed. 'Rationale' is a clever word for 'reasons' - only the most one-eyed POV warrior could think an article called Reasons to impeach George W. Bush should even make it through CSD, let alone AfD. Proto||type 09:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - is there a serious effort to impeach? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think that depends on how you define serious. There have been a number of scholars and one major magazine which have put forth arguments that his activities rise to the level of impeachable, and a very few Democrats in congress have publically stated that they feel that he should be. It appears to be a small, but not fringe, segment of US left-wing politics which is in favor at this time of doing so. Georgewilliamherbert 17:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Response even a serious attempt to impeach would fail since the power balance in both Houses surely means the Republican party will block such proceedings.Holland Nomen Nescio 17:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is irrelevant to the question of what we do with the article, irrelevant to the posed question, and arguably untrue (Nixon was about to be impeached with the republicans in the House turning against him largely unanimously when he resigned). An AfD is the wrong place to be making this argument. We aren't arguing to delete the content; we're suggesting that it's mis-organized (or, I am). Georgewilliamherbert 17:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Response I am not arguing to delete. Second, "arguably untrue" sounds odd in light of how a thorough investigation into 1 the absence of WMD and link to AQ in relation to the prewar allegations is being stonewalled, 2 the alleged structural nature of prisoner abuse has been stonewalled, 3 the alleged violation of FISA has been stonewalled. To me (yes POV) each of these examples warrants a detailed investigation yet somebody (surely mostly democrats?) feels that it is unwarranted.--Holland Nomen Nescio 18:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is some logic in separating out the legitimate legal arguments for impeachment from political criticism, although it seems that in its current form the article defines examples which they assert could qualify as the "high crimes and misdemeanors" a little too broadly. Impeachment is not recall. Peter Grey 07:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete
    1. pure speculation and unverifiable; the only body that can file a bill of impeachment is the US House of Representatives and until a bill of impeachment is at least proposed by a member of the House, any listing of possible grounds for impeachment is pure speculation, either on the part of a wikipedia editor, or a partisan publication, blogger or web site.
    2. Original research and POV. The alleged misdeeds of the Bush administration may or may not meet WP:V. However their inclusion in an article titled "Rationale for impeachment" (or any variant thereof) is pure POV on the part of the editor.
    3. Unverifiable as many of the alleged misdeeds are themselves based on highly POV interpretations of events. Thatcher131 16:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Cyde Weys. Hall Monitor 22:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Look at this link [17] for a snapshot of an anti-Bush editor's user page. Note this quote on that page "[B]ased on these arguments Rationale to impeach George W. Bush was made. Feel free to improve that article with the following suggestions". This article is an aggregate of the personal opinions of a small group of anti-Bush editors who spend too much time reading the Democratic Underground. What makes this an Original Research violation is that the logical flow of the article, as laid out, is a dynamic bullet list of every complaint by make by whomever anywhere, yet organized here by a few zealots so as to appear that there is some cohesive movement against Bush for these particular reasons - as they appear here. I suggest that there is not one anti-Bush group in the USA to which we can point, that is citing these reasons - as presented here - as their basis of attack on Bush. This article is a speculative POV rant and an anti-Bush screed. People who want to write articles like this, ought to start their own newspaper, because this is not an encyclopedia article, it's yellow journalism. And it's a boring, offensive and inaccurate read to boot! Merecat 02:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    The article doesn't claim it to be a single movement, it just shows reasons that some people believe George Bush should be impeached. Given that there are many people calling for his impeachment, including members of Congress, the idea is notable. Many people site these reasons, or some of them as reasons why they want Bush impeached. If the information presented is incorrect, it should be corrected, not deleted. If it is POV(and I definitly agree that it is), it should be made NPOV, not deleted. Also, though I'm not a contributer to this particular article, I do think it would be nice if you focused on describing why the article should be delted rather than assuming bad faith and making ad hominem attacks on its editors. Shadowoftime 03:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
First, no member of Congress has called for the president's impeachment. This is not asserted in the article, and the main article this seems to be a fork of, Movement to impeach George W. Bush, only asserts that 31 members have called for an investigation into possible grounds for impeachment. Second, the POV nature of this article can not be cured by any editing. The very act of including an alleged misdeed under this heading is by definition POV (either of an editor or a partisan outside source) since no actual articles of impeachment have even been propsed in draft form. Note that all the alleged misdeeds cited in this article already have their own articles. If there is any basis at all for having this content in wikipedia, the article Movement to impeach George W. Bush should give, along with people who have proposed impeachment, a brief description of the issue and a link to the main wiki article. Thatcher131 05:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Ad hominem? The user's page speaks for itself that he's taking his personal opinions and creating an article as a result. --Mmx1 05:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hold the phone! Several arguments are presented and none of them apply.
1 Organizing the rationale that has been put forward by many, and certainly not limited to the fringe as can be seen by my explicit naming these, hardly constitutes an anti-Bush agenda.
2 Since I started the page I admit I have a POV (who doesn't) that is exactly why I said: Feel free to improve that article. To those of us that assume good faith this evidently means, "if you find any incorrect information or the article is POV, please help by adding information to make the page NPOV". By asserting I only want this page to be POV indeed assumes bad faith and is a personal attack.
3 There is no suggestion in the article of impeachment proceedings being started. It is a collection of arguments used by several individuals and organisations of reasons they think suffice to start such proceedings. However, if that is not evident please help to rephrase it in a way that this is clear. And yes, congress members support investigating the possibility. To suggest that two geeks after a binge last friday night (metaphorically speaking), decided this would be a good prank is absolutely ridiculous.
4 Regarding the suggestion these things are already discussed this is incorrect. First, criticism is not equivalent to impeachable offenses. To discuss both in one article is unwarranted. Second, although it is possible to make a comment in every separate article this is of course a ludicrous idea. Somebody who would like to know what these offense are certainly won't find it. Making a comprehensive list only accomodates these users. Furthermore, what exactly is your problem with this article? Why is discussing these things in a organized manner prohibited?Holland Nomen Nescio 17:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Coffee 04:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Movement to impeach George W. Bush. --ManiF 17:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment to people voting merge - Please stop saying it should be merged to Movement to impeach George W. Bush. That page is already 42KB long and doesn't address the actual reasons people want George Bush impeached. This is a very important topic and certainly it can get two articles on Wikipedia? --Cyde Weys 17:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • As I said in my vote, when you need to split a subject off an article that is already split off from another article, it is time to do some editing. Lord Bob 22:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • So, since television has to be split off from entertainment, all articles which are about TV should either be merged with the article on television or deleted? Or does this work differently for George Bush because the leader of the most powerful country in the world isn't very important? Wikipedia is not paper and President Bush is important enough to have lots of information. Since Wikipeida has a page for every single Simpsons episode, I think it can afford to have detailed information about our president. Shadowoftime 23:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I find your comparison between entertainment - television and this situation irrelevant; the gap between entertainment and television, much like the gap between carbon and carbon dioxide, is larger. And, for the record, I'm not big on articles for every single Simpson's episode either. Sorry for taking so long to get back to this; I only just noticed it! Lord Bob 16:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Better, but still not good. I could go into a point-by-point thing on each of those, but I'm sure those aren't the only examples so it would be a waste of time. I do see what you're saying, and I made a broad generalization where one perhaps should not have been made. I believe that this is a situation where a long article would be best resolved by solid and bold editing rather than simply splitting articles off ad nauseum. Is that clearer? Lord Bob 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
If I may interject, I thinkg the problem here is that the topic is just too large, empirically. That is, there are numerous substantial organizations approaching impeachment from significantly different angles. Also, there are numerous rationales for impeachment, that run the gamut from neglect of duty (Hurricane Katrina) to giving false information to the Senate (Iraq War), to breaking the laws passed by congress (FISA), to name a few. These things don't compress very well, so solid and bold editing really isn't going to make an article about the movement and the rationale a reasonable size. Kevin Baastalk 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Kevin Baas's list of possible rationales raises another problem with this article - each one already exists as an article, making this one highly redundant. --Ajdz 01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You are correct in saying that. However, how does somebody who is interested in why people think impeachment is warranted find these "rationales?"Holland Nomen Nescio 11:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
What? How dare somebody interject in the middle of a public discussion on the merits of an article? Seriously, things like lying to the Senate and breaking laws and so forth deserve mention in Criticism of George W. Bush. And then put a little sentence at the bottom that says "Due to the number and degree of these violations, prominent observers like (insert names of prominent observers) have called for Bush to be impeached. (cite a bunch of courses)". I really don't see the problem here. This is just one example of many of things you could do to straighten these things out in a single article. Lord Bob 17:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Response As we both agree subpages are not prohibited I already stated I support any effort to merge provided the information presented is not lost. Further, would you agree that if after aggressive editing the merged article still is too large a subpage is warranted and acceptable?Holland Nomen Nescio 18:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
If, after said aggressive editing (of course, we might well differ on how aggressive said editing must be), it turns out it's still all too big then of course a split would be acceptable. And, just to clarify, my comment above was a reply to Kevin Baas, not you. Wikis are great but having nice, multi-party discussions with them can be unpleasant. Lord Bob 19:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete An article with a title that starts with the word rationale is by definition POV. Article is also pure speculation as there is no movement of any credibility to impeach the President of the United States. Relegate this from this encyclopedia to some people's wishful thinking list.--Kalsermar 02:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This is an article listing the reasons that are used by the Movement to impeach George W. Bush. It is not supposed to say that this rationale are true, but that this is the rationale used by the movement. Shadowoftime 17:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Article is well-referenced and this information should not be censored. (And yes, failing to organize the information effectively is a form of censorship.) I would vote the same on Rationale to impeach Bill Clinton if there had been any. Argyrios 15:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This page just isn't necessary.--RWR8189 16:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, not POV. Ashibaka tock 16:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Others disagree. Just zis Guy you know? 22:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
POV or not, that is not grounds for deletion. Wikipedia policy clearly states that it should be improved, not deleted!Holland Nomen Nescio 02:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Because?.....
Frankly, I have not encountered a sound argument for deletion. Kevin Baastalk 22:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Assume good faith. The people who brought this up for deletion did not do so. I'll always vote against trigger-happy deletions. --MateoP 21:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
This was a good faith nomination (speaking as the nominator). The article is POV in concept and execution (in the oopinion of this rouge admin, anyway). That has absolutely nothing to do with good faith and everything to do with the policies of Wikipeida. Incidentally, "trigger happy deletion" is a failure to assume good faith on your part. Just zis Guy you know? 22:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is about a POV held by certain people. I'm sure this point of view can be reported on without having the article itself be POV. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that are about certain POVs held by people in the world, such as the article on Christianity or any other religion/lack there of. That doesn't make these articles themselves POV. And if these articles do become POV themselves, they should be fixed, not deleted. Shadowoftime 23:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not notable or a POV violation to point out that there exists a Movement to impeach George W. Bush. The disagreement to me seems centered on whether it's notable to have a separate article for the rationale behind that movement, or whether they should be in the same article. As you can't really separate the movement from why they want to act, I think that a strong case should be made that they should be merged back again. If the article is too large and unwieldy right now... that is justification to apply editorial shrinkage to it, not to split it. Georgewilliamherbert 23:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The size of an article is not to be arbitrarily pre-determined, but should, in order to be NPOV in amount of treatment among articles and not just within them, be a direct and unimpeded consequence of the amount of relevant, interesting, and important objects/events to report/describe on the subject of the article. As such, an article's size should be proportional to the amount of valuable material there is to present, not to some preconcieved notion. Kevin Baastalk 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome to your own opinion, but Wikipeida has the WP:SIZE policy. It is flexible to some degree, but not blatantly ignorable or floutable. Georgewilliamherbert 00:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I think that's why one splits articles when they get too long. Kevin Baastalk 00:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about the POV here (the reason it was nominated in the first place). Plenty of people want to delete it because it talks about the POV of a certain group. I'm simply saying that so do all the articles on religion, politics, etc. As for the article itself being POV, that can always be fixed. Shadowoftime 04:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I understand. What Georgewilliamherbert is trying to tell us applies to all wikipedia articles. "As you can't really separate the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, extyraordinary rendition, criticism of the war on terror et cetera from the war on terror, I think that a strong case should be made that they should be merged back again. If the war on terror is too large and unwieldy right now... that is justification to apply editorial shrinkage to it, not to split it." (Admittedly I realize the quotation has been slightly altered) Holland Nomen Nescio 04:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
It's more than slightly uncivil discourse to invent arguments and stick them in your opponents mouths, Nomen. You can play reducto ad absurdum if you want, but that's not what I said, and I would appreciate a retraction and apology. Georgewilliamherbert 08:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Since no argument has been put forward as to why the war on terror, star trek, star wars, cartoon controversy, et cetera have multiple pages and the suggested impeachment should be limited to one, I fail to see why pointing out that overt discrepancy is uncivil or even warrants an apology.Holland Nomen Nescio 20:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The phrase that you're looking for, Georgewilliamherber, is straw man. However, I do not see anyway that that could apply here. Were you are were you not arguing that articles should be merged and then trimmed to fit the size constraints, as a matter of principle? That's how I read it. Though I concede that there is some interpretation there, so I might be wrong. The safest way is to go with a variation of Occam's Razor, and restate what you said with out alteration. However, to demonstrate how the argument would apply in what is theoretically an equivocable context, he choose a different example. This is a common and, in my opinion, fairly polite way to show someone their bias. But in good faith, perhaps you were misinterpreted. Perhaps your argument was more centered around "you can't really separate the movement from why they want to act". That would make your recent response make sense. The reason why I, and I would venture to say Nomen, didn't think that was the center, was because it is weak, perhaps the weakest part of the argument, and one usually picks the strongest part as the center. There are two reasons it is weak: 1. It is completely unsubstantiated. why can't you? what prevents you from doing so? 2. It is directly contradicted by the very existence of the thing that we are discussing: it IS separated. There can be no better proof that it indeed can be separated than it being separated. ... regarding retraction and apology, wikipedia has a strong policy on personal attacks, and i very much agree with it, but i don't see any personal attacks there. I don't see what he would apologize for. Kevin Baastalk 18:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Rename The Economist has written an editorial on impeachment of Bush stating that it is a near certainty should the Democrats take the House in November. --Gorgonzilla 05:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a word for such predictions - it's called "speculation". Merecat 08:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Clearly the editor has not read or understood the article he is referring to. Please read about forking.Holland Nomen Nescio 20:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment please do not tell me what I have and have not read. And yes, this is a classic POV fork.--Jersey Devil 22:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. Provided that all POVs are represented fairly in the new article, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate a controversial aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious.Holland Nomen Nescio 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some things should be done; article needs renaming, or at least some way of making a lot clearer that these are proposed reasons to impeach GWB, and perhaps a clearer way of citing for each reason exactly who proposed that as a rationale. --maru (talk) contribs 21:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not encyclopedic content. If and when a movement is made to impeach GW then it might be relevant. Until then this is non-notable cruft.68.84.134.68 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    So you're saying it's relevant. Then why do you think it should be deleted? Kevin Baastalk 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • MergeILovEPlankton 23:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep User: YankeeDoodle14
  • Strong Keep POV it may or may not be, perfect it assuredly is not, but summary deletion is not the solution. Tenebrous 09:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Movement to impeach George W. Bush - unencyclopedic, highly POV, redundant, speculation, wishful thinking, POV fork, etc., etc. There are plenty of places for people to put their hate manifestos online, wikipedia should not be one of them. --Ajdz 17:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While the page might be worth preserving as one of the best examples of Bush Derangement Syndrome I've ever seen, I think we have crossed into OR here. I'm sorry to let people down but here's a little secret, Bush is not going to get impeached. Hence, there is little cause for this article, which looks like Ramsey Clark's wet dream compacted into a series of talking points compliments of counterpunch, Kos and the boys down at CCR. Well Jimbo has not yet metastized into William Kunstler and this is still wikipedia and people need to be reminded that we are here to write articles on schools, malls and Pokemon. -- JJay 01:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge - the topics here are duplicated elsewhere, plus this is (as I've said before throwing up my hands in frustration) a POV-driven article. I was browbeaten into submission by those who insisted that this was not, and reluctantly acquiesed. But as I have mentioned, opinion-driven articles do not have a place on Wikipedia. -- Mhking 12:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You can of course show us where wikipedia policy states: "opinion-driven articles do not have a place on Wikipedia." But more interestingly, are you advocating the deletion of religion related articles? Because religion ipso facto is opinion.Holland Nomen Nescio 16:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see where Mhking claimed to quote policy, although many above have. Please stop biting the voters. --Ajdz 19:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Since there is no policy prohibiting opinion I just observe that this argument is flawed.Holland Nomen Nescio 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Nomen, your comment of "this argument is flawed" sums up the problem with you - you are looking at this as arguing, rather than consensus building. I've yet to see you yield even the slightest on anything. Well, then thank goodness we have Nomen to be the artbiter of all that is correct. Nomen, what would we do without your help here? Merecat 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You may be correct, but this page is about voicing opinion. Most people base their opninion on arguments. When the logic used is flawed why should that not be pointed out? Furthermore it is interesting that you substitute argument with argue, whereas I would call it ideas in a debate. Nuance!Holland Nomen Nescio 00:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
What Nescio refers to as "logic" is, in his practice, fallacy and fanaticism. Red herrings, equivocation, argumentum ad nazium, we've probably seen it all. (There also should be a policy - wikipedia is not a manifesto) --Ajdz 02:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Stop your petty vendetta. Again you resort to personal attacks, and again I demand you stop and observe WP:NPA! I will not ask again to remain civil.Holland Nomen Nescio 14:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, putting anything salvageable into Movement to impeach George W. Bush. DJ Clayworth 20:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article has changed significantly just in the past day and is now much, much better. It has a long list of comprehensive references that is better than what I have seen on most feature articles. Cyde Weys 20:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It may be much improved, it's still full of ridiculous lines like: The alleged responsibility of the George W. Bush administration in the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina has been used by Ramsey Clark, PopMatters, Green Party of Humboldt County and the Sunday Independent to suggest failure by the administration to adequately provide for the need of its citizens, or "AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers.". Rather than an encyclopedia article, this really looks to me like it wants to be a soapbox for the viewpoints of assorted partisan political agitators. Is anyone surprised that Clark, or Altnet or the Green party have cooked up some arguments to impeach Bush? And is there really any reason that anyone should care what Popmatters or the Santiago Times thinks about politics? -- JJay 21:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Atlant 12:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Savitri Goonesekere

Non-notable, non-verifiable. {{prod}} tag was removed in an apparent demonstration of WP:POINT. — Mar. 28, '06 [11:04] <freakofnurxture|talk>

  • Delete per FON. Proto||type 13:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Keep, references supplied by Monicasdude supply necessary notability. Providing they're added to the article, of course. Proto||type 15:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure they won't be. — Mar. 28, '06 [16:21] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    Well, you would be wrong. Now please withdraw this nom. -- JJay 16:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. [18] [19] [20] [21] Exactly why do you think objecting to the deletion of accurate articles on notable subjects, when no reason for deletion is stated, is in the slightest bit disruptive? Not a single thing you said in your comments above is true. Isn't that a WP:POINT violation? Monicasdude 14:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Why? Because I had planned to speedy it, but reconsidered? — Mar. 28, '06 [14:30] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Speedy keep. No reason given for the prod [22] means no reason need be given to remove prod. AfD nom's reasons have been proven false. Accusation of WP:Point violation is unfounded and itself a violation of WP:AGF. -- JJay 16:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. She has over ten thousand Google hits; under what distorted POV can this conceivably be considered non-notable? RGTraynor 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. She doesn't actually have ten thousand Google hits; I get "about 835", but including quality hits such as the U.N. Add to that the Google Scholar hits linked by Monicasdude and 384 Google Books hits. I fail to see any reason why this should be deleted. u p p l a n d 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - while I think it should be kept, I don't think it's a speedy keep. Freak of Nurture made the nom in good faith, and is not any kind of vandal or troll. Proto||type 09:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • His crack of "I'm pretty sure they won't be" puts any such putative good faith in doubt. What is not in doubt that this is a notable entry and the most cursory of checks would have revealed it. FON should have withdrawn the AfD once all this came out, but better yet should have done the three minutes worth of homework necessary to make an informed judgment. Wikipedia is studded these days with deletionists who seem to be under the impression that there's a Grand Prize for turfing the most articles and/or images; let's not promote that mindset. RGTraynor 18:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What is particularly disturbing in this case is the WP:Point accusation against the user who removed the misguided Prod. That clearly contravenes WP:AGF and makes this a Speedy Keep. -- JJay 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Userfied, since it was written by User:Midnightstalker. Stifle 16:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midnight stalker

nn band per Wikipedia:Notability (music) Gimboid13 11:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. Apparently self-written, too. PJM 12:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faces (software)

Speedy delete. Already deleted. Sleepyhead 11:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete It's a repost. dcandeto 11:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy, tagged as such. Removed confusing reposting of old AfD. Proto||type 13:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 14:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teoman Irmak

Auto-bio. Vanity. Non-notable. 327 Google hits. Haakon 11:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 12:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable games designer/illustrator, verified by Google. If Wikipedia was limited to subjects that Google showed were already well-documented, it wouldn't be good for much. So fix whatever you don't like about the article. Monicasdude 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Verifiable games illustrator. But is he notable? I'm not so sure but can be convinced. Marcus22 20:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I have more Google hits for my name on the games I have published than this guy has, and I'm not claiming I'm notable enough for my own Wikipedia entry. RGTraynor 20:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Fortress City

Spam for self-published book publisher is AuthorHouse UK, a vanity publisher). Creator has no edit history outside of this book and its author. Just zis Guy you know? 11:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Badgerpatrol 13:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vanity press books require very clear evidence of significance, and "a copy for a relative" motive only sharpens that need.
    --Jerzy•t 16:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity book. Haikupoet 02:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Netscott 22:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

Article is becoming the defacto "definition" for the term "Islamophobia" which contravenes this section of WP:NOR Netscott 11:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Also see the head of this version of Islamophobia quoted below:

The neologism is disputed. On December 7, 2004 at a U.N. sponsored seminar entitled "Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding”, Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd, a prominent Ph.D. muslim thinker and former member of the Government of Egypt, described the term as "derogatory" as there was "not only a question of fear, but also a matter of hatred". [23].

Netscott 12:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
As taken from the the Islamophobia talk page:

We as editors are not treading on solid ground working on this article. As the following 6 top online dictionaries would seem to indicate, the term "Islamophobia" hasn't even properly entered into the lexicon of the English language.

1. Cambridge dictionary for "Islamophobia"

2. Merriam Webster's for "Islamophobia"

3. MSN Encarta for "Islamophobia"

4. Newbury House of American English for "Islamophobia"

5. Infoplease for "Islamophobia"

6. Factmonster for "Islamophobia"

Due to this fact there is a strong need to properly surveil what goes into this article for if we do not then this article has the potential to violate Wikipedia:No Original Research and actually become cited for defining what Islamophobia is. This is extremely counter to ethic of WikiPedia. Netscott 23:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll add that the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't have it either, but only "Islam", "Islamic", "Islamism", "Islamite", "Islamitic", "Islamitish", and ... "island". Nysin 00:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing on Britannica either. In fact, a search for islamophobia definition seems to be pretty much limited to Wikipedia mirrors. jacoplane 01:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions

  • Delete as nominator for reasons expressed above. Netscott 11:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep there are plenty of european and international organisations debating islamophobia. Raphael1 11:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Google uses Wikipedia as a source for an amazingly large amount of info, for example Spring Heeled Jack (my favourite Wikipedia entry), ridiculous reason to remove. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whether or not the concept actually exists (my view is clearly it does), the fact that a significant number of people believe it exists makes it notable. Editors are working to make the page neutral. The fact that it is top of a Google search should be a source of pride. David | Talk 11:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. My copy of the Oxford Dictionary of English (Copyrighted 2003) happens to include the word Islamophobia. This is a phenomenon that's becoming more and more prevalent these days, and it wouldn't hurt anybody to keep and improve it. - Tangotango 11:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    As for the results from the "6 top" (according to whom?) online dictionaries, note that the Cambridge source cited uses the Advanced Learners' Dictionary, which is an abridged version specifically watered down for ESL learners. Please also see the entry from Dictionary.com. But before we succumb to citing dictionaries, we must realise what Wikipedia is - it's WP:NOT a dictionary, it's an encylopedia, and as such, must include cultural phenomena that many people are familiar with. - Tangotango 11:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    I understand your reservations relative to WP:NOT but do see this section of WP:NOR. Netscott 12:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Okay... I'm sure if we cited the Oxford Dictionary of English it would no longer be "introducing original ideas", "defining new terms", or "introducing or using neologisms" without citing reputable sources, or, for that matter, doing any kind of original research. - Tangotango 12:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Tangotango, would you be so kind as to add the verifiable text from your copy of that dictionary to the comments section below or on the talk page for Islamophobia? Netscott 12:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Sure. Please see the comments section below. - Tangotango 12:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks! Netscott 12:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This article may contain original research, but you've not argued to my satisfaction that the subject matter is inteherently violating WP:NOR. I've certainly heard this word outside of the context of Wikipedia, and at the very least one hears many crediable allegations of Islamophobia today. Sure, as you say, it's possible that people will add material violating WP:NOR to this article, but deletion isn't the remedy for that. --Deville (Talk) 13:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- O.E.R., as cited, not to mention 'life, the universe, and everything...'; words come into being because there are needs to discuss the underpinnings. The NOR guidelines are not written by all knowing and all powerful beings able to tell the future... The article itself has merit, however it evolves in the crucible of wiki merciless edits. If its missing, it can't evolve——merely remain a private toy. The underpinnings in this matter are clearly present in American society today, if not used in current press accounts or other normal source documents. FrankB 14:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Remove the original research, cite verifiable sources and everything would be fine. --Terence Ong 15:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Terence Ong. youngamerican (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I should say that I am personally critical of the use of this term. I will try to contribute to the article and make it less POV. I hope that my contributions will be welcomed. jacoplane 19:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article was better a couple of years back. What happened to it was that politically motivated Islamophobes succeeded in spamming the article and taking large amounts of well documented research out of the article. There is much material out there on this issue and the fact that some people, for whatever motive, wish to maintain that a very real social/political phenomenon doesn't actually exist is no good reason to delete the article. If anything social commentators are starting to view the term 'Islamophobia' as obsolete, as what we now witness is a full blown form of racism akin to anti-semitism. John Ball 28 March 2006 20:55
  • Delete as neologism. I don't give a rat's patootie whether the concept is hotly debated, I have never heard the term before, and neither have the online dictionaries, seemingly. RGTraynor 20:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. The term is in common use. But the article needs to make clearer the fact that many critics of the term believe it was brought into use by organizations such as CAIR to label even thoughtful discussion of Islam and its doctrines as racism and xenophobia, thus silencing critics. ProhibitOnions 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it must stay, just i watch todays news. Turkey's prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan used that word. But it must be rewritten with NPOV --Ugur Basak 21:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It doesn't matter if it is one or not(and it is in ODE as shown below). Most wikipedia entries won't be found in a dictionary(try chosing a random article and then looking up its title in a dictionary). Islamaphobia is a commonly used term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadowoftime (talk • contribs) 04:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, article may need cleanup, but the term is valid and the concept real. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above AmiDaniel (Talk) 09:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, common phrase across the media whether it's made it into a paper dictionary yet or not. Vashti 16:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, used in the human rights and anti-prejudice community for many years.--Cberlet 20:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons nominator expressed above. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-03-30 T 06:16 Z
  • Speedy keep Lots of sources say that Islamophobia is valid term and concept (that prejudice against Muslim people exists). RedCrescent 06:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A search of JSTOR and other fulltext databases result in a number of hits on the term. A recent issue of American Ethnologist (Vol. 32, No. 3, Aug., 2005) includes two articles using the word "Islamophobia" in the title (and since the issue seems to be thematic, the others may include it elsewhere in the text - I can't check that). Although perhaps recent, there is no doubt that it is in use in academic discourse. Clearly a valid topic, but the article may need to be guarded against POV changes. u p p l a n d 10:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons shown in RfD nomination introduction. Nysin 13:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Clearly you haven't seen Wiktionary if you think this is a dicdef. Also see Cambridge search for "Google."] It's not there, should we delete Google (verb)? --Rory096 22:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, I will support anyone who closes this early, this is a silly and misguided AfD, WP:Snowball. Babajobu 22:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Speedy Keep obviously article worthy. Dev1n 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or create Islamophilia article as well. POV magnet. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy keep; the article has problems. deletion is not a solution. dab (ᛏ) 16:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems valid enough for me. DMighton 19:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep not this again. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up article. Edrigu 15:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as per all good reasons given above and clean up article. As well, attempts to censor valid information are misguided. SouthernComfort 16:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep this is not a neologism. --Revolución hablar ver 19:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and slap the nominator on the wrist for a WP:POINT violation. Do not nominate articles for deletion as the result of a content dispute. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • The Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE) (copyrighted 2003), included on my Casio XD-H9200 electronic dictionary says: "Islamophobia > noun [mass noun] a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force." - Tangotango 12:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Tangotango, your comment above "WikiPedia is not a dictionary" is so true... that's why I have such concern to see the terms "Islamophobia" and "definition" come up as the #1 result on Google.com... for the actual word "Islamophobia" neologism Netscott 14:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    It, infamously and thankfully now, comes up first for Jew too - thats not a valid reason to remove. Do you understand how Google works?--Irishpunktom\talk 14:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    An impeccable example of false logic there Irishpunktom, as the term "Jew" has been around for millenia while the term "Islamophobia" is still being defined. Netscott 14:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Or, you could say "The word is a neologism that has yet to have one clear and explicit definition." - Like it does in the article. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Netscott, the point is that if you Google "Jew" and "definition", you don't necessarily get a definition of "Jew", you get pages that use the words "Jew" and "definition", including pages that discuss the definition of "Jew". Where the page comes on Google is irrelevant, as long as it the article itself is accurate and doesn't contain OR. JPD (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for that comment JPD, this bit of your statement, "as long as it the article itself is accurate and doesn't contain OR" is key... already some improvement in this direction has taken place... but IMHO, much much more needs to be done. Netscott 16:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    My only caveat to your last argument JPD however would be that the term "Islamophobia" doesn't appear to be commonly found in established and respectable dictionaries... and the term "Jew" most certainly is. Netscott 16:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    That's a fair point, and the article should definitely reflect that fact. However, it is a very widely used term, so there should be enough verifiable material to write a decent article on it. JPD (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    The article as it stands is quite POV; it should be discussed whether "Islamophobia" even exists in any meaningful sense, or whether (as many critics assert) the term has been coined to silence serious discussion of Islamic doctrines, terrorism, etc., by portraying this as racist. Some of the organizations promoting the term, notably CAIR, aren't squeaky-clean. I attended a (country's) government press conference in which foreign concern at a policy changed was described as "motivated by Islamophobia" when serious grounds for opposing it had been put forward. ProhibitOnions 09:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    comment virtually all of googles' definitions are based on google caches of wikipedia articles, occasionally of deleted articles, using that as a basis to delete is... silly, I mean really, type define some random word into google and you'll get wiki links, I mean heck woo, look two or three down, or nup, I didn't even known nup was a word, but look--64.12.116.73 23:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As for the dictionary debate (on the talk page and transcluded above), I've gone and looked at the individual sites to come up with the following:
    1. Cambridge dictionary
      The online version uses the "Advanced Learner's Dictionary" (ALD). It used to use the full-blown edition, but this was retracted a few years back for a version suitable for ESL learners. As any comparison between a full dictionary and its "learner's" edition will tell you, a learner's edition has various words removed in favour of making the definitions of everyday words easier. It is reasonable to assume that the average ESL learner does not really need to learn the word Islamophobia in the process of learning the English language, hence its non-appearance in the ALD. The Dictionary of American English, also available on the site, is also targeted for ESL users. [24]
    2. Merriam Webster's
      The version cited is from the special "online" dictionary. Collegiate and Unabridged versions are available to subscribers. If anyone does have a subscription, or is willing to try the 14-day trial, it would be interesting to see the results.
    3. MSN Encarta
      I will admit that MSN Encarta uses a recent edition of its dictionary and it is not dumbed down. However, I will also argue that Encarta is also one of Wikipedia's main competitors, and it is rather ironic to quote it, especially when MSN has just launched a wiki-like editing system to its Encarta dictionary.
    4. Newbury House of American English
      "Heinle's Newbury House Dictionaries/The #1 choice for English Language Learners" [25]
    5. Infoplease
      "Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease." Assuming that the word Islamophobia saw increased usage after the September 11 attacks, it is reasonable to assume that a dictionary published 4 years before the attacks would not have the word.
    6. Factmonster
      "The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, published by Columbia University Press.; Infoplease Dictionary, based on the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary" (See #5 for the latter; I could not find out the nature of the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia)
    7. Britannica.com's dictionary uses Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. (see #2)
    8. Yahoo.com's dictionary doesn't include the word either, but notice the copyright year: "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition/Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company." [26] - Tangotango 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I checked a few more dictionaries offline. Most of them weren't particularly surprising, given their pre-2001 publication date:
      • Webster's 9th New Collegiate: no. Unabridged was available, but even older.
      • Random House Unabridged, 2nd edition (1998): No.
      • American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition (2000): No.
    • This one was, however, more surprising, especially in light of the neologism's apparent inclusion in the 2003 electronic Oxford dictionary Tangotango pointed out:
      • The Australian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd edition (2004): No. Nysin 03:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In the interests of full verifiability, here's a screenshot of the dictionary open on the Islamophobia definition: (see the bottom of New Oxford Dictionary of English for which dictionary I'm talking about)

Image:Islamophobia-ODE-def.jpg - Tangotango 11:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Summary

Here is Google's summary when searching on the term "Islamophobia".

"Wikipedia encyclopedia article defines the term, summarizes its history, and gives examples. Includes links."

Wikipedia defines the term.... nice.... Netscott 17:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia cited for its definition of the term... another example of Wikipedia's article entry becoming the defacto definition for what the term "Islamophobia" means. Netscott 17:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jomar Hilario

Google search turns up a few, but not many links as a concert promoter. No real assertion of notability or fame, and only 1 google link found relating to jars of clay ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 11:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete a college student who got a job and used the Internet? Whoop-de-doo. --Bachrach44 14:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Person isn't notable. --Jon Calla 03:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Beaver

This is a contested {{nn-bio}} by the author. The author believes that this artist is notable, and there is perhaps an asserion of notability in winning the "East Lincon High Technology award". Since A7s are for more or less uncontested issues, I am bringing this here for full AFD discussion. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BIO. A7 should apply; a high school award does not assert notability, in my view. PJM 12:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete {{db-bio}} Non-notable biography, deleted once already.  (aeropagitica)  12:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and make it speedy. --Deville (Talk) 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: (aeropagitica) said that this has been deleted once already. When was that? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Answer My mistake. I tagged it with {{nn-bio}} earlier and noticed that it had gone from the CSD candidates page. From the page history, it looks like the tag was removed, hence the AfD nomination. I see no reason why it couldn't be speedied, being a non-notable biography.  (aeropagitica)  15:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; I've no problem with the quality of the art, but that alone doesn't make the author notable, and nothing else in the article convinces me of this. Fourohfour 17:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I tagged this as nn-bio; I stand by my tagging. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Ugur Basak 21:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone claimed on his user talk page that he was notable. I asked him to show why he was notable as the reasons given did not establish notability. If the article wasn't improved, I was going to speedy it if another admin didn't beat me to it. I got distracted by work on another article and didn't get back to it. The work hasn't been done so delete possible speedy. Capitalistroadster 01:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Liberatore(T) 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erwin mcmanus

Tagged as a speedy nn-bio candidate, but I don't think an author with a published book (e.g. An Unstoppable Force: Daring to Become the Church God Had in Mind) fits that criterion. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - the book seems notable. Note that on Amazon, and his own website, he refers to himself as Erwin Raphael McManus. So article should be moved to either Erwin McManus or Erwin Raphael McManus. It need rewriting, as it's currently a copyvio of huge chunks of this site, with a cunning change of a couple of words. Proto||type 13:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Just keep now, I've rewritten it myself. Proto||type 13:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as published author. Monicasdude 15:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Erwin Raphael McManus, the name on his books. ×Meegs 20:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD A6 (attack page). David | Talk 13:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sam gap

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Non-notable neologism. No relevant Google hits for "The Sam gap". ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as an attack page on this 'Sam'. I would do it myself but will wait to see whether an admin agrees that it qualifies, partly because it's borderline, partly because of the obvious conflict of interest :-) --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy as an attack page. —Whouk (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book for Bush

Advertisement. Hopelessly POV, yet surprisingly unclear what the article - and the project being advertised - is about. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable project, wikispam. —Whouk (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unless it's an amazon.com bestseller, and until it can be rewritten into a proper article, it won't ever stand a chance. --Slgrandson 13:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
From what I can understand from the webpage it will never be a amazon.com bestseller, as only two copies will be produced. With one going to Mr Bush and a second being given to the Library of Congress.--Blue520 14:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't know if this is nn crystal-ball, or just straight nn. Either way... --Deville (Talk) 14:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable project at the moment. Which may or may not change but as noted above Wikipedia is not a crystal-ball.--Blue520 14:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Ugur Basak 21:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. According to the project's web site, this will be a 750-page book, but only two pages' worth of entries have actually been submitted so far. Non-notable, crystal ball. --Metropolitan90 02:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daryl Bradford Smith

This concerns a "Radio Host from an underground radiosstation called The French Connection which started medium 2005", and as it stands is a POV conspiracy screed. Naturally POV can be fixed, but in this case, is this person notable enough to justify it? While he generates a good number of Google hits, Internet conspiracy theorists have an extremely high cruft multiple, and the hits are mainly from websites similar to his and sites redistributing his 'underground radio'. None look like independent, third party sources. That may be because the mainstream media and other potential reliable sources are in on the conspiracy, or because he's non-notable. You decide. For my part I vote delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep There is no sense in deleting an entry for a person that is having a significant effect on the 9-11 movement. Google the name and you can see how many people are talking about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.166.211 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Daryl is either stupid or an infiltrator, but in either case, he is notable: [27] --Striver 13:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepDaryl Bradford Smith is to known force to be neglected and his audience is growing. His radioshows has many listeners all over the world and he has many known guests. You don't have to agree what Daryl says, much more important is what his guests have to say.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.35.49.130 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak delete for now. The number of Ghits, even accounting for Blanning's Cruft Factor, seems above average for this sort of thing. However, what worried me as I scrolled through the list is that there are no "mainstream" sources about this guy. It all looked like blog posts, torrents, podcasts, and the like. I don't want to throw out independent media a priori, but if the only people discussing this delightfully idiosyncratic guy are other delightfully idiosyncratic guys, then it's a walled garden scenario. I'm open to change my opinion on this if someone can point to mainstream, or even mainstreamish sources for this guy. I didn't find any because I got tired of scrolling, but I accept the proposition that they might be down there somewhere. --Deville (Talk) 14:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I dont get that. Does Wikipedia criteria for inclusion demand that a mainstream source mentions the subject?--Striver 14:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia criteria for writing stuff demands that it be based on a reliable source. Conspiracy theorists are pretty much the opposite of reliable. All the Google hits in the world don't help us write a verifiable article. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright, so you mean that there are no reliable sources that establish his existence?--Striver 15:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Plenty of reliable sources establish my existence, but I don't deserve an article saying "Samuel Blanning exists" and nothing else any more than this guy does. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
So, the issue is notability? His notability is established. --Striver 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable crank and anti-Semite. Brian G. Crawford 14:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - now he's spamming his links all over the articles. Keep - I think he's barely notable as a conspiracy theorist, but I don't want to favor those who are better at self-promotion. I don't want to selectively ignore the anti-semites among the conspiricists, because that makes the whole group look less anti-semitic than it is. Tom Harrison Talk 15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete MONGO 15:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we can be clear about the fact that this is not a "common" guy at all. Common guys are not requested to be a guest in other radio shows. Also are "common" people not discussed in radio programs as subject of discussion. Why I should even spend one second of my time for changing that article about him and writing this message if it was just a common guy. Many persons also mentioned in this encyclopedia fear, hate or love this guy. This guy, an his thoughts have some significant influence on society. And only for that reason he must be in this wikipedia. —This unsigned comment was added by 84.35.49.130 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete Significant influence? I doubt even your walled garden thinks you have that much influcence. --Mmx1 16:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The guy is a idiot in my view, and he spreads hat for Jews, but that is no criteria for deleting. Even if he was only notable in a "walled garden", that would still not be a arguement for deleting, the sciontolgy church is a closed society, and still we have articles about them. I still have not seen on single valid reason to delete. --Striver 17:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry, not convinced that he's notable. And he's certainly not a "significant influence on society". Marcus22 20:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. RGTraynor 20:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remember that Alex Jones (journalist) and Jeff Rense are both in this list too, those are not more notable than mr. Smith. Further all those persons had a radioshow on the same radio network GCN. Mr. Smith has many good guests in his show as Rabbi's, Professors, Secret Service Agents, Pentagon Insiders, Writers, Bush Insiders. Why should all those persons go to a non-notable person? Of course we are not so interested in Smith's life, we are more interested in his Radio Show. But that the same for Jones, Rense, Icke etc.—This unsigned comment was added by 84.35.49.130 (talk • contribs) .

Ah, what the heck, delete the guy, i dont like him anyhow, he claims Alex is a infiltrator, Sheen is a infiltrator and he is a anti-semit. The 9/11 truth movement won't mourne him not having a article. --Striver 23:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and above users.--Jersey Devil 01:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He claims that Alex Jones could be an infiltrator. But if you claim something without evidence than you have a theory. Smith provides at least some serious information that supports his claim, and more pleasant information that we can all check. I don't say I like Alex or Daryl or somebody else, I simply listen to them what they have to say. Listening is one of the most important aspects of life. We can listen to different opions, Daryl attacks Alex, Wing.TV attacks Alex. Wing.TV attacks Daryl. Daryl attacks Wing.TV. But it happens all on a decent way. Because they all know each other.—This unsigned comment was added by 84.35.49.131 (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete for now. I've been keeping an eye on Daryl Bradford Smith, and while he's holding steady at about 15,000 hits per day (compare, e.g., my site [www.thhp.org] which gets ten times that many), he doesn't seem poised to get much more, and he's getting more and more unhinged as the weeks go on. He's not a well man.

More information available on him at: http://www.bluwiki.org/go/Leugner


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 14:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorve

Non-notable directory site. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Site itself is tiny for a directory - as their front page says, "1,846 web sites listed in 800 categories." ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Site does provide relevant information as a directory website. I have to say that size does not matter but the quality of the outgoing links does.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mddv (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom. Eivindt@c 19:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Redvers. -- Kjkolb 07:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Gaelic football clubs

Every town in ireland has a GAA Club, this list is basicly a list of towns of Ireland . Most of the links dont go too GAA clubs or information that is relevant. I speedy deleted but contributors raised a fuss, so I nominated. Gator (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete pernom.Gator (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move: Not every town in Ireland has a GAA club, its not spread out that simply, even clubs not in Ireland! (The GAA across Ireland and the World). Take Cork for example. Yes there are a few Town Name GAA Club's, but there is also more like: Na Piarsaigh and St. Vincents. The page would be good to list all the clubs (not just football, GAA clubs in general). Maybe move it to List of GAA clubs. -Ablaze 14:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move Agree with last comment. This is not a list of towns of Ireland and not every town in Ireland has a GAA club and some have more than one. It is a, granted incomplete and messy, list of GAA clubs and has potential. Move it to List of GAA clubsKaptKos 14:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant with Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs and its subcategories. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 15:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep perhaps with rename as per KaptKos. The categories have no red links. ReeseM 23:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
All the more reason to delete the list. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems OK, maybe needs more details about the clubs. Also, I can't see how this could possibly be considered a speedy. -- JJay 23:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but change all the links so they link to the club even if that is a red link (Gnevin 18:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep and clean up if necessary. So what if theres a category, all the more reason to have a list to go with it. Jcuk 00:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Its maturing as we debate, links are being added, hurling only clubs are being deleted. It is not simply a list of towns in Ireland. Some city clubs have little to do with geography, alot of parishes have no teams, some parishes have teams with a name not the same as the parish itself and some places have joined with other areas to create a team. This is not a list of towns in Ireland. It will make a good list ...at least if i have anything to do with it :)Eleutherius 17:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and maintain. As Eleutherius says, the list is evolving, and the more information that is added, the better. Eleutherius, DarranC and KaptKos have explained that GAA clubs do not necessarily map 1:1 onto towns or parishes. A couple of other points: 1) In some parts of Ireland, only one of Gaelic football or hurling is played, and in some areas there will be separate clubs for the two games, but many GAA clubs will have both Gaelic football and hurling sections within the same club. I think there is an argument either for changing the name to List of GAA Clubs, indicating if necessary whether a particular club is hurling or football-only or dual, or alternatively for setting up a separate List of Hurling Clubs. 2) As far as links go, where the club is notable enough in its own right to merit a Wikipedia entry (e.g. Crossmaglen Rangers, Na Fianna CLG) then the link is straightforward. If the club doesn't have an article of its own, I see no harm in placing the link to the geographical area (parish, town, suburb) where it's located, especially if there's no club website currently available to be linked to (e.g. in the Leitrim listing, clubs like Allen Gaels (Drumshanbo) or Seán O'Heslins (Ballinamore) are associated with particular towns or villages but those aren't indicated by the club names). 3) There are a set of articles for county GAA structures, e.g. Longford GAA. Links could be included to them from the county headings. (One long-term solution might be to move the county lists to the respective county GAA articles, but it's a decision that we could come to a consensus about at a later stage - but the list should not be deleted.) PaddyMatthews 00:34, 01 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete GAA#The_GAA_today suggests that this list, if completed, would be over 3,000 items long, far too broad for one single list as described in Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists. While some lists are useful, this seems to be a classic example of what Wikipedia is not. I don't think it's possible to say that a football club is famous just because it's a football club. MartinRe 15:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
comment List of football clubs in England is a pretty long list. Surely its similar to that. -Ablaze (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
comment The only reference on GAA#The_GAA_today [29] says there are 2000 clubs in Ireland and 300 abroad. Still a hell of a lot, I know, but I can't find any reference anywhere to there being 3000 clubs--KaptKos 13:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Offical GAA web site says "over 2,500 clubs in Ireland alone", can't find a reference for how many abroad. List of football clubs in England is long, but not near as long as this, possibly because it doesn't try to list all the clubs, just those in the higher level leagues. Also, because it is limited to those in well defined leagues, it's easily verifable that all the clubs are there, is that going to be possible here also? My memory of playing club football in Ireland was that it was often knockout based, rather than league, so teams could easily join and leave, be created/merge, different team name in the same parish depending on age group, etc. so there was never a well defined list of clubs for any area. It's the lack of well defined listings that make the two lists so different for me. MartinRe 14:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep No problem with it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and maintain. Need lots of work but it is a list that could be useful. Conor 09:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirect - Liberatore(T) 15:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWF Tuesday Night Titan

Rescued from speedy, sent here for advisory discussion. Talk show about wrestling that ran on cable 1984-1986. Wrestlingcruft? Or will future scholars be grateful this info? The two predecessor shows mentioned in in the article are not redlinked, which may establish a pattern Herostratus 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral as nominator. I don't care to vote, just bringing it here from speedy. Herostratus 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since there is already an article Tuesday Night Titans, I didn't know that. I went ahead and merged in the material from this nominated article to Tuesday Night Titans, so any merge votes (and for that matter keep votes) are now moot. I don't think a redirect is called for here, but whatever. Herostratus 22:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. Brian G. Crawford 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Television program on major cable network; presumptively notable despite being utter crap. Monicasdude 15:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable wrestling show from the 80s carried on USA. Should be renamed WWF Tuesday Night Titans or Tuesday Night Titans, however. youngamerican (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete not every TV show deserves a wiki entry. Anything relevant is already covered under World Wrestling Entertainment. --Bachrach44 14:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Request speedy close. All the material in this (misnamed) article has been merged into Tuesday Night Titans, therefore this article can be speedy deleted. Herostratus 22:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Request speedy close. Tuesday Night Titan/Titans, just close it down and keep the other up.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, defaults to keep. - Liberatore(T) 15:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Hill

I cannot find him from googling the name (at least not on first page. The said biography is #2,135,228 on Amazon. NN? James Kendall [talk] 13:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete there is no claim to notability in this article at all. --Deville (Talk) 14:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep, author of notable/substantial biography of notable figure. Extensively reviewed when it first appeared, publication treated as an event, for example, by Time magazine [30]. Article shouldn't be deleted simply because nominator didn't do a decent Google search; there'd be no issue if he'd done a well-formed one [31]. Monicasdude 15:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Firstly, there is no need to be rude. Seeing your user talk space, it seems like it is a common tactic of yours. Secondly, just because a book has been reviewed by Time or indeed the New York Times [32] does not make it notable. As I said, it is hardly a well-selling book.

On the subject of searching, I meant that if one googles 'lee hill' he is not a top search. I'm still not sure I'm convinced of his inclusion, when his books aren't high sellers. That said, I'll leave it to Wikipedians to decide. I wasn't sure that the guy was notable, so I stand by my original decision. James Kendall [talk] 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

      • Actually, if you google "Lee Hill," he shows up in the eighth listing on the first page. Monicasdude 05:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Convinced by 2nd source/reference provided by Monicasdude - even if it has been provided in a rather harsh manner.... ahem! Marcus22 20:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wrote an import bio of Terry Southern hence exactly the type of page we want here. Thanks to Monicasdude for those references. -- JJay 20:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • So the argument is that writing a biography of someone famous a priori makes the biographer notable. Interesting logic there: a new form of justification for reflected glory. Hint for Monicasdude: Time and The New York Times printed reviews of the book because of its subject, not its writer. For the moment, delete: I notice the other highpoint of Hill's career is editing a college radio station program guide. Whoopee! --Calton | Talk 00:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No, the argument is that the creator of a notable work is also notable. And it really doesn't matter why a book is prominently reviewed in major publications (not that your claims are well-founded); the reviews/coverage amount to presumptive evidence of notability. Most (not all, but most) writers who satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements do so because their work satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements. Monicasdude 05:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Calton. Eusebeus 13:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  06:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jazrawi

DicDef unsuitable for WP. Also looks like a possible attack page. Utter nonsense really. Tried to {{prod}} as if that ever works. Anon 193.122.31.188 14:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neologism per WP:NEO, also is a strong possibility of being an attack page.--Blue520 14:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election.  (aeropagitica)  06:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre Laliberté

Non-notable Canadian political candidate. Ran twice in federal elections, finished 3rd in 2004, 4th in 2006. delete Atrian 14:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 15:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Ardenn 17:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election with other unelected candidates (where he already is mentioned). This is what was done with other NDP and Green candidates that cme up on AfD. Maybe some of the text should be added there too. Luigizanasi 18:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect I'm puzzled as to why someone would have created this when he's already on the list page. CJCurrie 19:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Samaritan 15:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per cjcurrie - pm_shef 20:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  06:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Local Ome and Omics list

vandalised, nearly empty list, and the few genuine entries are redundant. Not worth redirecting to '-omics' as that is the only page that links to it Hopsyturvy 12:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, listcruft, useless as mostly empty, and does not even explain what "Ome" or "Omics" are. JIP | Talk 15:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Say what? Haikupoet 02:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; the article is already tagged as copyvio, and will be dealt with as usual. - Liberatore(T) 15:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 50 films you should see by the age of 14

Just one list brought out by the British Film Institute once, doesnt deserve its own article -- Astrokey44|talk 14:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. The title is a clear attempt at promotion and persuasion. Brian G. Crawford 14:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, promotion, ad and listcruft. --Terence Ong 15:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Terence Ong. JIP | Talk 15:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If this was from a non-reputable group, like a blog or some commercial website, I might say delete. However, the British Film Institute is clearly a highly important and prestigious organization. If they are putting out this kind of list, based on voting from experts, the world needs to take notice and we should be talking about it here. Otherwise, I can't see why we are helping to promote and persuade people by publishing 100s of lists such as Academy Award for Best Picture. -- JJay 15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I can't see a reason not to report this list, although the title is an interesting issue. JPD (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Copyright violation, delete with extreme prejudice. Changing numbers 11-50 into alphabetical order is not sufficient 'original work' to make this substantially different from the source. Proto||type 16:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep We have loads of similar lists (for example, 100 Greatest British Television Programmes) and they're generally kept. Not being a lawyer, I can't comment with authority on whether such lists are copyvios or not, but I don't see why they would be, any more than reporting the winners at each year's Oscar ceremony would be a copyvio of the awards broadcast. I certainly think that the authority of the BFI (and AFI, and similar articles) is vital to keeping these. I'd certainly not want to start seeing articles on the "Top 10 hottest asses as reported by someguysblog.com" and such. But this is a keeper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as others but it should also have a new title as per JPD. Something like "BFI's 50 ..."--Deville (Talk) 17:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Minor list and probable copyright violation. If it's so important the issuing group should have it on its webpage. Put a link to that list on a relevant article.Tombride 18:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename. We've got lots of similar lists, but the name has to change to avoid sounding like advocacy (The BFI list of 50...). We can list the films in the order they do without any copyright worries. ProhibitOnions 21:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete These lists will multiply out of control if we don't delete them. ReeseM 23:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting list from notable organisation. Capitalistroadster 02:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename per ProhibitOnions. Haikupoet 02:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per JJ and Prohibit. Joe 05:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - as the event itself is notable, and sponsored by the BFI, a major organisation, there's definitely an article here. However, as the list itself is on the BFI's website, and linked to in the article, would anyone object to just keeping the top ten, and getting rid of the rest of the list to avoid any possible copyright issue? If that's done, I'll change to keep. Proto||type 08:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a copyvio as it repeats opinion and duplicates judgements made in arranging information. Bhoeble 12:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if its good enough for the BFI its good enough for me. Jcuk 00:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 at author's request by ➨ ❝REDVERS❞

[edit] Pete Crewdson

No reason given why this person is encyclopedically notable. Arguably a db-bio speedy... Fourohfour 14:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. Plug for his local minor web design one-man company. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 15:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If it is deleted then ok. I simply put it up as reference material for the people who ask me about it. I am quite big and very well known in certain areas of interest, and as such get asked for more information on myself a lot. If it gets in the way however, then please feel free to have it deleted asap. I would like to point out as well that it was in no way a "plug" of anything, just simply a biography - The company I work for is one of the biggest in the South West, not a "one-man company," and it is a part of my history. :o) --crewdy 15:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CanadaDrugs.com

NN, spam Hpuppet - «Talk» 14:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I added the page merely following the lead of many other pharmacies already listed such as RxNorth.com and in the Category Category:Pharmacies Category:Pharmacies. Is my listing somehow different than all of those other pharmacies? I am willing to alter the listing based on specific feedback and direction, I'm just not sure how to refine the listing. Comments, direction or editing versus simply deletion would be welcome. Thanks! --Canadadrugs 15:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as spam. Brian G. Crawford 16:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. At least the author chose the same name for their username, so we don't accidentally think that it's not spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom.Tombride 18:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This has no place in wikipedia, please! Asterion 18:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. Schzmo 21:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  06:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RxNorth.com

NN, spam Hpuppet - «Talk» 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as spam. Brian G. Crawford 16:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete more spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tombride 18:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Ugur Basak 21:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, clean up, add info on disputes. Major national/international (NA) business involved in several high-profile controversies relating to back-importation of prescription drugs to US and internet prescription drug sales. [33] [34] [35] [36]. Monicasdude 22:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I agree that wikipedia could probably use an article on that issue (if there isn't one already, I haven't searched), but that article should not go under an entry for a private company that partakes in the practice of drug reimportation.Tombride 23:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renhite Laboratories

NN, spam Hpuppet - «Talk» 15:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as spam. Brian G. Crawford 16:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Ugur Basak 21:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --Lockley 22:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and also I find it highly unlikely that it could be a "global" firm if it's only two years old. Haikupoet 02:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  06:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daddy LongStroke

Non-notable band. No entry found on Discogs or All Music. Nothing relevant via Google. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 15:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 15:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extravolution

Relevant policies: WP:V (WP:NEO, WP:RS), WP:VAIN, WP:NFT

"This definition was formulated by D.J. MacLennan in 2006"... and of course, User:Djmac needs to grace Wikipedia with this vanity neologism. Two hits on Google, one of which is the cited "source", a RTF file on a university server that is not exactly reliable. Sandstein 15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity neologism. JPD (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Proto||type 15:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a vanity neologism. It is certainly a neologism, how can it not be when it is describing a new process? This is a definition of a pre-existing term. It is a useful and appropriate term for the process involved. The only reason I used my own name was because I don't know of anyone else who has defined the term. I'll gladly correct this if necessary.--Djmac 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that Wikipedia is meant to cover subjects that are already notable, not assist neologisms on their way to notability. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 16:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism, albeit a nice one. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 16:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons listed by nom --TBC??? ??? ??? 16:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I would argue that the subject is already highly notable and being discussed at all levels of society. Is the fact that the term is a neologism a good reason for deleting it?--Djmac 16:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Please read the "relevant policies" linked to above. Sandstein 17:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have read the policy and realise that neologisms are often (but not always) deleted. However, this subject matter is simply not properly definable without the use of appropriate neologisms. My argument is that this one should be an exception because it properly describes, using sound linguistic roots, a phenomenon which is not otherwise easily describable. --Djmac 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
True, but not an argument for inclusion. WP:V states that:
Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Which means: You must wait until someone else uses the term in a reliable source, otherwise it's original research and/or speculation, which is also most definitely not allowed on Wikipedia. Sandstein 19:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Not only a neologism, but clearly a failure as such, since no one's picking up on it. Fan1967 00:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- WP:NOT a crystal ball, neologism. Haikupoet 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I can see that the term isn't getting a great deal of support here, which is disappointing (but thanks to Ramanpotential for agreeing that it is a good neologism). I understand your reasons and see that it is certainly difficult to align this with Wikipedia policy. The argument about a 'failed' neologism is a strange one however. You can't argue that the term is a neologism (which by definition is new and not widely established yet) and then say that it has 'failed'. The idea behind the word is not new either. This is not original research. Just the application of a pre-existing term to an existing (but new) phenomenon. Thank you for your rigorous argument and an interesting introduction to Wikipedia! I'll continue using this word because I don't know of a better term for summing up this phenomenon. Others may feel the same. --Djmac 11:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Ritchy 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Have today entered a new reference provided by James Greenwald which proves that this word was used in a biological context as early as the 19th century. Therefore 'extravolution' is conclusively not a neologism. It also puts all other reasons for deletion on very shaky ground. My personal philosophy is that deletion of valid and useful data is offensive and destructive. Think twice, or more, about your wanton recommendations to remove this valid article.
  • What you provided is a dictionary definition from 1829, meaning apparently "to roll outwards". Apart from WP:WINAD, biological evolution wasn't even discovered yet in 1829, let alone computers, so this 1829 dicdef has nothing to do with what your neologism is about. Still delete. Sandstein 21:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted - {{nn-band}}. Stifle 16:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justice_League_(Hardcore_band)

Delete. The only notability I can find is the weak connection between one of the band's members to the band Inside Out, which used to feature Rage Against the Machine's frontman. Other than that, this band doesn't really seem to possess any notability. The prod tag was removed by someone who claimed that the band played with a lot of notable bands, but I've seen some crappy bands open for some good headliners and I don't think that fact alone makes them notable ... but we'll see what you all think. Aplomado - UTC 15:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as band with no assertion of notability, tagged as such. Brian G. Crawford 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above; non-notable--TBC??? ??? ??? 16:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth Marian Dogma

Delete. I fully concede that this may be down to some atheistic bias on my part, but really, this is surely an irredeemably incoherent article. Could it POSSIBLY be cleaned up to standard? Perhaps. Is there any way this is really going to happen? With the obscurity of the subject, I don't think so. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 15:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep and cleanup, as the Fifth Marian Dogma seems to be a Catholic belief [37]. From what I've read, the concept is similar to that of the Second Coming--TBC??? ??? ??? 16:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (almost strong). An utterly whacky concept, like most religious ideas. But an actual idea that seems to be part of the Marian movement. The article isn't very coherent, but the topic is legit. See, e.g. <http://www.mariansolidarity.com/ladyofallnations/dopp02c.html>. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Article is a candidate for cleanup but 'Fifth Marian Dogma' refers to a large popular movement within the Catholic Church to recognize Mary as co-redeemer. Through the years Mary has already been proclaimed as Mother of God, as virgin, as immaculately conceived (in 1854), as assumed into heaven body and soul (1950), and co-redeemer would be the fifth dogmatic proclamation. Reportedly five million signatures have been gathered since 1993 to support this. --Lockley 22:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've rewritten the article to address the AfD concerns. --Lockley 23:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have heard of this, but frankly know nothing about it. Dan, the CowMan 22:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have strong atheistic tendencies and I hap no trouble following the article. Seano1 23:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You didn't see the original version of it, then? :-) I am more then happy to retract my nomination given Lockley's excellent cleanup. I apologise to all if I have been overly vigilant in this matter. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 00:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The original version contained a blatent Copyvio, which I removed. Looks good now. Dan, the CowMan 00:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not really any point in my voting here, since it's now an Obvious Keep, but I do want to say kudos to Lockley for his excellent work. After comparing his version with the last edit from the original author, I am amazed at how well he has organized and presented the material. Everyone should read both versions to see just what a good rewrite can do. Well done. Fan1967 00:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite. Fringy though. Haikupoet 02:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Just to say, great rewrite T K E 19:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 close to patent nonsense as it can be without exactly hitting the definition, I'm invoking WP:SNOW. Stifle 15:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome sauce

Originally put for a transwiki to Wictionary, but I don't see them taking it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Non-notable neologism. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 15:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per WP:NFT. -- Vary | Talk 15:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment was going to add sister article Boiling one's mashed potatoes, but that's just been speedied. -- Vary | Talk 15:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. How was it not speedied?! -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 15:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy, utter nonsense. Tagged as such, and the transwiki tag removed (I really don't think wiktionary would want this). Proto||type 15:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously, but I don't see how it's a speedy. It's unencyclopedic, not nonsense. JPD (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I, as the creator, am sorry for the trouble and ask for the article to be deleted now. Sorry.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet crime archives

Amateurish serial killer web page; no evidence that it "is considered a major source of information on the subject"; 250k Alexa ranking; appears to fail WP:WEB. WARNING: the site contains loud noises and flashing patterns. ×Meegs 16:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallacy Check NY

Delete. Yahoo group that was founded on Feb. 11 of this year. Has only 8 members, and has had no activity in the last 7 days. Only 294 google results for "fallacy check", few of which seem to be relevant (this article is #1) PlasmaDragon 16:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I can't think of any individual Yahoo groups that should have articles. There probably aren't any. In any case, definitely NN, could probably even have been speedied under A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep The Yahoo group is just a placeholder until the official website is completed. 24.29.81.74 19:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • So? Even if it had a website, it would still fail WP:WEB-PlasmaDragon 19:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete; the article gives a good description of the group's position and their reasons for existence. However, if the group was (a) only created a matter of weeks ago (i.e. is relatively new) and (b) the Yahoo! group has had no activity in the past week, this suggests that it has done nothing of note and is still at the formative stages. Have they done anything notable or been written about elsewhere? If not, this article is simply an agenda for a group that have done nothing yet, and as such warrants deletion. Fourohfour 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; if and when the group makes a notable website it can be recreated.--Cúchullain t c 22:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per nom. Fourohfour: just because an article is good (or bad, for that matter) doesn't mean it should be kept (or deleted). --Rory096 04:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Macedo

Originally tagged for speedy deletion as NN-BIO. However, article could be read as asserting notability, so speedy tag doesn't apply. Referring here instead. I abstain from voting on this. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep. Holds an endowed chair at Princeton, author of multiple substantial published works. Where is there an issue? Monicasdude 22:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Full professor at reputable university. This is not what the {{nn-bio}} tag is supposed to be used for. u p p l a n d 06:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. All professors at Princeton are notable. JeffBurdges 12:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is the boss of Peter Singer and so many other world-famous, extremely influential people. http://www.princeton.edu/~uchv/faculty.html He is also a full professor in what is considered to be one of the best Politics departments in the world.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jorge Lopez Lando

appears to be a vanity page Reverie98 17:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reverie98


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

The result of the debate was moot. Mailer Diablo 17:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Giacco

No apparent reason for the entry Dunstan 17:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Bjørnene

With all respect, this topic does not appear to be notable enough. The article is about a local list that ran for municipal elections in the Danish town of Holbæk, and gained only 59 votes. Its website has not been updated since the municipa elections of 2005, which indicates its inactivity. That it has an article on Wikipedia gives an erroneous impression of its importance in Denmark Bertilvidet 08:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete - per above Bertilvidet 08:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Eivindt@c 19:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a minor politician with no success/notoriety.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "The party is widely unknown and without any political impact in Denmark; and a mere local phenomenon in Holbæk municipality, where it ran in the Danish municipal elections on October 15, 2005, winning a mere 59 votes." Kinda hard to say keep when the article itself says that. --Rory096 04:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Complete lack of importance. Valentinian (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Even discarding the obvious ballot stuffing votes, there is a considerable majority towards keeping. So therefore it looks like this article should be kept this time. JIP | Talk 07:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punk ideology

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

Inherantly Non-NOPV. Article reads as compeletly origional research and is lacking any citation what so ever. Article has already been tagged as representing a narrow viewpoint. I say it should be deleted entirely, maybe severly trimmed and merged to the article on punk. But there is no reason that this deserves its own entry. Tombride 17:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Punk deserves more respect and this page is a good contribution. [38]
  • Keep and probably merge with Punk culture. It seems like this is all wrapped up in the subculture of punk and since we have 100s of articles at category:subcultures, I don't see any reason to discriminate against punks. -- JJay 18:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per above Bertilvidet 19:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and merge with Punk culture and DIY punk ethic. Oldelpaso 21:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Brian G. Crawford 22:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep--It works. Ecto 23:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment--Song lyrics could count as sources, plus there have been a few books written on the subject. Finding sources should be no problem. The narrow viewpoint tag requests expansion, not deletion, so that is no reason for the article to be deleted. DIY punk ethic and Punk culture are no longer articles. Merging in DIY ethic would be best. There would not be room in Punk for the detail this topic needs. It should remain in its own article. Ecto 08:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It used to references a few sources including a book called "The Philosophy of Punk" which I have read (no idea why it was removed, I'm going to put it back in now). The book supports most of the ideas presented in the article. It's not original research. The Ungovernable Force 23:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep--I'm reading it. 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep--I read it all the time so do my friends. 09:32, 29 March 2006 (utc)
  • Keep--Im reading it!
  • Keep--I come here all the time and I think it well deserves to stay. Kenny 22:20, 31 March 2006
  • KEEP-I LOVE THIS PAGE if you have to merge it somewhere
  • Keep Punk ideology deserves its own page. —RJN 20:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is full of useful information to anybody interested in the punk subculture and which bands have a deeper meaning than the average band. I have learned more than I can mention thanks to this page and link people frequently.
  • KEEP There are too many misconceptions about what punk is in our world, and I think that any non-punk, or even a punk for that matter could learn alot just by reading that page. Please don't ignore this important part of our culture. Rachel April 4 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 speedied. — Mar. 29, '06 [03:11] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] Theodore Timothy

Delete. Prodded earlier as hoax, nothing comes up in Google. discospinster 17:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete hoax, nonsense. Gwernol 22:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and tagged as joke, nonsense.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Action Front of National Socialists/National Activists

  • Delete - This page is non-notable and spam, it has only had one editor since its creation - Solar 18:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not because it has one editor but because it is not notable. I feel the number of editors should not be a criteria for deletion, rather the quality of the article should be the only factor which decides whether an article should stay or go. --Soumyasch 18:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, I only mentioned that to underline my opinion the article is non-notable, thanks for your support. - Solar 18:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (I am the creator and sole editor of the article). The ANS/NA was (and to some degree still is) an important organization in the German militant neo-Nazi scene. Many of its former members - many of which are alleged to still continue the organization - such as Christian Worch, are some of the most important figures in the German right-wing, Worch, e.g., even has influence in the National Democratic Party of Germany, which aside from being a hot topic in Germany, is even represented in the Saxon Landtag. This and the fact that there is also a corresponding article in the German wikipedia should be enough to constitute notability.--Carabinieri 20:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable neo-Nazi organisation, important in the early 80s and with large influence in the German Nazi scene later. I don't see what is spam about this article (the external link goes to a descriptive page on an anti-Nazi site). Kusma (討論) 21:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep German history isn't spam. A branch of the NSDAP isn't "non-notable". Saint|swithin 21:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this seems notable enough to me. Way freaked out, but notable nonetheless --Deville (Talk) 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kusma. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notbale enough to be kept in my book. Keresaspa 13:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep according to Carabinieri --KarlV 09:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm disregarding the second keep vote because it's not by User:Realitycheck (who doesn't seem to exist), but by an anon IP with only one edit ever. JIP | Talk 07:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Sanguedolce

AfD'ed by RomeoVoid (talk · contribs). Improperly grouped with existing AfD's.

  • Borderline delete — He's won some awards[39], but none of them are especially notable. He also gets a few google hits, but nothing significant. :-) — RJH 19:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, nontrivial IMDB entry, work treated as notable enough by trade papers like Variety [40]. Monicasdude 22:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not notable enough for his own article. His only credit on Allmovie.com is as a cinematographer for a Canadian movie. RomeoVoid 23:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN --Deville (Talk) 01:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Monicasdude. Sanguedolce has imdb credits as a director and cinematographer. Current article could be expanded but Sanguecolce is notable enough. Realitycheck
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  05:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marcos Arriaga

AfD'ed by RomeoVoid (talk · contribs). Was grouped with other AfD's.

  • Keep (and prune) based on Arriaga's imdb credits as a cinematographer. Current article has a press-release feel but Arriaga is notable enough. --Lockley 18:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Lockley. The other AfDs associated with this one seem to have been non-notable vanity; this one is probably notable vanity. (In theory, of course, he may have just been more successful in implanting trivia into IMDb, but that would be difficult to establish) Bucketsofg 19:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The others were film students with no credits. This one's a few years older and has a legitimate body of work, which shows up in other places besides IMDb. He's no Spielberg, but he's a real, working filmmaker. Fan1967 20:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up; this reads like it comes from a film festival flyer that's never been put online. Monicasdude 22:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete RomeoVoid 23:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean house in a big way --Deville (Talk) 01:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Projity

Advertising, pure and simple. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as non-notable. A look at Projity's website shows a legitimate but small and privately held software company, founded in 2004, with a history of one (1) press release dating all the way back to March 16, 2006. --Lockley 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, ad --Deville (Talk) 01:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn ad.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Kristen Johnston. JIP | Talk 07:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kristen Johnson

Contested prod. A conjoined article, two subjects none very notable. I suspect a copyvio for the top one, and vanity for both. It used to be a redirect to 3rd Rock from the Sun's Kristen Johnston, maybe we should revert to that. Eivindt@c 18:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete both per nom; revert to redirect. (This phenomenon of the hijacked redirect is, I think, an increasing problem.) Bucketsofg 19:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete although a male named "Kristen" is pretty novel, I guess. After deletion I suggest that the redirect be replaced. According to the IMDB, Kristen Johnston was credited as "Kristen Johnson" in the second Austin Powers movie, though I'd imagine that's just a typo rather than an alias or something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Not novel actually, according to the Norwegian Bureau of Statistics, there are 997 men in Norway named "Kristen" which is a boy's name, although use of the name has declined. "Kristin" is a female name. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and recreate as redirect per above. -- Saberwyn 21:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to old target. youngamerican (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and recreate as redirect per nom. —LrdChaos 21:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Revert to redirect. Royboycrashfan 21:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert to redirect as per many others --Deville (Talk) 01:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Revert to redirect. 23skidoo 03:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D-Effect

Non-notable, no Google results found, and sounds like a joke. Booyabazooka 19:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. nn, likely vanity. Bucketsofg 19:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. "he sold more than 200 mixtapes from the trunk of his car." 'Nuff said. Fan1967 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What scares me is the thought that this may not be a hoax. --Deville (Talk) 01:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. I don't see anything particularly scary about it though; it's just a garden-variety garage MC. Articles like these are deleted by the dozen every day. Haikupoet 02:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wow, 200 copies sold! Move over, Elvis! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. There's definitely no consensus to delete; merging or not can be sorted out on the relevant talk pages. Stifle 13:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chain Of Strength

See also the related articles up for deletion: Chain of Strength (duplicate article), What Holds Us Apart (record), True Till Death (record).

Delete as no apparent notability. Prod tag removed. Aplomado - UTC 19:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. Well known and notable band with in punk and hardcore.Tombride 20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Would you be so kind as to provide information from reliable external sources that back up this assertation, and confirm that this group meets at least one (preferably more) of the criteria noted at the Wikipedia:Notability (music) inclusion guideline? If this cannot be done, delete as non-notable band/group. -- Saberwyn 21:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google reveals over 81,000 hits for the band's name. Although the article could use a bit of clean-up and maybe elaboration. OverlordChris 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • By adding the geographical qualifier ["Chain of Strength" California], I come up with 14,900 hits, of which 384 are unique. -- Saberwyn 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Adding the modifiers "hardcore" or "straight egde". Also provide significant numbers of hits.Tombride 23:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote yet. Note that there is another article, Chain of Strength, which should be either deleted together with this one, or merge into if the band is determined to be notable. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 23:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The two articles clearly need to be merged.Tombride 00:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The two articles clearly need to be deleted. Since when do articles get a free pass when they don't assert any notability? Hell, this should be a speedy delete. Aplomado - UTC 04:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep and merge all related articles into one (Chain of Strength with a small of appears to be correct name). They've released 2 records via Revelation Records I'll leave it up to someone who knows about the American music scene to determine if this is a pass per WP:MUSIC. -- Saberwyn 03:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Limited output" screams non-notable to me; and the Myspace link doesn't exactly help their cause either. Andy Saunders 09:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addicted to Lost

  • Delete Non-encyclopaedic, trivial, and crufty Danflave 19:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If kept, it should be merged with Lost (TV series). There isn't enough here for a full article. -- MisterHand 19:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't keep it, don't merge it, kill it. This is the very definition of non-encyclopaedic. --PKtm 20:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Lost and cleanup, as a trivia point.  (aeropagitica)  20:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If this is merely an extended series commercial then it is hardly notable as a contribution to the series, either serious or a spoof/parody.  (aeropagitica)  21:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not encyclopedic and not even notable enough to be merged into the main Lost article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article describes the commerical for Lost that ran during the Super Bowl. --Lockley 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Commercials are only rarely notable (e.g. 1984 (television commercial)) savidan(talk) (e@) 23:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cruftiest. Article. EVAR. --Deville (Talk) 01:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete completely non-notable Archon Divinus 05:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chartclarity

Minor website - not notable Dmn € Դմն 19:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

From ChartClarity creator/admin: this deletion note was given by an individual who is just trying to discredit the site... the site is a very informative music website which continues to grow and is top 3 on Gostats top sites.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HelterSkelter88 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete as non-notable; fails WP:WEB; has an Alexa ranking of 9,655 [41] --TBC??? ??? ??? 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per TBC --Deville (Talk) 01:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per TBC Dmn € Դմն 13:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was not Delete, merging or not can be worked out on Talk:Funk-rock. Stifle 13:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funk metal

Keep this article, it needs to be expanded to explain the differences and such, but funk metal is not funk rock and should not be merged.

article overlaps largely with funk rock, and is not an actual genre. Another case of name dropping Spearhead 20:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Article used to glorify Funk, Funk Rock, Nu Metal and Hip Hop Bands/Groups/Artists that have no synergy with each other. Searching on the internet also finds that the same Yahoo Group that has banded to recreate AFD articles, is responsible for coining the term Funk Metal. Ley Shade 20:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I hear this term used commonly (although usually pejoritive context). Although unless someone is going to expand or improve the article it is probably best to merge this information into funk rock and/or heavy metal.Tombride 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to funk rock or heavy metal as per Tombride, I wont object if someone can expand the article though. -- Arnzy (Talk) 21:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable and verifiable type of music. Allmusic.com recognises this as a legitimate genre see [42] so that is far more authoritative than a Yahoo group. The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Faith No More and Primus are listed by Allmusic.com in the funk metal genre so its definitely notable. Capitalistroadster 02:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Allmusic.com likes to list bands in genres that they arent. Search Gothic Metal and youll find a million and one bands with no connection what so ever to Gothic Metal. Thats not very authorative now, is it. Ley Shade 09:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with funk rock. It's an actual genre though: Primus and the peppers come to mind ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 09:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into funk rock, it's basically the same term. As a seperate comment, always be cautious with allmusic.com - it has as many genres as there are bands. Without even looking, I bet if you put together two random musical genres, you'd probably find a matching allmusic genre (classical funk? jazz metal? indie rap? pop electronica? pan pipe trip hop?). Proto||type 09:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Allmusic.com is also notorius for listing genres as things they arent, such as in the wonderfull cases of genres like Trance, Trip Hop and Gothic Metal. Hence why sites such as Allmusic.com generally arent too appreciated by musicians or dececated music enthusiasts. Ley Shade 09:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is definitely a term used to describe music. Though Allmusic my like to list bands as what they aren't, the use of a term indicates that such a genre, or at least a "scene", exists. I have heard this term used before. Infectious Grooves are what I'd quote as an example. --Switch 08:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Funk metal is a notable subgenre of funk rock, just as metal is a subgenre of rock. Parliament and Prince are good examples of funk rock, while Fishbone and Bad Brains are more typical of funk metal. Merging the two would be like merging fusion into jazz. --Joelmills 01:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Considering that Metal isnt a form of rock music, without being harsh, your statement is pretty redundant and foolish. And um, the WikiProject WP:HMM is in the process of merging stubs into their core articles. And for a band to be 'metal' they have to have metal characteristics. Also this fails Notablity on all accounts, and as such is in violation of the notablity policy. Ley Shade 01:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
You're right, metal is not a subgenre of rock, and I do feel foolish for saying so. However, by the same token, funk metal is quite different from funk rock and merging the two would not make sense. If you want to merge it into metal, that would make more sense, but would probably make for a rather long article. The bands I mentioned do have metal characteristics; I can only assume you are unfamiliar with them. So do you list them as metal bands, funk bands, metal bands with funk characteristics, or what? Funk metal is a good way to describe them. As for notability, I got 25,000,000 hits on google for funk metal (not sure how many were unique). There were references to it on Rolling Stone's website, amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com, and many others. And despite your dislike of allmusic.com, I consider it to be a good source (it's even quoted in the heavy metal music article), which makes this topic verifiable and notable. -- Joelmills 03:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
In exactly what way does a genre said to be defined by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Primus (band), Rage Against the Machine and Fishbone fail notability?
Also, if a merger is necessary, it should be into alternative metal, not funk rock, with which it has far less overlap. --Switch 05:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Funk metal's been around and described for a while. WesleyDodds 06:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as a hoax. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Osman qureshi

Non-notable hoax, but notability claimed. No entry on Allmusic for this name - surprisingly for someone whose album debuted at number one. There is a Usmaan Qureshi, but s/he's a gospel singer. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Jackson (Best LK)

This page is nothing but crude nonsense. Scientizzle 20:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. This may qualify for the Speedy Treatment but I can't tell if it's vanity, attack, patent nonsense, or what. --Lockley 21:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete This reads as {{db-attack}} material, hardly vanity.  (aeropagitica)  21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Gwernol 22:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete : can't decide if its a {{db-bio}} or {{db-attack}} savidan(talk) (e@) 22:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, it certainly qualifies in one way or the other. --Deville (Talk) 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Marudubshinki as nn-band and author request. Stifle 11:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Flag Army Productions

  • Delete There is arguments as to whether this should stay or not. The author has admitted he has some relevance to this company (vanity article) and it sounds incredibly nn and also it is a very poorly written article. J.J.Sagnella 20:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok I will make you a deal edit my artical make it better you are a Wikipedia editer arent you. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.11.129.37 (talk • contribs) .
Two small problems of why I shouldn't do that. First off I know nothing about this company and secondly by the looks of things, it is about to be deleted. J.J.Sagnella 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Two small problems I will make another one and you will never stop me because you are a fool I hope this is better writen for you.Its all good I hope your computer crashes and you loose all your articles I know I am very mature I am loving this. This is better then watching tv ok my friend take care peace dont let this get to you what are you like 40 haha. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.11.129.37 (talk • contribs) .
    Wikipedia can stop you. Wikipedia can quickly delete it again and stop you from creating it ever again by protecting the page and Wikipedia's articles are not stored on anyone's computer. In fatc I don't know where they are stored. Also please end your comments with ~~~~ J.J.Sagnella 19:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia this Wikipedia that ok relax i am done with you. You had to ask a 16 year old to stop comments with you haha. I know you are two proud not to write back so I am waiting or dont its up to you I am done with you p.s you are a non-nodable company and i will delete your articles oh no wait i cant because you dont know where they are stored and if you make them again wikipedia will find you and steal you from your house i sitill hope your computer crashes!! haha ok peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.114.36.6 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 29 March 2006
  • Delete, Google search returns exactly two Ghits, half of which are this article. Vanity ad, of course, but even if not, remarkably non-notable. --Deville (Talk) 11:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, author request, see User talk:24.11.129.37. --Rory096 02:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable band. Ifnord 03:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was not Delete. Please use Talk:Near-Extinction evolution theory to decide whether to merge or just redirect. Stifle 13:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Near-Extinction_evolution_theory

Google test reveals only 26 hits on "Near-Extinction evolution theory" with most being Wiki or mirrors. In addition, Allan Silliphant, who is listed as the producer of a documentary about this topic, receives 426 hits, of which 18 mention evolution (most being Wiki and mirrors).

  • Delete or merge to Population bottleneck since it probably is an population bottleneck, just assumed under a different name by the article's author. OverlordChris 21:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Population bottleneck. There is legit encyclopedic content here IMHO, but needs copyedit and merging into the other article. --Lockley 21:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect into Population bottleneck. Merge would be fine, but would require finding lots of sources and removing POV. --Allen 01:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deep strike

Contested Prod: "Non-encyclopedic article: Wikipedia is not a game guide, and this article goes into far too much detail on a relatively minor point in the Warhammer 40,000 game". Prod removed, with the reasoning that with 100s of 40K articles in existence, very minor ones should stay.

I'm bringing this to Afd, because the article is about a single game rule available for use by no more than two units from each army Codex. Of the hundreds of 40k articles on wikipedia, this is the only one I've found dealing with a special game rule; most of the articles deal with the organisations, characters, and events of the fictional universe the game is based around. In addition, Wikipedia IS NOT an instruction manual, for very very minor wargame rules or otherwise -- Saberwyn 21:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Isn't this an important aspect of the game? There seems to be a lot of google hits for something so minor [43]. Maybe it should be merged with the game. -- JJay 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • This section of rules takes up less space in the rulebook than it does on Wikipedia (2 small paragraphs at most), is only available to a select number of units, and is is only legal in certain forms of gameplay. -- Saberwyn 21:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per original prod. These are game instructions. --Lockley 21:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per original prod (which for reference, I put on). This is not an important part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. --Pak21 22:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Deep delete savidan(talk) (e@) 22:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Warhammer 40,000-related deletions. -- Pak21 08:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, at best mention in Codex (Warhammer 40,000). Proto||type 09:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. We don't need articles on special rules - that is what the rule book is for Localzuk (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight merge to Warhammer 40K or delete. Stifle 11:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Rudden

It's a vanity article, with what looks like articles copied directly into it. So basically, it's crap. Disavian 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Arnzy (Talk) 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Scientizzle 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "For immediate release..." This is a series of press releases that fails to assert the notability of the subject. WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  21:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Yes, this is a press release. --Lockley 22:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, clearly doesn't meet WP:BIO. Gwernol 22:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • For immediate delete savidan(talk) (e@) 22:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity and NN besides. --Deville (Talk) 01:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 repost of previously deleted stuff. Stifle 11:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sami Ahmad

Delete and protect - as per previous afd and still nn, also only 70+ odd google hits as per [44], [45], and [46]. -- Arnzy (Talk) 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: google test is only one of the tests --Mixtro 13:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as before. Should also delete his Roserklinik Centre for Obesity Surgery Dlyons493 Talk 23:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian warmetal

yet another bogus genre. Minimal number of bands, and a infrequently used term Spearhead 21:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Australian warmetal gets zero hits in a search of a Australian and New Zealand newspaper database and the bands listed are inconsequential in the Australian music scene. Capitalistroadster 02:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified -- seems inconsequential. Haikupoet 03:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 08:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Term coining to glorify and advertise bands from Australia that have no musical synergy. Ley Shade 09:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note there is an existing redirect from Australian war metal to Black metal (prev double redirect through War metal) Paul foord 12:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Ian ≡ talk 01:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Roisterer 03:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was dleete. DS 01:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circular egde

Poorly-spelt article consisting of advertising a website that fails WP:WEB  (aeropagitica)  21:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Disavian 21:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete likely vanity, definite spam, horribly written, possible copy-vio. Gwernol 22:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. The guy even put a copyright notice at the end of the article. Seano1 22:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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■ 09:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transdisciplinary vigilantism

Term is a neologism Rabid Hamster 21:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The only Google hits I found for this term are copies of the article. Seano1 22:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is complete nonsense, although with that name I have to admit I wish it wasn't. That could be cool. --Deville (Talk) 01:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BALLS. Stifle 11:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crash metal

another one of those pesky little bogus metal genres. Delete this please Spearhead 22:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. A few Ghits, but they seem to be all unrelated. Also, "faster form of ... thrash metal"? Do we really need that? --Deville (Talk) 01:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, metalcruft and possible neologism. Haikupoet 03:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Violation of WP:NOT by term coining. Ley Shade 09:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Stifle 14:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian metal

Non-notable scene, non-existent genre. Delete Spearhead 22:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

note alse refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistani black metal which is very similar. Spearhead 09:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Google shows this as legit, and it’s notable in Iran. Seano1 22:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep real, verifiable, and interesting to read about. Pissant 23:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Iranian headbanger scene is probably pretty notable if you have to dodge the Religious police to get to it. See Rock the Casbah for why it's still important. -- JJay 00:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep -- seems notable, though the article needs serious expansion. Haikupoet 03:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non existant genre and term-coining in violation of WP:NOT. The article's contents if kept should be merged into the article on the Iranian Music Scene, as Iranian Metal is not a genre, especially when this article isnt to do with Metal, its to do with a bunch of Iranian bands that have caused themselfs trouble. Ley Shade 09:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to metal music in Iran? Punkmorten 07:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Iranian rock and alternative music. The "Bands" section should become List of Iranian heavy metal bands, which will have a "see also" reference in the "Iranian rock" article. BTW, I followed one of the links in the article - for a good laugh, check out the Myspace page for Islamatic and play "No More America". It has me wondering if it isn't a giant put on. Peter G Werner 19:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ubrun

Not notable, sounds like a few students' drinking game —This unsigned comment was added by Nerdydentist (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete Its a pub crawl game. Students have been doing this for hundreds of years. Nothing notable about this one. Gwernol 22:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as alcoholcruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've restored this AfD after it was blanked by an anonymous user. I also reverted the deletion of the AfD notice from the Ubrun article by its creator Jazzclub7. Gwernol 15:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article contributes nothing to Wikipedia Swpmre 07:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle

Do NOT delete as wikipedia offers information on all range of affairs and UBRUN is no different, there is nothing to be gained from its removal as this is an encyclopedia free to all and not solely a literary site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.170.173 (talk • contribs)

Do NOT delete the Ubrun page. It shows great historical detail and cultural value. It is not just a fad but a serious organisation. How big does an organisation such as this have to become before it is allowed on this encyclopedia?! Is there a cut off point or something? It is clearly not your standard student drinking contest through the historical analysis. It is a nationwide organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.28.42 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Federation History of Warp drive

Non Cannon Fan Work Delete Aeon 22:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, delete so very, very fast. To the best of my Star Trek knowledge it is primarily non-canon and, even if it were, I'd be sceptical on keeping it. Lord Bob 22:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as some of the cruftiest fancruft I ever did see. Brian G. Crawford 22:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per Brian as the supercruftiest. --Lockley 23:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too much non-canon material. All that is known is what appears on screen in Enterprise, TOS, etc. 23skidoo 03:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only the most inclusionist editor at Memory Alpha would want this. youngamerican (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, removing any possible original research. Asterion 23:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  05:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PowerSteering Software

No evidence in this article of the significance of the subject. There appear to be under 40 inbound links to their website, and the domain name of the b log is similar to the username of the creator, indicating possible vanispamcruftisement Just zis Guy you know? 22:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Unfortunately nobody has said which parent to merge it into, and there's not much to merge. I'll see if I can work in a mention of him and his dob and then replace with a redirect. kingboyk 21:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joey Luft

Non-notable. Random children of celebrities don't deserve their own pages, as if this precedent were consistently upheld there would be innumerable nonsubstantive stubs about un-important people who happen to descend from the famous. Ashwinr 22:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, luftcruft. Ok, sorry, had to do it. Anyway, relatives of celebrities are not notable. --Deville (Talk) 02:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to parents. Clear consensus that nn relatives of notable people go in the notable person's article. Stifle 11:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Stifle. --Rory096 00:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle 14:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. It's normal policy to allow a redirect for non-notable relatives. DJ Clayworth 14:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no need to merge, there's not any notable information here to use in the articles of highly notable relatives MLA 16:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. SoLando (Talk) 17:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge, as above. For great justice. 18:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Stifle.--Isotope23 19:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Stifle. YellowPigNowNow 23:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle 14:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Make Clocks

Non-notable band per WP:BAND, having only two albums (both of which are non-notable) and having no notable members. The article was twice deprodded by different editors (the prod tags were restored, rather than replaced by an AfD tag, due to my mistake). AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Very weak keep Having originally prodded the article, I undertook to read up on the band a bit after the tag was removed, and, though I think it's a close call, the band does seem fit the notability criteria of WP:BAND. Even as the band's website has yet to include any reviews from prominent publications and even as the band gets only 729 Ghits, the band's music is available on MSN Music and Rhapsody. It's a very close call for me, but, though the article needs a lot of work, it's a weak keep for me for now. (Btw, for those inclined to vote keep in view of the prospective notability of two blue-linked members, the articles to which "Boonie" and "Eric Kennedy" direct are not about the musicians, and so the "member of another notable music group" criterion wouldn't seem relevant). Joe 23:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why Make Clocks meets notability criteria. I posit, pursuant to WP:BAND, Why Make Clocks is notable as a musical ensemble for having met the following criteria: 1) Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources. See Ethos Magazine. 2) Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). See Billboard Magazine December 7th, 2002, See CMJ Jan/Feb, 2003.Brian Wiksell 05:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep. I might just be voting to keep as a result of my guilt for my impropper handling of this article and my rudeness to its creator; however, WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia, and I now believe, based upon the assertions by Brian Wiksell and Joe, that this group very marginally meets WP:BAND. I do, however, feel it somewhat inappropriate, though allowed under WP:AUTO, that this article was primarily created by a member of the band. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I did not consider WP:AUTO in my creation of this article. While I am not currently involved in the group, I was involved in the past, ergo a possible implication of bias. A potential remedy could be to remove any reference to myself in the article. AmiDaniel's rudeness or guilt as a result should not imply additional justification for inclusion of this article. It should be noted that said rudeness was not interpreted as such. Brian Wiksell 20:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Stifle 14:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy of Silence

Nonnotable fringe "documentary". Haikupoet 23:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 00:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - appears to have notable content, but the documentary itself does not seem to be notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Keep as rewritten. This article is one of several (two of the others being Lawrence King and Paul A. Bonacci) that figure in a complex and bizarre conspiracy theory involving alleged satanic ritual abuse among prominent Nebraskans in the early 1990s. It is very hard to tell fact from invention in any of these. A while ago I cleaned up the King and Bonacci articles, trying to pare them down to what is verifiable. I had Conspiracy of Silence on my list as well, since it is still full of unsourced speculation, obvious POV, etc., but have not had a chance to clean it up. Despite the terrible state of the article, I do believe that the subject is notable, in that the documentary was produced by a major TV production company (Yorkshire Television), and was scheduled to air on a major US cable channel (Discovery Channel), regarding an alleged conspiracy that received significant media attention at the time. I'll take a look at it and see if I can get it to at least minimally acceptable standards for now. MCB 04:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: OK, I rewrote it down to a plausible minimum. Take a look. MCB 05:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep This is very weak keep for me inasmuch as I find the arguments on either side to be equally compelling and believe, consistent with policy, that one ought always to err on the side of keeping an article. Though MCB's very fine efforts surely improved the article and though he makes a good case above for notability, I think that, while the underlying story may well be notable, a documentary about that story likely would not be. In this case, though, the documentary appears inextricably interwoven with the story, as one genesis for the significant media attention received described by MCB. I imagine the best disposition of all of this would be an article written about the underlying story, with which article could be merged this article and The Franklin Coverup (as well, perhaps, as Paul A. Bonacci. In the meanwhile, I suppose it's appropriate that we keep the article. Joe 05:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep This was a notable programme, especially since it was banned in the USA. Can anyone give any reasons why it should be deleted? (Other than opinions that the article is badly written)? Rapido 17:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a notable program, and the conspiracy theory is also notable. —This unsigned comment was added by Pugs Malone (talk • contribs) . 04:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep This is very important. The fact that a documentary can be cancled like this by special interest groups because it reveals some very serious abuses should outrage all Americans (supposedly, this involved some very big figures, like a local reporter, and I is possible that one of the investigators and his son was murdered in their private jet!). Again, keep, this is important, I mean IMPORTANT stuff.... IdeArchos 02:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buttered cat paradox

I oppose the deletion, but I want a reasonably definitive discussion on whether this is worthy of inclusion. Fourohfour 00:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep; somewhat silly, but nevertheless a well-known and mentioned joke paradox. Fourohfour 00:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a joke book. Non-notable joke with 61 Google hits. Brian G. Crawford 00:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I can assure you that I've heard this from more than one source, and reading this article was the third time (at least). If it were really that obscure, I doubt that would have happened. The fact that this particular title choice isn't that common (fair enough) doesn't mean the joke/situation hasn't been described under other names. Maybe the name of the article should be changed, maybe not. Fourohfour 00:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep It's impossible to judge the true "notability" of this sort of thing, it has to come down to the entirely subjective: I've heard of it, I like it, I wanna keep it. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 01:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm pretty sure this is decently well known. kotepho 01:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete appears interesting buyt not particularly notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable joke. Haikupoet 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kotepho. ClarkBHM 05:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, being mentioned in a number of popular science magazines, even though it's in the "joke" section, makes this "experiment" notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable joke. --Terence Ong 10:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, a widespread joke but still a joke and not a paradox. Also, it's a ripoff from uncyclopedia. Gazpacho 11:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment; re:Uncyclopedia ripoff; the article may (or may not) be (I haven't checked), but the concept has been around for years, so on that basis alone would simply warrant rewriting from scratch, not deletion. Fourohfour 13:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's widespread and notable.
  • Delete, this is just part of Murphy's law application for antigravitatory cats. While a funny joke, it isn't really notable unless we start incorporating other uncyclopedia terms that have somehow become "mainstream". Radagast83 06:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Funny, but Wikipedia is not a joke book. Peter Grey 07:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because its a humourous notion doesn't immediately make it somehow unworthy of a page in Wiki. It's a widely distributed 'theory' that has become so widely know that people often refer to it simply as the 'cat/toast' paradox with no other explanation - so a page in Wiki would seem richly deserved. And if we can find space for Cleveland Steamer and the Shocker, then why the hell not this? Rewrite it if you must, but delete it? Take the stick out. FreeMorpheme 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR nonsense. Wikipedia is not a jokebook. Stifle 11:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I heard of this years ago and I think it's not just a joke but a good commentary on thought experiments. --Joelmills 01:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Student Academy Award winning film featuring this "paradox" was released in 2003. The Uncyclopedia article for this was created in 2005. Unless RIT has a time machine, this didn't originate on uncyclopedia. This is a pretty notable idea and I've heard of it in many places. Shadowoftime 20:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


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