Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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)  06:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Majid Abdul-Wahhab

NN. Keep filling wikipedia with all the webmasters out there? Not such a good idea Oblivious 17:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Agree with nom. — RJH 17:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Nominator does not state that the article fulfills any of the deletion criteria. 'Not a good idea' isn't one of them. Cynical 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Okei lets state the criterias. 1. Non notable The article states he is a webmaster. Unfortunately just-a-webmaster is not notable enough for the subject to be an encyclopedic entry. 2. Self promulgated website - While the website has some very good articles in different areas, Maldives Royal Family it not a website of any officialy recoganized body. Its run and operated independantly by its webmaster. Hope this is enough. --Oblivious 19:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY. The article is about a non-notable webmaster in charge of a non-notable website with an Alexa ranking of 1,362,172 [1]--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 19:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn bio. Royboycrashfan 21:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Verifiable. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete so what that it's verifiable? I am overweight. It's verifiable. I don't deserve to have my own WP article, do I? - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn bio. --Sneftel 00:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete appears to be uttery non-notable, and article asserts no claims that would apply to WP:BIO. Kuru ^talk 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Can't believe I have been on this site this long without even realising that there is a whole sub-culture of trying to delete peoples articles. For great justice. 00:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable mess. Funnybunny 01:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Self promotion. --Phoenix Hacker 04:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Fishhead64 06:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:VANITY article about a WP:BIO-failing webmaster of a WP:WEB-failing website. Dick Vitale would say "Trifecta, bay-bee!" --Kinu ^t/_c 07:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 00:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lector Latinus

nn software with only three Google hits. Article created by the software's programmer. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sounds like cool software, but of those three Google hits, one is unrelated, one is the software's own homepage, and one is a Geocities page. Doesn't seem notable yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and if it was created by the author of the software, it's likely original research. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, fails WP:SOFTWARE --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Lector Latinus delendus est non est notabilis Bucketsofg 03:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Funnybunny 03:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:VANITY, WP:SOFTWARE per nom and Mr. TBC. Kuru ^talk 03:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all -M^ask 05:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 06:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, nn software, self promotion and per nom. --Terence Ong 10:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Terence Ong--Luccent 10:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (oops forgot to sign it the first time)
• Delete Non-notable Celcius 13:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delendus est indeed, as per Buckets
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Haon 00:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-31 01:52Z
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete smells like spam. --Jon Calla 03:59, 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 speedy delete as copyright violation. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Condor Earth Technologies Inc.

Advert for minor non-notable engineering company Calton | Talk 00:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, 990 ghits [2] — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisement and non-notable; fails WP:CORP --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, it does look like an advertisment you might see everyday on the tube. Funnybunny 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, minus the tube and inserting something less foreign-y -M^ask 05:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP, WP:VAIN, and WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 06:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete big ugly advert --Luccent 10:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, vanispamcruftisment, nn. --Terence Ong 10:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, advert Celcius 13:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Excavate this as above. ProhibitOnions 15:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I feel that this topic having 900 google hits is notable enough. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, 99% copyvio from their website, only difference being "our" changed to "their". [3] — Kimchi.sg | Talk 15:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As per "What's in, What's out-companies": It is a large company, well-established and is highly notable in it's field internationally. Wording is currently being re-worked to sound less like an ad.--63.204.90.126 17:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What exactly are you referring to? --Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As Kimchi.sg pointed out, it's a copyvio. Other then that, I would agree with Siva1979; It seems like this is large enough to get an article, assuming that it is less of an ad. -Haon 00:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Engineering and surveying firm with 75 (per infoUSA.com business directory) or 110 (per article) employees. Probably involved in site assessments for buildings, landfills, and so on as is usual with this type of firm. No assertion why this particular firm is notable compared to many many other firms engaged in similar business. Thatcher131 03:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fishhead64 06:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Does meet WP:CORP in that it meets notablility criterea of having been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."63.204.90.126 19:33, 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 00:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Udargo

Webcomic/blog? Found here. It's hardly ever updated and is not exactly a notable, important or notorious website is it. Alexa ranks it 2 million+. - Hahnchen 00:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable webcomic. Alexa ranking is in the millions. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Funnybunny 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all -M^ask 05:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Another non-notable webcomic. Royboycrashfan 06:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 10:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable web comic Celcius 13:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN as above. ProhibitOnions 16:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as not-notable per nom. Very little on google outside of the wiki refs - just a couple of blog entries. Kuru ^talk 00:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack of All Blades

I congratulate the comic on reaching the difficult 38th strip, you can see this here. And you can also have a look at their 34 member forum here. No Alexa rank and less than 60 links on Google. This is not notable, at all. - Hahnchen 00:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable webcomic, no Alexa ranking [4] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Bucketsofg 03:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not many of those ghits were even related to the comic. Kuru ^talk 03:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom's reasoning, though there's no need for the sarcasm. -- Dragonfiend
• Delete Maybe when the number of members surpasses the number of strips. -M^ask 05:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, another non-notable webcomic. Royboycrashfan 06:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable webcomic. JIP | Talk 09:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 10:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Goat-flingingly non-notable Celcius 13:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per various compelling arguments above. Is that tumbleweed I see rolling past? Just zis Guy you know? 14:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 16:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ban the Basics!

Your run of the mill webcomic, which can be found on the free host comic genesis, here. According to Alexa stats, this draws 1% of the traffic to the comicgenesis domain. Is this an extremely popular or notable webcomic? A look at Google gives back over 200 links which is not bad for a webcomic. But this website has been online since 2001, and looking at the links, it still doesn't seem to have generated a large following or garnered any critical attention. - Hahnchen 00:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, another non-notable webcomic --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, one of these strips is hanging on the wall at my school computer lab and it's not funny. Er, I mean, the article makes no assertion of notability. Ashibaka tock 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Bucketsofg 03:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete also, your drawing sucks (not really, I didn't click on the website) . -M^ask 05:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no sign this meets WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 05:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, another non-notable webcomic. Royboycrashfan 06:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 10:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Rather non-notable, does not warrant an article yet Celcius 13:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, like everyone else has said, little-known, unremarkable webcomic. TheDrinkNinja 14:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 16:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 merge. -- King of Hearts ^talk 23:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anime physics

I see no way that this list of personal opinions can ever become an encyclopedia article. Big Blue Marble 00:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, maybe add a note to anime about how the laws of physics in the anime world is different from real world (if there isn't any). — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. We have to have some kind of warning left in the article to make sure no one tries to create one again, too. MythSearcher 02:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to put it here, I have looked at the cartoon physics page and figured out that if the article could be somehow changed to describing what Anime Physics means (which will be really similar to what the cartoon physics page currently has.) MythSearcher 02:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If so, then I suggest a merge --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Cartoon physics. No need for this to have a separate article. dbtfz^talk 02:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Dbtfz Bucketsofg 03:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as it seems to be a better solution. MythSearcher 05:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT and WP:OR. Royboycrashfan 06:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Cartoon physics. JIP | Talk 09:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Cartoon physics. This actually made me doubt about if we shouldnt remove Cartoon physics too. The references used in Cartoon physics are not that trustworthy, honestly. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib} 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Cartoon physics. --Terence Ong 10:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Cartoon physics, which is a bloody damn great article. I highly recommend the principles of Anvilology. Eusebeus 10:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and rewrite, should not stand alone Celcius 13:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Cartoon physics and get rid of stuff that doesn't actually have to do with physics!!! BD2412 T 14:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Cartoon physics. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above, we already have a perfectly good article for this. ProhibitOnions 16:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• merge per above and keep cartoon physics around, It's a freakin cool article. Culturally significant. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 23:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• 'Merge per everyone else. -Haon 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with Cartoon Physics. I originally made it as a section of Cartoon Physics, and it was later split off by someone else who felt that it was getting too big. I trimmed it down a little more, now. SAMAS 31 March 2006.
• Merge to Cartoon physics and cleanup. --MaNeMeBasat 07:53, 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. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tough love

Dictionary definition, contested PROD. Brian G. Crawford 00:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP: this concept is central to the treatment of substance abuse and other disorders. There is potentially a lot of meat here -- the history of tough love, noted experts in favor, noted experts against, controversy, etc....just like other psychiatric / substance abuse treatment strategies (eg Twelve-step program, although this is not 100% analogous). Yes, this is a stub. But isn't the purpose of the stub tag to identify potentially good articles that are still in their infancy? This is clearly not simply a dictionary definition. Quepasahombre 02:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There is potential to expand this article. Books have been written on it and so forth. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki or weak keep if expanded --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Notability as to treatment and verification can be found, needs some tough love to make it work :) TKE 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This entry needs to be shown some of itself. Bucketsofg 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remove from the Wiki. I don't see this working on Wiktionary. Royboycrashfan 06:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The concept of "tough love" is a political one that has major implications in the field of social care (see this book, for instance). Agreed the article as it stands isn't enough, but mark for clean-up and expansion - and keep.Vizjim 13:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary, unless expanded and cleanup then keep. --Terence Ong 10:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. it starts with "Tough love is an expression used when" and it's a Vocabulary stub. Clear enough to me. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 10:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite/expand - definitely an article-worthy concept. What's there at the moment can also go to Wiktionary, but there's an encyclopaedic article in there somewhere. Proto||type 10:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - Tough Love is large concept of behavior, about which there is much to be said. Expand the article, because it's not enough as it is. Hanako 12:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Tranwiki An obvious candidate Celcius 13:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• KeepLoom91 13:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Quepasahombre. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if expanded. This is an important enough concept, I've had to deal with it in translation work (and it was a chore to translate!). Can be more than a dictdef. ProhibitOnions 16:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/expand, has potential far beyond dicdef.Bjones 17:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, concept could be fleshed out quite a bit more - people write books on the topic. Worth keeping as a stub until someone gets around to updating. Kuru ^talk 00:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep = as above. For great justice. 01:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki The seepage of items to Wikipedia that should be in Wiktionary is getting ridiculous! Fishhead64 06:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bucketsofg. There's nothing here that would be lost should someone create a relevant article in the future. Gene Nygaard 13:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

comment: this argument could be used to justify deleting all stubs. the counter argument is that having a stub in place helps to encourage further improvement. Quepasahombre 20:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Quepasahombre. Simon Dodd 03:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very well-known concept. Should never have been prodded and the nom makes very little case for deletion. -- JJay 20:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki, dictionary definition, not really encylopedic. Radagast83 19:34, 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. By my count, we have 24 delete (including transwiki to Wiktionary), 18 keep, 3 merge, and 4 redirect. Go work it out on the talk page. Stifle 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licking

mainly nonsense. As pointed out on it's talk page if anything, this is a definition of a verb for wiktionary. It was tagged for speedy but tag removed. My vote is for Delete obviously :) _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 01:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, would say transwiki but Wiktionary probably has this very common word already. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; no need to transwiki --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Bucketsofg 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remove from Wikipedia. Royboycrashfan 06:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gerund of the verb to lick? Can be mentioned on the Wiktionary article page of same - WP is not a dictionary.  (aeropagitica)  06:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). --Terence Ong 10:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (argh, I feel weird doing this) - no more a dictdef than clapping is. If what there is a dictdef, which it sort of is, it should be expanded and not deleted. Proto||type 11:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Move to "Lick" per naming conventions, rewrite/expand

  As Lick is a disambiguation page, if licking were to be kept, it's in the right place. Unless you really think Lick (tongue action) is a good title. Proto||type 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Proto. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & rename to Lick, which ought to be moved to Lick (disambiguation). Your not going to delete an article about one of the primary functions of such a significant anatomical component. JeffBurdges 16:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. History, culture, etc can all be covered under this. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:16
• keep = as above. For great justice. 01:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with eating - it's basically a form of ingestion. Fishhead64 06:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef with no other meaningful content, even after yesterday's major rewrite—sorry :-(( Slowmover 17:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as wider range of subjects are incorporated. Because of the many places in North America named "Lick" (as in "salt lick"), I think that "licking" deserves its own entry. -- PlsTalkAboutIt 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote from indefinitely-banned user Amorrow struck out. AnnH ♫ 20:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article needs improvement, but licking is an important mammal trait. WAS 4.250 16:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article was started by a banned sock puppet. It contains unsourced, non-verified information. If some one decides to write an article they should start from scratch using scientific sources. (Sorry, I didn't look far enough back in the history.) Delete and merge the factual text where appropriate. FloNight ^talk 02:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to tongue. --FloNight ^talk 18:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Mainly because of WP is not a dictionary - but also article is rather uninformative, unsourced, with little to no meaningful content.DonaNobisPacem 06:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopaedic and unsourced. AnnH ♫ 09:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I would also support redirecting to tongue as an alternative. AnnH ♫ 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced, unverifiable, unencyclopedic ➥the Epopt 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Deserves mention on Wikitionary. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Goes beyond a dictdef I think. --kingboyk 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Can be sourced and there seems to be quite a bit of information that could be added beyond just a def. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Tongue per discussion below. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as horrible, could be made encyclopaedic but we are better off without this cruft-o-rama. Just zis Guy you know? 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per FloNight and others above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per DonaNobisPacem and The Epopt. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• ZOMG Keep - How in the world do you delete an article on an ingestion method for many mammals?! Cyde Weys 19:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Updated vote to strong keep below.
• Transwiki to Wikitionary or weak delete. Esteffect 19:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I can't imagine why this article was tagged for deletion. It could certainly benefit from cleanup. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you check the version that existed when listed here you'll understand _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Tony (or redirect to tongue per Cyde below). The existing content is mostly silly and ought to be pruned down to a stub, but the subject itself is certainly encyclopedic. I'm too tired to work on the article now, but I'll try to clean it up tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If the article is "silly" in it's present form and is not changed then shouldn't this article be deleted and page left blank until someone is bothered writing a serious article? Just my $0.02... _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 22:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just went and wrote what is at least an attempt at a serious article. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Proto —Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 05:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and send it to Wikitonary, if they want it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

After five days and a few hours, we have:

• Delete or Weak Delete - 19
• Keep or Weak Keep - 13
• Merge (with eating) - 1

DonaNobisPacem 06:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

AFD IS NOT A VOTE. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How many times do you think you'll have to yell that before it becomes true? AfD is without question a vote. Try closing a "discussion" with 17 "delete, NN" votes and one decent argument for keeping as a keep, and see what happens.Grace Note 02:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: One of the cornerstones of the deletion policy is a prohibition against dictionary definitions. This article is a dictionary definition with subheadings. The matter is rather simple and should have been automatic, had there not been a banned user involved and passions surrounding his claims. Please, folks: look at the article, not the authors. Look at the article, not what could someday be done along the same lines. This is an overly long dictionary definition: we have Wiktionary at another site. It is, incidentally, a self-evident dictionary definition as well, but that's only a multiplier. Geogre 12:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dictionary defintion and put link to Wiktionary article on the "lick" disambig page. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - just plain silly - this word is not that complex that special definitions are required. The dictionary is good enough. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 17:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Some people seem to think that licking is obvious or a dictdef. Would you please like to tell me the muscles that are involved in licking then? There's lots of potential here for a great encyclopedia article. Hell, you could even write a good section about the evolution of licking. But no one seems to see that potential but I. Cyde Weys 17:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the relevant info, including "social application" ;), is already at the article Tongue - which is what is used for licking. Any info on complex muscle groups would more properly belong under that heading, as that is what the muscles are attached to, I would think? DonaNobisPacem 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I just re-checked the tongue article - it has info on the muscle groups/biology. DonaNobisPacem 18:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, any objections to redirecting licking to tongue? --Cyde Weys 18:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Redirect to Tongue, per Cyde. -Colin Kimbrell 18:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Cyde Weys and DonaNobisPacem, sounds like a good idea to me if most of the information is already there. Thanks for working it out.FloNight ^talk 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to tongue sounds like a great compromise. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect sounds like an ok compromise to me DonaNobisPacem 18:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to tongue. Radagast83 19:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

*Redirect to Tongue per above. Herostratus 20:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Changed vote after rewrite. Keep. Enh, why not. Important animal trait. Herostratus 21:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. What Geogre said. —Encephalon 21:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Update: I just rewrote the article almost entirely. It still needs a lot of work, but should at least be a step in the right direction. Hopefully those who voted to delete the earlier content will reconsider now that the article has been rewritten. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. After Ilmari's rewrite, the article is in much better shape, and I doubt Wikitionary would accept this article, as it is more than just a dictionary definition. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As Geogre, even after the rewrite. Sorry. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree; any info that is there still belongs (in my humble opinion) on the tongue page. On the Wikipedia merge page, we read that not every topic requires a page; for instance, flammable and inflammable belong on flammability. I would think that licking belongs on tongue under that argument? DonaNobisPacem 02:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC) I should clarify - that means, as I have said above, redirect to tongue. DonaNobisPacem 08:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, certainly enough information there to deserve its own article. Polotet 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If anyone cares, info can be added to tongue. patsw 05:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge. I linked to both off my user page (well before this AfD) and found it amusing that there were a entries for both lick and licking. I'm not picky as to which article title is kept and I'd be happy to help with merging and expanding the two.--Pro-Lick 07:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Just for clarity, I was voting for a merge of Lick and Licking. I'm not opposed to merging with Tongue if it does not create any size issues.
• Delete This is vandal bait as it sits. Dominick ^(TALK) 09:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you expand on that? I may be missing some context, but to me "vandal bait" suggests articles like Teabagging or Anus language. I'm sure this article would attract its share of vandals and silly trivia, but I don't see why it should be a particularly common target compared to the really heavily vandalized ones like George W. Bush or Hitler or even (for whatever strange reason) Archimedes. Nor do I see why we couldn't handle vandalism to this article just like we handle it in general. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Vandalbait" is just not a valid reason for deletion, it really isn't. We can protect an article, we can watch it, but we don't give in to vandals by deleting valid encyclopedic content! --kingboyk 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- but if the vote is to delete, should be redirect to Licking County, Ohio. --Nlu (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know what the article looked like initially but in its current state it seems encyclopedic to me, a lot more than just a mere dictdef. Keep (however I am not opposed to a merge with tongue, that would be my second choice if this is close, but previous versions talked about other meanings of the word that are derived from the main definition... those could be expanded better here than there) ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. KHM03 (γραφ) 16:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, as per above. Kukini 16:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - It's much better in its current form and I commend you tremendously, Ilmari Karonen. I knew this thing could be done encyclopedically. To the rest of the voters — please reconsider your votes. And to the closing admin, please consider that most of these previous votes were done on the old version, and in addition, "consensus" shouldn't overwhelm the mission of the project, which is what would happen if this thing were to be deleted. --Cyde Weys 17:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep – Licking is a notable topic, with sexual and sociological implications for various species. If made encyclopedic, there is no reason to delete; and if the article cannot grow much beyond a stub, by all means merge with Tongue. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopaedias are or should be in part dictionaries with more detail. If someone is willing to write a comprehensive article about "licking", I simply don't understand why anyone would want to stop them. Grace Note 02:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment, there is not a need to write a comprehensive article on every single kind of variation of a theme. e.g. there is no need to have a page on flammable, inflammable, and flammability. The Tongue is an integral part to licking. The use of the tongue in eating and drinking are already laid out in the Tongue article, having a page specifically for licking is redundant. If this survives the AfD, then all relevant information that is already included on the tongue page should be excised from Licking. Radagast83 04:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is something of a straw-man argument: whereas "flammable" and "inflammable" are descriptions of flammability, "licking" is a separate concept from tongue, just one of a number of actions it is used for. After all, we don't redirect running to foot, do we? Other uses of the tongue, such as eating, drinking and talking, do have their own main articles, even if they're also described briefly in the tongue article. Why not so for licking? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Ilmari has it exactly right... There is more to licking than fits into the tongue article. In particular I think exploration of why the term is used (along with "hiding") to describe corporal punishment might be quite interesting. No change in my previous opinion of keep... ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I think sprotecting AFD pages by default would be a great idea. Stifle 14:30, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WildOutWest Venture Consulting

Industrial-strength Vanispamcruftisement for a venture-capital firm. Created by David@wildoutwest.com (talk · contribs), who also created David Shantz, WildOutWest, as well as WildOutwest and David shantz. Calton | Talk 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Please also see WildOutwest by the same author.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and block spammer. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a billboard. --Elkman - ^(talk) 05:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 06:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanispamcruftisment. --Terence Ong 10:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable advert Celcius 13:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, David shantz keepz puttingz thisz crapz herez --Deville (Talk) 14:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 16:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete complete spam per nom. Kuru ^talk 00:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WildOutwest

Blatant vanity. lots of assertions, but seems nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment author has also created David shantz, David Shantz, WildOutWest and WildOutWest Venture Consulting. emabarrassing.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, vanity, and advertisement --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Kill this version, too. --Calton | Talk 04:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, since Wikipedia is still not a billboard. --Elkman - ^(talk) 05:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Destroy with extreme prejudice --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, the article is merely a vanity page for the co-founder. Royboycrashfan 06:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanispamcruftisment, nn. --Terence Ong 10:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-encyclopedic nn Celcius 13:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Whoever did this was spamming Wikipedia. ProhibitOnions 16:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, complete spam per above. Kuru ^talk 00:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pennichuck talk

Prdo removed. Nonsense language, WP:NOT for some (nonsense) thing made up in a school day.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "At one of its three middle schools ...". Daniel Case 02:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As someone attending the high school in which this "phenomenon" is "taking hold", I can say first-hand that this is by far not noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia. This "dialect" is practiced by an extreme minority of individuals in high schools and one middle school. - Mike 02:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If one knows "Mike" one will know that he infact does attend this high school, but that the claims he makes are an attack to discredit and destroy an article that has not even had a chance to firmly plant its feet on the ground. Within 10 minutes of being created it was on the table for deletion, and while many in the wikipedia community may see that as a victory I see it as a shame - a shame that new ideas cannot be expressed or shared with the rest of the world. All I implore is that this article is allowed to remain active for more than five days so that those who have made this dialect so famous can voice their opinions and show that this article is "Notable" - Smack-nhn 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't want to make you sad, but raising the pitch of your voice to imply sarcasm on a word not normally used in that context is absolutely nothing new to the English language; it's a method of speaking that most everyone discovers at some point in the development of speech. T K E 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• GEEEE THANKS I wish this had an audio file, Keegan, so we could demonstrate. I don't want to make you sad, but isn't reading articles prolifically on Wikipedia mean you have a very, boring life? After all - you stop vandalism like there's no tommorow. I salute you! Smack-nhn 04:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I will take that as a backhanded compliment. Look, it's nice to have something catch on and I don't doubt that your group has done that. But I had a History of the English Language professor who swore up and down that her family invented the word "crud" in 1955, and there is no way she would consider it inclusive as she admits there is no proof. That's from an person who knows language and dialect. Now, if I'm sitting down here in Tennessee and in six months to two years I hear this, then I will support. The point of the editors is that a few thousand teens (or adults) in New Hampshire are simply not notable. Myspace is a place to rally trends, not Wikipedia. By all means look over this place and the links pointed out, and become a serious editor. We take it seriously because there are several hundred new pages everyday that have to be filtered. I am here because I love history and English, but my job is not in the field so it's a nice way to relax for me. I don't consider you a vandal, I take your contributions assuming good faith. CC to the user's talk. T K E 05:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete Pennichuck Talk is not simply a local-Interest or a small scale dialect. It is a phenomenon that is starting to take hold throught the city of Nashua and the Region of Southern New Hampshire. Due to the increased networking of young adults in today's society - what may seem as insignificant or "un-notable" can very quickly become a national trend. By killing this article before it even starts, you are in effect killing the documentation of a dialect of the english language. Already, we here in Southern New Hampshire are seeing increased use of this "talk" among young adults from other schools through interaction in sports, clubs, and other extra-cirricular activity. The fact that it has spawned use by thousands of people after originally being born from a select few shows that this dialect Demands Notation - in a few short years it has firestormed and simply deleting it because it hasn't reached you yet is killing a part of our culture. A part of our culture that could reach you in a few years. If this site is all about spreading information and breaking borders, why is there censorship on what is percieved to be "Not-Notable" material.smack-nhn 30 March 2006
• see discussion page for reasons to keep this page alive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smack-nhn (talk • contribs) (I moved these two comments of Smack's; they were above the deletion nomination Joe 05:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC).)

• Please don't vote twice --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, obvious nonsense and neologism made up by a couple of high school students on a school day--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• This was not made up in a day - it has been evolving over the past 4 yearsSmack-nhn 03:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Question: Is there any verifiable evidence that Pennichuck talk has spread outside of the schools of Nashua, New Hampshire? If so, has it been written up in a publication that we can independently verify? --Elkman - ^(talk) 05:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Answer: Nope. This hasn't even spread that far in the Nashua School System. --Mike 05:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Follow Up Answer: Maybe...We don't know for sure one way or the other. And Mike - I love you - Do you wanna go to prom with me? I need a date ;)Smack-nhn 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Mike. Joe 05:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and whatnot. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Duh-LEEEEET. private neologisms. --moof 06:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not for things made up in school one day.  (aeropagitica)  06:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT, WP:NFT, WP:NEO, and WP:WINAD. Royboycrashfan 06:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this utter nonsense.Vizjim 08:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, yet another non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 09:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, WP:NFT. --Terence Ong 10:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Local nonsense Celcius 13:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. So much so, perhaps this should be captured and put on WP:NFT as the canonical example of something made up in school one day. ;) And what does "crecendoing" mean anyway? --Deville (Talk) 14:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Smack-nhn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't believe that an experienced hand like you, Siva, could be conned in this way.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 22:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Siva1979 - You're my heeerrrooo. Smack-nhn 04:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above, but I like Derville's idea that this should be kept in some form as the epitome of this kind of stuff. ProhibitOnions 16:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per neologism, WP:NFT as stated above by Terence Ong.--Isotope23 16:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete It's not original in any form, unlike piglatin. It's a manner of speaking that is commomplace and wasn't "invented" anywhere by anyone on particular. T K E 17:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, please. Utterly unverfiable and just a simple neologism, per Mr. Ong. Kuru ^talk 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Concession Knowing you guys are gonna tank this - I would be honored if this is used as an example of what not to do. I was upset at first, I can not lie, but I realize that it's hilarious how seriously this is being taken. Feel free to delete at will, but immortalizing it as the epitome of what not to do would be the highest honor I could ever hope for. On a side note: Thanks to Siva1979 for not being a jerk, supporting free speech, and obviously liking the Smashing Pumpkins. Rock on and keep on rantin' Smack-nhn 03:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC) P.S - I WILL NEVER PUBLISH ANOTHER ARTICLE IF THIS BECOMES A PERMANENT EXAMPLE OF WHAT NOT TO DO. YAAAAAAAA!!!! Smack-nhn 03:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Believe you me, there are examples of what not to do. Don't take it personally. T K E 05:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• do not delete honestly, at first I would have agreed with you. but after reading the article, i was so enlightened! People who live in Nashua actually really need this to be here. contrary to popular belief, this is more than a few kids making up stuff. this is one of those things that will spread like wildfire as did the use of awkward. I say ohp and I didnt even realize it was pennichuck talk. Now I can recognize it when I hear it. Mark my words, when this hits LA, you heard it on wikipedia first. user:lizzie 31 March (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.67.152 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 March 2006
  • Comment actually posted by an anon impersonating a user.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment And, notwithstanding that, "you heard it on Wikipedia first" pretty much well recapitulates the reasons for which deletion is urged. Joe 05:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment but hey, they're from New Jersey! Soon, the whole midwest... _{sarcasm as per my userpage}. T K E 05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete encyclopedic juvenilia. Nice try tho'. Fishhead64 06:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO, WP:V, WP:NFT. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 speedily deleted as having no assertion of importance by Brian0918. Proto||type 11:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puman

Nonnotable, google result turns out to be 299 when Puman and WOW are searched together. This seems to be a page created by someone who had an argument or likes with Puman before. The author deleted the speedy tag twice. Olorin28 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as an unverifiable non-notable borderline attack page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Not notable yet -- "it's only a matter of time before he becomes infamous globally.". ~MDD4696 02:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Evidently his primary claim to fame is being a... "forum troll". 68.39.174.238 02:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:59, 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 02:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PC Option

Linkspam for non-notable business jmd 02:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; also, google says no websites link to it Where ^(talk) 02:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP and WP:SPAM --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant adcopy. Has a bit of "late night commercial" to it. Kuru ^talk 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. Royboycrashfan 06:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn company, spam. --Terence Ong 10:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advert, billboarding Celcius 13:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 16:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 Speedily deleted by User:CambridgeBayWeather. Stifle 00:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gprime

Devovled into fancruft editing TKE 02:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Now nominated for speedy delete by AmiDaniel. I support. T K E 07:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gprime isn't notable enough to be on here.Yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega Penguin (talk • contribs)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Has an Alexa ranking of 8,439 [5] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete google says that on websites link to it. 71.248.210.54 02:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn forum. "has maybe one hundred active users." Any article on a forum that starts listing and describing its colorful posters needs to be poisoned, stabbed, strangled, drowned and dismembered. Then collect the pieces and burn them. Fan1967 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. TKE 04:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Fan. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRUFT and WP:WEB. Royboycrashfan 06:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Woops, I didn't realize that was an AfD notice... I thought it had just been proded, so I tagged it with db-bio. Nonetheless, delete as fancruft. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, forumcruft. Listing individual forum members (especially pseudonymous ones) should be a criterion for speedy deletion. JIP | Talk 09:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable website forum, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  12:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable Celcius 13:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete exactly as per Fan1967. Wait, it contains a chatroom and a forum?!? Well, let me reconsider. --Deville (Talk) 14:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The site can be fun, but the forums are half useless anymore and not much worth mentioning Darksoulz 21:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What Mr. Fan said, but I'd settle for a simple deletion. Kuru ^talk 00:49, 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 02:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brett Plant

Delete as non-notable. I can't much verifiable information. I have only been able to find two pages: a list of him as a run-of-the-mill real estate agent, and a page which requires payment to view the archives. A prod tag was removed by an anonymous IP. Also see Plant Organization. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY. Only 55 unique Google results [6] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. I will reconsider if someone explains how this individual is notable, but it looks doubtful. 71.248.210.54 02:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. dbtfz^talk 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC. Royboycrashfan 06:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC. --Terence Ong 10:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC - he's got it ;) Celcius 13:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pr TBC --Deville (Talk) 15:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC et al. ProhibitOnions 16:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Someone at that level, with that much philanthropy, would leave at least a tiny blip on the radar. The list of companies on the bio do not seem to exist either. Will change if someone can dig up anything at all on him. Kuru ^talk 00:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-31 01:51Z
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 02:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plant Organization

Delete, as I can't verifiable information about whether this place even exists. This looks like it could possibly be notable, but I can't find enough verifiable information to agree to that. Also see Brett Plant. Prod tag was removed by an anonymous IP performing blanking vandalism of the entire page, but I brought it to AfD just in case. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advertisement and non-notable; fails WP:CORP. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The search "Plant organization" +"Brett Plant" only yields WP pages on google. Where ^(talk) 02:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. dbtfz^talk 03:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn WP:CORPORATION. Royboycrashfan 06:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn corp. --Terence Ong 10:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not verifiable, non-notable Celcius 13:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax per above. Finding it hard to beleive such a major organization fails to show up anywhere. Kuru ^talk 00:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 that there is obviously no consensus for deleting this. Ashibaka tock 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slashdot subculture

No sources. Yes, it links to Slashdot posts; however, extrapolating anything from those posts is original research. I don't see anything on this page that is not original research. Yes, there are specific posts that support claims, but there is no evidence that those posts are part of a trend. Ashibaka tock 02:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep You know, it doesn't meet my requirements, but it's clarified, wikified, and amusing. And I have never read slashdot. So, I'll go for Wikipedia is not paper. TKE 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I like it too, but unfortunately WP:V is "non-negotiable". Ashibaka tock 02:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh I figure it will be deleted, but I had to weight in :) TKE 04:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting, but appears to be original research. dbtfz^talk 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to weak keep, per Sjorford's comments below. The article contains useful, verifiable information, and is not necessarily the kind of thing WP:NOR is intended to exclude. I would change to "strong keep" if some reputable sources other than slashdot itself were cited. dbtfz^talk 16:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable by any adult without specialist knowledge. 1. Read /., 2. ???, 3. Profit!

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.(from WP:NOR) + slashdot is a reliable primary source about itself. kotepho 03:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• You can verify that individual posts have been made which follow the memes outlined on the page, but you can't verify that this is a staple of Slashdot, or part of a "culture". Nobody can verify that without a difficult study which would make this original research. Ashibaka tock 03:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• `"3. profit" OR "3) profit" OR "4. Profit" OR "4) profit" site:slashdot.org` 16,500 hits. kotepho 03:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• `"in soviet russia" site:slashdot.org` 29,600 hits. You could click on results at random and notice that they are posted by a plethora of different users. While it doesn't prove that there is a cultural phenomena causing it is does give evidence (at least IMHO). kotepho 03:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I've changed my mind. Whle I still think that this is verifiable I do not think it is in the spirit that we need it to be. I'm sure that most of it is accurate and anyone would not disagree with me that has watched /. for a while, but what if slashdot is not around in 10 years. How would we verifiy it then(for the purpose of this thought experiment forget about archive.org/google cache/whatever)? What about 100 years from now? It would be nice if our modern cultures were described somewhere, but I do not think something trying to be an encyclopedia(in the sense of a source of reliable information) is the proper place. kotepho 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I would have suggested moving this to the main Slashdot article, but it turns out that the subculture article is longer than the main Slashdot article. And, it's pretty amusing too. --Elkman - ^(talk) 05:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Lacking sources does not mean an article should be deleted, if that were the case, half of Wikipedia would disappear. The subject seems legit and harmless. Tag as needing sources. -- Samuel Wantman 06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, as per Ashibaka. --moof 06:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom, no sources = pure speculation = not encyclopedic and has no place here. --Hetar 08:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep —- the fact that nobody has written a book about Slashdot yet might make this article unverified, but not unverifiable. I really dislike misuse of the term "no original research" — that policy isn't intended to prevent research from primary sources, because that's what you're supposed to do when writing articles, it's intended to prevent original opinions. — sjorford (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• I'm in a bad mood today, so weak delete. Seems to be right on the cusp. Certainly you can write an article on subcultures, and most of these statements can be verified, but they aren't here and the article as a whole seems to be a fairly pointless summary of a nn subgroup.Vizjim 08:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Are you kidding me? This is a huge part of the Slashdot culture and INVALUABLE to people looking up Slashdot and trying to understand it. This is like deleting an article on Apple Pie when relating to the "culture" of the US. This is a page about a culture, not some spam article about a message board or a claim about how magnets cure joint pain. Even claiming this is non-verifiable is ludacris and a disgusting perversion of the intent of the rules. --Mboverload 10:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  Please try and keep things civil; there's way more chance of people paying attention to what you're saying. Proto||type 11:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable and as Slashdotcruft. -- Kjkolb 10:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, unverifiable and cruft. --Terence Ong 11:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that this is overwritten /.-cruft (Inexplicably, given the amount of detail, no mention is made of Danger Will Robinson! one of the most popular /. memes). But reading through part of it, it is accurate enough. It just needs some major excision work. Eusebeus 11:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, IF, it's a decent article, albeit crufty, and keeps the size of the parent article down. I'm all for deleting unverifiable articles, but this is unverified, not unverifiable. Perhaps those feeling strongly about keeping the article might like to add reliable references to the article. If decent references can't be added to the article by the end of this AFD, please consider this a delete. Proto||type 11:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Slashdot (keep in any event), prune and rewrite to remove POV. Celcius 13:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep clean it up if you want. JeffBurdges 16:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep poorly written and full of crufty goodness, but still ample grounds for a decent article. Keep and put on cleanup.--Isotope23 17:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Totally over the top. Merchbow 19:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete: While 1. Read /., 2. ???, 3. Profit! is absolutely priceless, the article's flaw is that most of the content is pop culture references that happend to occur on slashdot, not an actual subculture that is specific to slashdot. And every chat/message site has its own jargon, including Wikipedia. Peter Grey 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not every article on Wikipedia has to be about wars and politicians. This article is verifiable, notable, not original research, and it adds some happy variety to the encyclopaedia. Hook me the hell up. Lord Bob 21:09, 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 keep. -- King of Hearts ^talk 23:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denvilles railway station

This station does not exist and never has existed. User:Unisouth has clearly seen some ruins but seems totally unconcerned by the lack of documentary evidence. Tubechallenger agrees with me - see this talk page. -- RHaworth 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (Revised below.)

• Delete no evidence of the existance of this railway station on the internet (that is, except for on Wikipedia)Keep per below [7] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

*Delete This may exist inside the imagination of the person who created it, I guess. I've changed my vote to Keep due to a reliable source by Vizjim. Thanks for alerting me! :) Funnybunny 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources provided despite clear urges to do so. Verifiability concerns are always serious. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for providing a source Vizjim. Now there is something to work with. Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above and WP:V. Royboycrashfan 06:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the below. Royboycrashfan 20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Not only did it exist, it was notable as part of a dispute between two railway companies as to who would get to run the London-Havant line. I have added data and evidence on the page. The fact that it was only in use for two years in the mid-19th century might explain the lack of online evidence.Vizjim 08:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If the station did exist, then it would be listed in Quail Trackmaps, and also the UK Rail Atlas by OPC. Tubechallenger 10:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (adding more information), Farlington station did indeed exist for a few years until it was abandoned, with the right side of the triangle being named Farlington Junction as reference. Denvilles does exist, and is around a mile from Havant, the "apparent" proposed station according to Quail does not exist for any point between 37.40 miles (to Portsmouth direct) (mileage change to 66.18) Shalford Junction at 31.42 miles (nr. Farncombe) Tubechallenger 15:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --WikiCats 10:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Comment. currently the article has no factual information, dates... Not much really. It ought to be deleted until someone with tangible and verifiable information can reopen the article, maybe even with historic photographs. Even if it is likely that the station existed the current article does not reflect that and it is on those grounds that it should be deleted. Captain scarlet 10:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax and unverifiable. --Terence Ong 11:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. The photo is almost certainly a copyvio (looks like google map satellite imagery to me). Eusebeus 11:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, after reviewing the reference Vizjim provided. It does indicate - in passing - that a temporary platform (not a station) existed at Denvilles for two years, I don't think a temporary platform that existed for two years is encyclopaedic, when the references consist of one brief mention. It was not the centre of the dispute mentioned by Vizjim, nor was it particularly relevant to the dispute. The image is indeed probably a copyvio. Proto||type 11:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Proto||type Celcius 13:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete keep; if other stations on this line have articles, this one should be able to as well, even if it was only briefly used. However, the current article asserts essentially nothing and is a copyvio to boot. If it's vastly improved, I'll vote to keep. ProhibitOnions 16:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment proof found!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the station recollections (click) the bottom has this quote The L.S.W.R. did, however, start a service from London but passengers had to alight at a temporary platform which was erected in Denvilles. is that proof or what. it is because of this i have removed the articles for deletion tag. i will expand the article to include this nformation. the southerner 18:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:KIT. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:14
• Keep. If we cover the line we should keep the closed stations even if they are in ruins. -- JJay 01:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with London and South Western Railway, as it's not clear if it was actually called "Denvilles station" - it was a temporary platform. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• (Changed view of nominator) Merge into Portsmouth Direct Line and redirect - the story is notable but it does not really qualify for a ... railway station article. A very pleasing outcome, we can both say we were right! Unisouth has probably, correctly identified a place where people got on and off trains. But RHaworth can say: yes, but even the LSWR never gave it the exalted title of "station", if they called it anything it would have been "Denvilles halt" or just "Denvilles platform". So come on Unisouth, take a trip to Winchester and visit your county's local studies library, see if you can unearth some contemporary documents like the Bradshaw for 1859 with a note saying "passengers are conveyed by omnibus ...". -- RHaworth 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment what if i try to change the name of the article of the station to Denvilles halt. people have to know about this peace of history so we have to keep it. the southerner 08:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC) ps: if anyne knows how to change an articles name tell me on my user page thanks.
• Comment I've fould out how to move the page so its now at denvilles haltthe southerner 09:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentThe Denvilles station has some interesting history to it - there were other battles besides the battle of Havant - so KEEP it. Tabletop 09:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment some articles have only two lines! this article is very important as it is a article. its written in detail and we know that it is a keeper so lets keep it. the southerner 09:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC) its at denvilles halt now in case you have forgotten. those other twoliners should be merged or deleted not this one.
• Keep - the frog war article describes a US version of the Battle of Havant. Tabletop 04:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I visited the site today and there is clearly evidence the station was there the southerner 15:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Have you taken any photographs, notes, sketches ? Why don't you sign with your username ? Captain scarlet 16:15, 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  (aeropagitica)  06:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Hwang Chen

Autobiography. Self-promotional. Doesn't seem to demonstrate clear notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Independent Taiwanese filmmaker. Not Micheal Jackson thought, but not average Joe.

Keep. Hmm, we do know that he makes music videos and commercials in Asia, but he is most famous for the designs of his T-shirts, well in Taiwan / HK and China at least. Hmm is it so bad that brucehchen edited his own page, if it is really him finding himself on Wiki? His name is gotta be searched in an Asian search engine though -> [8]

Keep. He seems to have received a few legitimate honors for his filmmaking. Carlo 03:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:VANITY (as it was created by User:Brucehchen) and WP:BIO (as the article states that "Bruce Hwang Chen's contribution to the Film and Fashion industry is still yet to be seen"). Only 19 unique Google results. [9] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC. Royboycrashfan 06:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC. --Terence Ong 11:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Goat-flingingly nn and vanity Celcius 13:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per TBC, let's wait until some contribution is seen. Also, Celcius, you're flinging a lot of goats today, no? --Deville (Talk) 15:17, 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. Stifle 14:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Carl

Unencyclopedic slang definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This was nominated for deletion once before on August 1, 2005 with no consensus. I merged the material in this article with Sexual slang, and redirected, but I was reverted. Brian G. Crawford 03:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge per nom; Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• There is nothing wrong with having hot carl on this site. It is an act that has and will occur, so how is that different from having the term "war" on this site? This is an encyclopedia in which people can look up information on just about anything, and this is definitely one of those topics. Not to mention, it doesn't break any of the site's deletion policies. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.106.140.254 (talk • contribs) .
• Redirect since it is already merged. kotepho 03:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. Hot Karl (note the K) was redirected to Anal-oral contact. Maybe this should be too, but since it is unencylopedic in style, and nn and non-WP:V it should probably be deleted from Sexual slang as well. Esquizombi 05:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• redirect please to Anal-oral contact term has 75,000 google hits related Yuckfoo 05:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, there is no evidence that an actual sexual practice is referred to by this name in the real world by the people who perform it (this is not to say that some people do not engage in activities similar to what is described). It's kind of a well known sexual myth-joke. -- Kjkolb 10:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC) * Saying that "It's kind of a well known sexual myth-joke." sounds like a pretty good reason to keep an article on the subject, mythical or not. Silensor 04:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC --Mmx1 15:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge per nom. Fishhead64 06:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge/redirect; whilst there may be a case that this material *does* belong, the article seems to be describing essentially the same thing as Cleveland steamer into which it might be merged. And for consistency, whatever's decided for this article should apply to Hot Karl as well. Fourohfour 12:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cleveland steamer, if it survives AfD. Redirect to the sex slang article if the before mentioned target is deleted or redirected. youngamerican (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• CONDEMNETH TO WIKIIIIIII-HELLLLLLLL!!!!!. BD2412 T 21:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is that a "keep" or "delete" then? ;-) Fourohfour 12:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect to sexual slang. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Carl and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Karl, enough time has been wasted on this crap. cough. Silensor 03:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect It just doesn't matter enough.Thatfunkymunki 05:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is just another variation on Cleveland steamer anyway, as noted above. Radagast83 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cleveland_steamer_(second_nomination). Anyone who voted delete here should go there too. GT 22:17, 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 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kalendar Koffee House Company

Non-notable coffeehouse with aspirations to being a local chain. Also advertising and apparent vanity article, as all of the previous edits are by one of the proprietors. Delete. DMG413 03:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:VANITY, WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is an advert for a corporation to get customers. Funnybunny 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC. Royboycrashfan 06:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, nn cafe and most probaly vanity. --Terence Ong 11:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete adv, nn Celcius 13:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC. Ardenn 04:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VANITY, WP:CORP,WP:SPAM , NN Bridesmill 14:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • please note this page is duped at Kalendar_Koffee_House - I'm fairly new & think I messed up the process to list that page for deletion also, but if this one goes, so should that one...and the fact that we have two very similarly named pages with identical content argues towards confirmed WP:SPAM Bridesmill 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:CORP. -- P199 17:53, 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 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disco nap

Neologism – ClockworkSoul 03:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A real concept, I suppose, but I can't imagine this being expanded to a real article. dbtfz^talk 03:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks more like dictionary content to me. Funnybunny 03:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's silly. Gohst 04:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dbtfz. Royboycrashfan 06:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 11:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neo, nn - we honestly can't have articles for every conceivable nap-category Celcius 13:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. The other articles listed probably deserve deletion as well. ProhibitOnions 16:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Do NOT Delete. This term is an accurate description of what many people I know do, yet had to be explained with a sentence. It is used in articles (e.g., http://www.slate.com/id/2137624/?nav=fo) in context.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omgsplosion

Neologism, dicdef. Speedy tag removed twice and prod tag once without explanation. Delete. DMG413 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- King of Hearts ^talk 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedily delete per nom. --Chris 03:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete if possible, regular delete if not, per nom. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. EricR 04:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Capitalistroadster 05:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, crufty neologism. Royboycrashfan 06:31, 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 Deleted per CSD A6. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Brown (teaneck)

Extremely non-notable high school student. CSD tag repeatedly removed, so here we are. Speedy delete. bikeable (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedily delete per nom. --Chris 03:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto the speedy -- stillnotelf is invisible 03:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:28, 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 No consensus/keep. Stifle 14:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masturband

Contested PROD. Mentioned in a magazine article, but still non-notable. Current entry is simply a dicdef. Brian G. Crawford 03:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A single mention of a neologism in a magazine piece. -Will Beback 03:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• As noted, mentioned in a magazine article as sourced in the article [10]. It isn't a neologism as much as an actual thing that is part of a greater movement. Do not delete, but rather keep and expand. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not stopping you from expanding it, if that's what you think should be done with it. I just don't see how notable the idea is of wearing a rubberband around one's wrist to indicate that one is "master of one's domain." I think if it's not expanded after seven days of deletion debate, it's likely never to be expanded and should be deleted. Brian G. Crawford 03:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

By nominating this for AfD, you're pretty much saying you don't believe that it can or should be expanded. I disagree. I personally don't know enough about the movement to make any decent inroads, but a need for expansion isn't a reason for deletion. I know you don't think it's notable, but media mentions tend to disagree with you. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've spent time searching, but there is no more information avaialble with which to expand it. We've said all there is to say, until such time as someoene else writres an article about the topic. Is a single, short, magazine article sufficient to make this a notable neologism, even if no one else has ever used it? -Will Beback 23:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Is size a deletion reason? If it is, then maybe I'll reconsider, but I'd find it hard to believe that nothing else will come of this, given its current notability. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Size is not an issue in AfD, just notability. What notability are you referring to? Aall I could find was one article a over a year ago, with a few bogs reacting in titillation. I can't imagine that the original proponents are still advocating for it, but if they have no one has reported on it. No manufacturer is known to be producing them. No church group is handing them out. It was a fad limited to three guys who managed to interest an editor enough to get mentioned in a short "man-bites-dog" piece in the Rolling Stone. -Will Beback 06:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that things discussed in RS are no longer notable? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If something has only been mentioned once, a while ago, in an small piece in the RS, then no, that is not sufficient to make it notable. If there were other mentions in the RS, or in other publications, then it might be notable. -Will Beback 04:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, you voted to "keep and expand". Can you expand it? I'm interested in what else you can add. -Will Beback 04:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I don't know enough about the movement to make any decent inroads. Regardless, the answer to a somewhat short yet notable article is to keep it and expand it in any way possible, and not delete it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If you've read the RS article you know as much as anyone, because that's all there is to know that has been published. -Will Beback 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. While not all that notable, it is real and verifiable, and Wikipedia is not paper. I won't be wearing one any time soon, though. dbtfz^talk 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and expand, per above. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dbtfx. It is a dicdef, but one that you are not likely to find in any dictionary. --Samuel Wantman 06:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and expand, as per per above!--IceflamePhoenix 07:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, it exists alright, but can't find much except the mentioned source article, blog entries talking about that article and copies of the wiki text. Might be better just mentioned in the 'Modern abstinence movements' part of Sexual_abstinence Gu 10:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wtf? Eusebeus 11:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and expand per Dbtfz. --Terence Ong 11:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete er at best merge into some "Wristbands" article. This is just not notable enough for an article in itself and seems to be a very local phenomenon in the US. Celcius 13:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep As long as this is verifiable. So it is something local? Interesting idea. Expand if possible. Editdroid 16:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)+
  • It's impossible to expand. Beyond the one short article (and a couple of blog comments abuot the article) there is no further information. If we could do a follow-up with the original proponents that might be interesting, but it'd be original research. -Will Beback 23:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Normally one article in a magazine is not enough in AfD, based on previous discussions. But I guess I'll give this one a shot. Grandmasterka 20:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep = as above. For great justice. 01:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable human symbolic artefact. Fishhead64 06:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Non-notable. Slowmover 17:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified with reliable sources cited. Stifle 00:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As verifiable, reliable sources are cited, does that mean your delete will change? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting concept and relevant to recent wristband craze. Chadley99 06:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dic def with no potential for expansion. Also not notable -- such wristbands exist for almost every viewpoint and lifestyle imaginable. Worthy of a mention in Wristband, but not for its own article. GT 22:24, 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 12:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield Ninjas

It's gamecruft and/or spam. Vanispamcruftisement? Delete. -- stillnotelf is invisible 03:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, There are other pages like it, so, don't be bias. Thanks. Look at the Battlefield 2 Entry, if you delete this, you will be deleting all the others or I will be quite angry. Save. --MrWiddim 03:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What other pages of this sort? -- stillnotelf is invisible 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Bring them forth, and they will be considered on their own merits, or lack thereof. -- Saberwyn 11:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable game mod. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRUFT, WP:SPAM, and WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 06:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Game mod written in unencyclopædic tone, WP:SOFTWARE refers.  (aeropagitica)  06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, etc. --moof 06:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, non-notable game mod, gamecruft, uses first-person pronouns. JIP | Talk 10:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Battlefieldcruft, nn, spam. --Terence Ong 11:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, ninjas Celcius 13:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Opinions Say you found McDonalds not interesting... would you delete that? Call it advertising? No, because people love to eat artery clogging food for 1 dollar. yay. All of a sudden you get to choose who makes a wiki on a mod... quite interesting... do you have to pay to get on here? I really don't understand... --MrWiddim 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Finding McDonalds interesting isn't really the point; you could still establish the notability of such an organization easily, even using the fairly harsh guidlines in WP:CORP. Not really a good example for comparison. You've been given quite a bit of feeback above; perhaps modifying your article or asking some more specific follow-up questions would help? Kuru ^talk 01:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mcdonalds is a multinational corporation with resteraunts in almost every nation on the planet, with a yearly profit in the billions and close to half a million employees in the United States alone. By comparison, this is a modification of a single game, which has been in progress for over a year now, and has ten volunteers working on it. I'm sure it's going to be an excellent mod, but until the mod meets one or more of the criteria listed at the Wikipedia:Notability (software) guideline, and infromation can be provided from a reliable third-party source, it doesn't belong here. -- Saberwyn 01:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Apprently, size matters for you. non-notable is an opinion and seems unfit for such a facutal site. Just because a person does not like the notion of a ninja, does not make something, non-notable. Spam it is not, please other smaller modifications have been listed here without doubt. (US Intervention a small modification not talked about in the BF2 community. I sense some favoritism...) I see not the fairness. --MrWiddim 01:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• As it stands, and at this point in time, the mod does not appear to meet the requirements of the Wikipedia:Notability (software) guideline, and as it is still in production, also appears to violate the 'crystal ball' section of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not official policy. If evidence showing how the mod meets the abovementioned guideline and policy, the article will be considered in a more favourable light. If there are other mods that you do not believe meet these criteria, bring them forth and let the community decide on each article's merits, or lack thereof. -- Saberwyn 01:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Look at the Battlefield 2 page. I have no time to argue with the closed minded - http://www.infinityrealms.net - our Developer http://www.cataclysmicstudios.com - Our Producer. Please, look at the other mods and find them the same as ours, we actually might have a more wiki-esque description...

I just did. All I see are two websites claiming direct ties to the development of this project. They are not the people to turn to for information on the notability of this project. If you could provide references to newspaper or gaming magazine articles claiming grand things for this project, then there would be no problems on keeping it.

And as for the "That piece of shit is on Wikipedia, My article is vastly superior to that piece of shit, therefore, my article should be kept"... it doesn't work that way. Until it is proven that this mod meets the criteria of the various policies and guidelines noted above by various users, it stands a very good chance of deletion. But I will say it again, if there are other articles that you believe do not meet the abovementioned criteria, bring them forth, and we will consider those articles on their own merits (or lack thereof), just as we are considering this article on its own merits. -- Saberwyn 01:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Battlefield 2 mods contains similar articles, if someone wants to vet them (pun intended) -- stillnotelf is invisible 03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And in retrospect, Saberwyn already knows that, because he added the category to the Battlefield Ninjas article...oops! -- stillnotelf is invisible 14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, the gaint banner is clearly an ad, the link to the main site is the first thing on page, this is spam.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What banner? What link? --MrWiddim 23:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The ones you removed here -- stillnotelf is invisible 23:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks better? I'm just trying to please you, I am not advertising, just teaching. (I could care if you look at the history ;p) --MrWiddim 01:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. My apologies if I sounded snarky. -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol, sorry If I got mad, I was just trying to be like the other mods... --MrWiddim 03:34, 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  (aeropagitica)  06:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nipple bite

Contested PROD. Self-explanatory concept and nothing but a dicdef. Brian G. Crawford 03:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP: this could easily grow beyond a mere definition. Could go into things like history, why it is erotic, appearances in pornography, feminist analyses, etc....there are numerous sex act articles on the pedia and though this alone is not valid reason for inclusion, in the context of these other articles this seems like a useful addition to help make coverage of sex acts more complete. Defintely deserves a stub tag, though. Quepasahombre 04:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. This would be better suited to Wiktionary, if at all. pm_shef 06:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT and the unencyclopedic tone. Royboycrashfan 06:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but needs to be expanded and maybe renamed to "nipple biting" (I don't see it as a 'term' for a dictionary but as a 'practice'). Seems also to be relevant in terms of breastfeeding with over 73000 Google hits for nipple+bite+breastfeeding. Gu 09:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Brian G. Crawford. -- Kjkolb 10:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 11:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary/ dicdef. --Terence Ong 11:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef. What are we saying here? A "nipple bite" is when a nipple gets bit? Huh? --Deville (Talk) 13:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable sexual act Celcius 13:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: notable sexual practice. I agree with users above who point out that there is more to be said about this practice. Thus, though the article is not sufficiently complete right now, some good wiki-editing and expansion could definitely lead to this becoming a worthwhile article. Interestingstuffadder 14:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Clear delete per Deville —Encephalon 15:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Human_sexual_behavior#List_of_sex_acts_and_practices which ought to be text, not just a list. No doubt more could be said, but it should be expanded on the Human_sexual_behavior page before creating one line articles. Any sex acts which develop long texts there, ought to be given seperate articles. JeffBurdges 15:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into an appropriate article. Definitely passes WP:KIT. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:13
• Merge or Delete per JeffBurdges. This is only a dictionary entry. Even if it were expanded, it should be merged. Ande B. 22:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep = as above. For great justice. 01:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable human oral activity. What's next? Ear-lobe licking? Fishhead64 06:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I shudder to think how long that link is going to stay a sensible red. —Encephalon 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & Deville. Slowmover 17:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Funky Monkey 12:00, 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 Keep. Let me know if the page still requires protection. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wendy Campbell

Wendy Campell, the subject of this article is a peace activist and supporter of the Palestinian people. Peace activism aside, Campell has also aligned herself with white supremacist and white pride groups such as National Vanguard and is a supporter Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust revisionist organization. Understandably, her support for such groups in addition to her frequent use of the term 'Jewish-Supremacist' has branded her with controversy.

Consequently, many people on the left, on the right, and on both sides of the Israel-Palestine dillema consider her to be racist and anti-semetic/anti-Jewish.

When the one-sided, soapbox article on the subject first appeared, many Wikipedia users have attempted to balance the article with mention of issues that have branded her with controversy. However, the user with IP address 71.102.67.133/email lioness4@ix.netcom.com (possibly Ms. Campell herself. a google search of the email adress provides plausable evidence) has repeadedly deleted any additions that attempt to bring the article to a NPOV.

Campell, or one of her supporters have repeatedly prevented others from contributing to the article and has repeatedly censured the associated discussion page. Through her actions, the subject has insisted that Wikipedia serve as a soapbox and has refused to assume good faith.

Consequently, the article has no place on Wikipedia as it is being used as a soapbox and there are questions concerning Cambells notableness. Limbojones 04:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and protect the page. This helps to prevent IP adresses from vandalizing the page and solves the above problem. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have already asked that any future contributions of Lioness/Wendy Campbell be banned-NOT because she is a revolting racist/nazi activist as the links below demonstrate her to be-but because of her and her allies attempts to censor and silence all contributions to Wikipedia that draw attention to that fact. She and her pro-Hitler supporters seek to deny the very freedom of speech to others that they so hypocrtically demand for themselves. She has done this in repeated violation of Wikipedia rules for participation and has failed to contribute to this discussion in good faith, constantly removing all critical posts. I would be happy with either allowing the discussion to go on, with full participation of those who do not attempt to censor others, or simply removing this topic altogether. What is utterly unacceptable is for her and her allies/agents to be allowed to fascistically dictate the entire terms of discussion, especially in response to an original entry that was little more than a (deliberately) misleading sanitized puff piece, one quite possibly written by Wendy Campbell/Lioness herself. (anti-fascist activist).

• keep and block 71.102.67.133 if POV edits keep being made M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep & protect per User TBC. Clearly notable: protection should reduce soapboxing. -- Simon Cursitor 07:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Links:

• Wendy Campbell's website
• Photo of Campbell participating in IHR Rally/Protest
• Cambell article posted at National Vanguard Website
• Keep and protect per TBC, vandalised pages don't need to be send for AFD. That is not the purpose for AFD. --Terence Ong 13:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable Celcius 13:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, these allegations are definitely not what AfD is for. Moreover, there are tons of pages with POV problems, and these problems get solved, in other ways. --Deville (Talk) 13:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment, I've added the above-mentioned links to the article and put it on my watchlist. If we have some POV editting problems in the future, we can bring it down the RfC route. --Deville (Talk) 13:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep & protect but only from unconfirmed user edits, please allow ordinary logged in users to edit it. Also, please add back all the controversial stuff. JeffBurdges 15:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and protect; this, unfortunately, isn't the only subject on Wikipedia where POV warriors relentlessly delete information unfavorable to them. ProhibitOnions 16:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable crank. Failing that just keep and protect from unregistered editing. Marcus22 19:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• No vote (because I don't have any first-hand knowledge): The only valid reason for deletion I can see would be if Campbell fails notability as a film-maker. Peter Grey 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and PROTECT. This is RIDICULOUS... Someone alignes themself with National Vanguard and the Institute for Historical Review, has their picture taken, has material on those organizations' websites... And then goes out and tries to cover up evidence of it on Wikipedia?! WOW that's dumb. Grandmasterka 21:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:KIT. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:12
• Keep & Protect as per above. Notable. Chairman S. ^Talk 21:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep = as above. For great justice. 01:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and protect - The POV editors are the problem, not the subject. She's notable. Fishhead64 06:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wendy Campbell -or one of her delegated lackeys- has YET AGAIN removed critical comments on the discussion page, even after being expressely warned not to vandalize and NPOV this article and even after this discussion page had to be set up in response to her constant attempts at censorship. This is further proof that while the article itself should be kept, her failure to participate in good faith makes an irrefutable case for her own removal from the discussion. [[User: Antifascist activist]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khal Shariff

Canadian web designer of uncertain notability; was listed for speedy and contested, so I'm bringing it here for outside opinions. Procedural nom, no vote from me. Bearcat 04:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanity, nn. Ardenn 04:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like vanity. Royboycrashfan 06:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio Gu 09:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, nn. --Terence Ong 13:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --DMG413 13:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Celcius 13:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. ProhibitOnions 16:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio Shenme 17:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -Haon 01:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 No consensus. Seeing as Chain Of Strength passed AFD, it's probably a good idea to go and merge them, but I'll leave that to the relevant talk pages. Stifle 14:42, 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).

Like the other Chain Of Strength article, this one asserts no notability and should be deleted. Aplomado - UTC 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. "Members went on to bands like who??" Grandmasterka 06:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 06:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Terence Ong 13:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Celcius 13:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 16:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and merge the two articles of the same name. This band is one of the most noted of the genre. A google search for the name plus "straight edge" or "hardcore" both turn up 10s of thousands of hits. THe nominator seems to be on a single minded quest to remove them for some reason.Tombride 23:14, 30 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 this and the duplicate Chain Of Strength (deletion debate) as non-notable band/group. -- Saberwyn 21:14, 28 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 03:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• keep = as above. For great justice. 01:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In what way are they not notable? They've released 2 records on a notable record label (per wikipedia notability requirements) and return 10s of thousands of google hits.Tombride 19:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as non-notable late 80s California band, featured members of who? Bands that don't even themselves have pages. Radagast83 19:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep main article and merge album pages, per Saberwyn. Band also has an All Music Guide entry, though the AMG doesn't have a bio and only lists the compilation album—not the two singles which currently reside on seperate pages. It's scraping the bottom of the notability barrel for certain, but I think a single article is justified. - Rynne 19:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I think we've seen enough evidence of noability. Merge everything into CoS. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 20:06, 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 12:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notepad Europa

This software application does not appear to be noteworthy, nor verifiable. The name "Notepad Europa" returns 2 hits on Google [11] neither of which are related to this program. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:V, and WP:SOFTWARE --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 06:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Gu 09:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 10:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Application is not verifiable purely because the owner isnt able to advertise his software as he is not yet of legal age to do so. For proper verification the software could only be verifiable under a freeware agreement. Which could compromise the developers ideas and even copyright. The only verifiable way so far the developer can give is pictures. However once he is of legal age A business name will be obtained and the software will be advertised and sold. Notepad Europa Pictures

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 13:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Celcius 13:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Haon 01:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 12:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dust ClothingCO

NN clothing company, External links go to... MySpace. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:CORP --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, and WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 06:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn company, spam. --Terence Ong 13:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Links to myspace Celcius 13:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Anything with an external link to myspace (other than maybe the myspace article) should probably be deleted. -Haon 01:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:12, 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 no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of school pranks

DELETE Quite possibly the most unencyclopedic article I've ever seen. It violates What Wikipedia is NOT on a number of counts. WP is NOT a Dictionary, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, etc, etc. So, unencylopedic, not noteable, and much of it is unverifiable. pm_shef 06:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT, WP:NFT, and Wikipedia:Listcruft. Royboycrashfan 06:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, absolutely unencyclopaediac. --Soumyasch 06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not for things made up in school one day.  (aeropagitica)  06:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Several of these pranks are not just made up in a school. Pranks like "Indian burn" are widespread and known by that name. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. In my opinion, all lists are unencyclopedic; however, Wikipedians seem to like them. What makes List of protosciences or List of people who have claimed to be Jesus more worthy than this one? -AED 07:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • So you're voting keep here because other people have kept other lists you consider unencyclopedic? I don't quite get your point here... -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom and User:Royboycrashfan, this article is a POV and Vandalism nightmare. --Hetar 08:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 10:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete more listcruft. Eusebeus 11:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft, not encyclopaedic. Proto||type 11:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Delete - WP is not for things got up to in school one day. Dlyons493 Talk 13:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, listcruft, unverifiable, unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 13:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic Celcius 13:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbit per WP:NFT, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:BEANS. We shouldn't be telling people how to injure each other in "amusing" ways. Alphax ^τεχ 14:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think WP:BEANS applies here; it only warns against giving people dangerous ideas about using Wikipedia, presumably in the Talk: and Wikipedia: namespaces. Dangerous information in actual articles is covered by Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer and shouldn't be censored on the basis of WP:BEANS. –Sommers ^(Talk) 18:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep People can delete bits which are unsourced. Alternatively, it could be transwikied to uncyclepedia, which may have a better chance of staying "up to date" due to OR rules. JeffBurdges 16:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and source. Some of these japes are very old indeed; sourcing them ought to be no problem. This is potentially a very useful article. ProhibitOnions 16:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's sourced, there is potential for an interesting article. Will reconsider vote in a few days. Dlyons493 Talk

• Comment Even if it were to be sourced, it would still violated WP:NOT and WP:NFT -- pm_shef 16:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't have to be indiscriminate, and wouldn't be made up. Needs a context obviously but, given that, there could be a perfectly good article in there. I agree a list of merry japes isn't encyclopedaic. Dlyons493 Talk 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. feydey 21:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic vandal magnet. Brian G. Crawford 22:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. These things exist and are commonplace.Tombride 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Of anthropological interest. If there are articles on (deadly) combat, mere buffoonry should not be excluded. Darlingg 00:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep = as above. For great justice. 01:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, with severe slashing and burning of all non-notable and/or unsourced entries. This is largely unencyclopedic as it is, but with work, it can be fixed without deleting it. –Sommers ^(Talk) 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete While Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, this definitely has some anthropological interest. But I can see it quickly evolving into a local usage free-for-all. Fishhead64 06:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Good source of information, at least keep the most important ones. --FlyingPenguins 08:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Maustrauser 12:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, as many of these things are more common than just 'things made up at school one day.' If it's on The Simpsons, it can't be that obscure, no? I recommend restarting the page and inserting only pranks that can be supported with evidence. Spamguy 13:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic invitation for abuse. Gene Nygaard 14:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Literally WP:NFT, although many of these things have nothing to do with school at all, and did I miss it, or is "short-sheeting" the bed missing from this list? Slowmover 17:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Remember, just because a page invites cruft or abuse doesn't mean it should be deleted—it means it should be watched and maintained. –Sommers ^(Talk) 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - sorry I'm not convinced about keeping it. --Khoikhoi 01:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Page with nearly 1,000 edits in its history...screw 'unmaintainable'. Potentially more informative and useful than 95% of the other articles on Wikipedia. Andymc 14:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Lists inherently attract more edits than many 'articles' by their very nature; I notice that of the somewhat less than 1000 edits, the majority are anons, and there's a lot of decrufting, removing vandalism, and removing non-notable entries. And it's still in the shape it is; if it's to be "maintainable", it needs criteria for what should be included. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Superstrong Keep—I actually bookmarked this only yesterday as one of my favourite articles. Articles like these are why people love Wikipedia! PS: for a non-native English speaker such as I this is a valuable source of information—where else could I have found out what a "purple nurple" is? Maikel 18:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Who cares? It's a funny article that brings back memories. Go ahead and keep it.—This unsigned comment was added by 68.175.105.109 (talk • contribs) .
• KeepMost of these pranks are widespread and not just made up one day. Howabout1 03:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Bizarre. Ambi 04:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wtf --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; preposterously unencyclopedic. MCB 05:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - For the same reasons as Andymc, Sjakkalle, and AED. Jgp 06:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Fishhead64. It would be nice if the article could be cleaned up enough to work - it's far too unwieldy just now, and seems to be more of a list of "my favourite pranks" than anything of real value - but I can't see any way in which there could be a consensus as to what pranks were notable enough and what weren't, since local customs vary so hugely even within a few miles. Loganberry (Talk) 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle; it may need cleaning up, but better to have this single article than a dozen or more individual articles for each item listed. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; unencyclopedic in this form but I agree with Loganberry and Fishhead64 above. I think that there is potential for an article if someone were tackle the subject matter in a rigorous manner.Obiskobilob 15:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/userfy and restart with criteria and verifiable sources. We went through this recently with Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names, which then got moved to the Wikipedia space and is now merged back in much-reduced form at Place names considered unusual. That seems appropriate here as well, otherwise it's just listcruft. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I remember more than half of these from school 20 years ago. They're not simply something "made up in school one day" but a part of our collective social history. While the article does need a significant cleanup and a lot of the dross cut from it, the problems that most people are citing are purely format based – not content. That is a reason to edit; NOT to destroy a potential resource.--Mr2mk1g 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Locke Cole, Sjakkalle, etc. Though I do think that a liberal sprinkling of citations is required. Many of these entries could be found in kid's books and popular culture. Many of these are part of hazing in the military also.--talkie_tim 15:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. President Lethe 16:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and find verifiable sources. —Keenan Pepper 16:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it is a good list vandalism is not reason for ersaing things Yuckfoo 17:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 17:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously needing severe restructuring, guidelines, and verify sources (thus weeding out many of them). But as a resource to non-native english speakers (Maikel) and schoolteachers (of course), this should be kept if someone takes up championing it, the work isn't that difficult to correct the errors. This isn't AfD worthy, and i vaguely can grasp this as an WP:NOT. And lists as such don't neccessarly fall under the catagory of "Wikipedia is not a Dictonary" as long as they provide context and validity. This, albiet it some of them have an absence of it, contain both context and validity. Some orignal research, admittedly, but, a vast majority of this is common school pranks even I remember in school. I can see an article in the mess. A VfD isn't the way to solve this. It needs severe work, but is a worthy article. Snipe Hunt is a cleaner, more respectable idea of what this should be. Especially noting, if you're crusading based on content. Refrain. Silly and childish content matter is no reason for and AfD. --evesummernight 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic and highly susceptible to hoaxes and non-notable additions. Rhobite 18:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, not encyclopedic, likely to contain original research or hoaxes. -Will Beback 19:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Could use clean-up and some citations, but a valid documentation of legitimate practices.boinger 19:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unmaintainable, at the very least remove all but the most 'notable'. Radagast83 19:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I venture to say that those of us who fell victim to such things realize that they represent part of society, while those who "had a good time in school" probably don't understand the social significance. I strongly recommend the keep. Jimaginator 20:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's information, it's generally accurate, and in the nature of the subject this is likely to be a more concise and legible source than most others. If I'm reading a story or personal account that mentions a "reverse arm wrestle", for instance, then I'd be glad that Wikipedia can tell me what one is. PeteVerdon 20:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all pranks that have verifiable sources. This article is going to need a lot of work --Liface 21:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This page could, in time, become a valuable resource about bullying. At least half of these are mentioned in one media of another. The title needs tweaking. Maybe List of high school pranks or similar. --Auric 23:17, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 12:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kyle_Stewart

This article's author is also its subject. It's a vanity page. Valiquet 06:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Too bad, his art looks cool. pm_shef 06:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just not notable. Royboycrashfan 06:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claims as to notability - reviews, exhibitions, critical appraisals, notable sales & influence on his peers. WP:Vanity, WP:BIO & WP:AUTO all refer.  (aeropagitica)  06:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio and vanity, he made also page Kevin_Element which I put on AfD Gu 09:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and vanity. --Terence Ong 13:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, non-notable Celcius 13:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn `'mikka (t) 18:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:16, 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 no consensus, although I suspect there may be sock puppeting going on. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yossi Ben Hanan

No claim of notability aside from being on the cover of Life Magazine. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no notability asserted. He's not notable, anyway. Royboycrashfan 06:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a Major General, on the cover of a national magazine, etc. doesn't merit notability? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. The cover of Life shows only 'a soldier' as example, it doesn't mention his name on the cover. He seems now to be the head of the division for foreign defense assistance and exports in the Isreali Defense Ministry, but otherwise no notability Gu 08:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above - below WP:BIO standard. Eusebeus 11:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Celcius 13:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Being on the cover of LIFE and a reasonably high-ranking government official really ought to be enough. Monicasdude 14:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems that he is notable in Israel. This book by Howard Blum, published by Harper Collins makes reference to Yossi Ben Hanan and the Life cover photo in the first chapter (quoted on the webpage). This page mentions him as a "public figure". u p p l a n d 21:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:KIT with ease. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:10
• Comment Ben Hanan is mentioned in at least four reference books published in the last nine years [12], which seems to infer notability. Humansdorpie 22:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Major General Ben Hanan was one of the Israeli officers who kept the Golan Heights from falling to Syria during the first days of the Yom Kippur War. He is an influential member of the Ministry of Defense, today, and exerts considerable influence over Israel's arms export industry. (—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.200.186 (talk • contribs) )
• Keep. A lot more notable than some things Wikipedia has kept. --Quintucket 23:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep = as above. For great justice. 01:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep He's no Jason Allen Alexander. Eivind^t@c 04:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He's more notable than Air Force Amy. Fishhead64 06:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - if we wrote articles about all the non-notable soldiers in magazines we'd have millions of articles. --Khoikhoi 03:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sounds like a hero to me.--The Walrus 03:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 07:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep His heroic actions alone should provide the necessary notability. He deserves to have his own page as much as any other war hero who puts his life on the line to save others.--Brad M. 16:45, 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 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linguolabial trill

I PRODded this with the argument that the article uses linguistic terminology to describe a sound (the "raspberry" or "Bronx cheer") not used linguistically in any language. The PROD was contested, so I'm bringing it here. The main problem with this article is that it's original research: phonetics terminology does not actually provide a name for the "Bronx cheer", nor does the IPA does provide a separate symbol for it, so the author of the article invented them. Phonetically I'm not convinced "linguolabial trill" is even the most accurate description of the sound (which begins with a complete closure and ends with disorganized noise rather than the steadily repeating contact of a canonical trill, so if anything it's a type of affricate), but that's not the point, the point is, this isn't a linguistic sound, so it shouldn't be described as one, and it hasn't been described as one except in this Wikipedia article. I wish I could say "merge with Blowing a raspberry" (as in fact I did in the PROD), but in fact since everything here is OR, nothing can in good conscience be merged there. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 06:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I contested the PROD, but now I totally defer to Dr. Angr's explanation, because surely he knows what he's talking about. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 06:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: hoax with linguistic techno-babble. Peter Grey 06:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I created the article, and I have no problem with getting rid of it. However, Pike (1943) did call the Bronx cheer a "voiceless exolabio-lingual trill". Especially for people who have no idea what a Bronx cheer is, that may be worth saving, as would an IPA transcription. kwami 07:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'm certainly in favor of adding that reference to Blowing a raspberry. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Angr, who really does know what he's talking about in areas such as this. Proto||type 11:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, per nom. --Terence Ong 14:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not a hoax, but it's OR. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - a noble effort, but without significant appearance in other publications first it's original research. ProhibitOnions 16:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to blowing a raspberry and merge the phonetic information that isn't pure speculation. A reasonable article, but superfluous. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well-reasoned nom. Joe 06:19, 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 Speedily deleted by BorgQueen under CSD:G4. Stifle 00:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick LoPiccolo

nn--fewer than 100 results on google M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no real claim to notability. Royboycrashfan 06:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete nn Celcius 13:54, 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 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard "Priest" Smith

No context, fictional (I think) character, no reason for notability, creator has had plenty of time to expand, but hasn't. Might even be patent nonsense, in which case it should be a speedy delete. Nobunaga24 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Whaaat??? Royboycrashfan 06:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Er, BJAODN? T K E 07:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gu 08:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete immediately. --Terence Ong 14:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as contextless nonsense, but award it the no-bell price.--Isotope23 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete possible A7 speedy. You can't be an assassin unless you have killed someone notable which he hasn't. There is no verifiable evidence for any of this. Capitalistroadster 22:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Haon 01:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Wikicrap. Fishhead64 06:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, what are the S.P.E.A.R.S.? -- Samir (the scope) 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 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 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farseer Macha

Contested prod: article about a Warhammer 40,000 character which does not meet the agreed notability guidelines. Original author is claiming non-notable articles do not harm Wikipedia, which is a long-running debate, but not one to be had by article creation. Pak21 06:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fancruft? Royboycrashfan 06:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not fancruft, just a a minor character within the Warhammer 40,000: Fire Warrior game. If this is included, we're going to end up with hundreds of articles about every single character who gets mentioned by name in any Warhammer 40,000 material. Cheers --Pak21 06:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Warhammer 40,000-related deletions. -- Pak21 07:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't see any way how minor characters like this are notable. JIP | Talk 10:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Macha appears for about 1/4 to 1/3 of the game. There is an absolute minimum that can be written about the character at this point in time, not much more than is here. Also, the main character of the game, Gabriel Angelos, is only present as a section in the Blood Ravens article, as he has not yet had enough of an impact on the fictional universe (and thereby providing enough information to write about, to justify an article at this time. -- Saberwyn 11:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft, nn, at best merge Celcius 13:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft, nn. --Terence Ong 14:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands, the article is pointless. Merge, Delete or Redirect --Charax 15:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and if anyone cares to, merge this information to Dawn of War.--Isotope23 17:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into DoW article. --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable character. Should be removed. It isn't fancruft, however, as we can still mention the character in the W40K: FW game article Localzuk ^(talk) 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 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 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hilar

nn neologism used in one place only. google says other meanings of the word are far more common. signed too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WINAD. Royboycrashfan 06:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a dictionary.  (aeropagitica)  06:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, PROD. T K E 07:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe for wiktionary but seems very uncommon Gu 08:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable neo Celcius 13:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, dicdef. --Terence Ong 14:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hilum as its adjective form and a commonly used term in anatomy/pathology. Thatcher131 16:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Gracious, I hope that medical students aren't using Wikipedia! :) T K E 08:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per Thatcher131. ProhibitOnions 16:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 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 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicca

""Nicca" Is an alternative slang for..." no it isnt. not according to google anyway. its a chemical and camera company according to almost all of the first few pages of results - almost all the rest are for things like Nebraska Crop Associations, a musician, a minor film star, and an Italian surname. delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, and perhaps recreate as a different article. Royboycrashfan 06:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect or disamb page if there are also other meanings. It seems to be used in the claimed way according to urbandictionary.com and doubletongued.org. If kept it should probably be added to List_of_ethnic_slurs (but not sure if it is used often enough e.g. in rap music texts to be kept) Gu 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism - perhaps merge into suitable articles - in any event not suitable as a WP article Celcius 13:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 14:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 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  (aeropagitica)  06:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genuity Capital Markets

Vanity and promotional material for minor non-notable finance company. JuanOso 07:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 07:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per not an advertiser T K E 07:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisment Gu 07:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete adv, nn Celcius 14:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, vanity, nn company. --14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity of vanities. ProhibitOnions 16:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this passes the bar. Samaritan 15:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very well-known new canadian investment bank, no reason to delete Montreal 18:43, 01 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable Canadian company. YUL89YYZ 19:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• A company that has acted as financial advisor to Le Chateau, Algoma Steel, Sears Canada and Score Media in the last three months alone ([13]) passes my keep line. It's stubbish, granted, but they're a valid article subject. Bearcat 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If it is kept, the article needs serious help. Right now, it's nothing but vanity promotional spam with all their addresses etc. Wiki isn't a phone book. David Hoag 07:29, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 12:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earl Rotman

Non-notable individual; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information JuanOso 07:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no more notable than his company. Royboycrashfan 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Royboycrash T K E 07:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Nobunaga24 07:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio Gu 07:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gu Celcius 14:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio, per Robyboycrash. --Terence Ong 14:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio, per Robyboycrash. Ardenn 04:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough. Samaritan 15:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete IronChris 19:04, 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 12:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Rhodes

Claim of Vice President at a company which may meet WP:CORP is assertion of notability, but is impossible to source: only relevant search hit is a self-submitted alumni magazine note which lists him only as an Associate Director, and the company doesn't list him as an officer. Doesn't satisfactorily meet WP:BIO. Also WP:VSCA, as page was created by the subject, User:Keithrhodes. Delete with optional userfy. Kinu ^t/_c 07:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this vanity article gets a bit too personal. Royboycrashfan 07:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely... though the twin birth weight part did help the article cross the three sentence threshold... --Kinu ^t/_c 07:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fat babies are notable? Nobunaga24 07:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio Gu 07:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO Dlyons493 Talk 13:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps notable - but contents of the article only peripherally deals with what actually makes him notable. Celcius 14:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The only assertion of notability is that they were the heaviest twins yet born in Maryland, which sounds pretty NN to me. ProhibitOnions 16:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 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 SPEEDY DELETE as an attack page. JIP | Talk 10:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prab-deep singh

Nominated by anonymous user. This is a blatant attack page (WP:CSD A6), so there's really no point in AfD. Royboycrashfan 08:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: A6 and send to Wikihell as soon as possible. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:54, 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 13:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SmileCity

Deprodded without explanation, NN website advertisement, delete. --Hetar 08:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. Royboycrashfan 08:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertisment Gu 11:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete adv, nn Celcius 14:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does this page want to be deleted?

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

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

The result of the debate was that the article was deleted by Dustimagic as an uncontested prod. Stifle 14:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early intervention for autism

Redundant information. Either delete or merge to Autism therapies Rdos 08:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Autism therapies. Royboycrashfan 08:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom, seems clear enough to me. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 10:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Does not warrant an article in itself. Works well as a paragraph though. Celcius 14:06, 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  (aeropagitica)  06:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book of light

Non notable book relating to a non notable religion. Most of the related articles have been speedied or prodded. The prod for this one was anonymously removed without comment. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn; the "religion's" web page isn't even finished yet Nobunaga24 08:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --TM 08:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete omg, per nom Celcius 14:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --IslandGyrl 21:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Proism is a rapidly growing religion in the Vancouver area. It would be foolish to leave it out. --Hyperchickens 2:35, 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 Speedily deleted (A7) by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Proto||type 11:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee_Hawley_Hassan

This entry should be deleted because it's total nonsense.

• Speedy Delete as nonsense of nn-bio. 193.122.31.188 09:04, 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 13:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danny scubec

Please see Google results for the motivation behind this nomination.[14]

• Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 08:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, while there is a webpage here [15], the complete lack of Google hits makes it a nn-bio Gu 10:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nose-bleedingly nn Celcius 14:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - Runcorn 21:15, 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 13:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miles DeBenedictis

Article fails to assert notability. Not promising Google results.[16]

• Delete per nod JackO'Lantern 09:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio Gu 10:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Celcius 14:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 15:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 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 13:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harmful

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Wiktionary already has a significant article on this, so delete --Hetar 09:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, doesn't seem useful. 193.122.31.188 09:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kukini 09:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Gu 10:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a dictionary. What is it with all of these dictdef articles? Wiktionary exists for a reason!  (aeropagitica)  12:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dlyons Celcius 14:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. --Terence Ong 15:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 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 Speedy keep. Stifle 00:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jovino Santos-Neto

appears to be a personal bio and seems to qualify as nonnotable Kukini 09:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with over 30000 Google hits, several CDs on Amazon and lots of concerts he seems to be worth keeping. Gu 10:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Multiple, clear assertions of notability, all easily verified. Nominator, why shouldn't we view this nomination as bad faith, probably outright vandalism? What were you thinking? Monicasdude 14:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, winning a Grammy Award non-notable?? Bad faith AFD nomination I suppose. --Terence Ong 15:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, although I think he didn't actually win the Grammy, was just nominated --Deville (Talk) 15:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• My bad Keep it..and delete the AFD. Clearly I didn't look into this well enough. Peace. Kukini 01:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, assuming that an errant AFD is vandalism is a tad aggressive. Just undo the AFD, and move along in peace. Just a thought. Kukini 01:30, 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 {{db-repost}}. Stifle 23:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolucion Neutra

non-notable band Koffieyahoo 09:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Band is first of it's kind in it's country, and is a representation of the Rock en español genre of Honduras, and music of Honduras. xtreemze 09:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as it's already been deleted. dcandeto 17:30, 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 13:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rainism

This must be a joke. This is not a major religion. Delete Mr Adequate 09:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per nom. Any evidence this religion doesn't exist? 193.122.31.188 09:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. "Followers of Rainism don't attend church or "pray," so to say. The "church" experience is just watching an Our Lady Peace video, or, in desparate times, a simple interview with Raine Maida." -- Kjkolb 10:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. If it does exist, it is very nn anyway. Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, either a joke or an extremely non-notable religion. JIP | Talk 10:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nom Gu 10:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - joke. Eusebeus 11:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Plenty of silliness, very little actual funniness. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not funny, nn Celcius 14:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, BJAODN. --Terence Ong 15:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any mention of this religion on the Internet. Quickly overtaking Christianity? Named after the lead singer in a band? Gotta be a joke. --Clpo13 20:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete More Wikicrap! It doesn't even possess the virtue of humour. Fishhead64 06:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, not even funny enough for BJAODN. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Hoax, per all above. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 15:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:17, 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 Speedy keep. Stifle 00:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries by length of coastline

This article was created by a user with only six edits to wikipedia. It is apparently based on data from [17] but I havent found it after searching for it on their site. Anyway the problem is that there is no accurate way to "rank" countries by coastline as coastlines are different on different scales and whether you include islands etc. There are huge differences with the figures given here and those of other sites such as the CIA. - on this list the USA has 133,312km of coastline compared to ten times less - 19,924 km on the CIA site. Even the order of countries is different such as here where the top five are Canada, Indonesia, Russia, Phillipines, Japan rather than Canada, US, Russia, Indonesia, Chile. This list which tries to give coastline figures to one decimal point is a huge misrepresentation -- Astrokey44|talk 09:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, the limitations of the figures can be given instead. Another solution would be listing alphabetically and giving the figures from multiple sources (the article would need to be renamed, of course). They definitely should not be given down to the tenth of a mile, though. Unless the coastline is very small, I would round it to the nearest mile or even the nearest ten miles. -- Kjkolb 10:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I suppose it would be alright listed alphabetically showing smallest and largest figures given - but it would still look pretty inaccurate, for instance Chile: smallest figure - 6,435km, largest - 78,563km -- Astrokey44|talk 11:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this article can be useful. JIP | Talk 10:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I know deletion is not the way to correct a flawed but viable article; unless someone steps up to the plate to correct this, however, I say toss it and let it be recreated at some point with accurate information. FWIW, Canada's shoreline is as the CIA says. Excellent. Keep Eusebeus 11:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten with verifiable data. Better to start from scratch rather than hope it will be patched up. Keep excellent rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 13:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. --Terence Ong 15:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, now after the large scale rewrite I did, to accomodate all CIA world factbook figures, plus other useful information. Kindly check the new article and change your votes accordingly. (We need a better intro, please help).  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 15:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• very nice! ok I withdraw nomination after NikoSilver's rewrite since it is now based on the CIA factbook source -- Astrokey44|talk 15:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - Whatever the flaws of the original, articles like this are what make Wikipedia really useful. ProhibitOnions 16:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep: I think it pointless, but it's there now, it doesn't require maintenance, and who knows someone might want to look it up. Wikipedia is not paper. Peter Grey 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Legitimate topic. Add alternative figures and annotate as appropriate. Merchbow 19:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. My coastline is bigger than yours. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:07
  • Ha! Couldn't tell. What's yours? :-)  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 22:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep = as above. For great justice. 01:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - very useful, but should be fixed. Fishhead64 06:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - If it's crying out for improvement, then let's improve it instead of deleting.--Dustweek 07:10, 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 13:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gambling terms

Incomplete entry, originally added with notation that it was used by permission from a particular site, when in fact most if not all the definitions are taken from other sources. Article also bizarely only goes to "C". A glossary entry of gambling terms may or may not be an appropriate article, but an incomplete one with a false reference certainly should not exist. I removed the link spam "reference" in that this shouldn't be on an article in any case. 2005 09:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with extreme prejudice, this is one of the craziest things I've ever seen. The best is that the last definition is truncated. I was half-expecting to see NO CARRIER at the end as well. --Deville (Talk) 14:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is part advertising, part listcruft, and possibly part copyvio. There's no use for this article. JIP | Talk 14:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, list of dicdefs, many wrong, probable copyvio. Stifle 00:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another stupid list. Has a stench of original research, as well. Evan Seeds (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone above, and copyvio from here. — orioneight (talk) 17:51, 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 13:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket Ratings/Ranking

This page contains nothing but extensive reporting on recent cricket results and current ratings, copied from the ICC ratings. Information about the ratings is already at LG ICC cricket ratings JPD (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The page will be pretty much unmaintainable if the original author loses interest. LG ICC cricket ratings is a much better article for an encyclopaedia, and points to a website with the up-to-date list. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A better article of a similar topic already exists. Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete particularly per Stephen's point about this being dropped once the author moves on. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment There's lots of pages which link to this that'll need mods if this ends up being deleted -- Ian ≡ talk 13:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

These links are mainly inappropriate links added in the last 24 hours by the author of this page, and should be removed even if the page is kept. I'll start now. JPD (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've notified User:80.76.228.108 (the original author) as well as User:205.143.204.110, User:205.143.204.206, User:205.143.204.198 and User:205.143.204.102 (presumably all the same person) of this AfD as per AfD etiquette. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete I agree with DaGizza. The LG ICC cricket ratings is much better. Also I would like to commend JPD on removing the link from many pages. -- Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 18:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete But unlike DaGizza and Srikeit, I believe we need a lot of work done to the LG ICC cricket ratings to make it a worthwile article. I'd say delete it per Stephen, seeing as it doesn't look like it can be updated forever without a lot of effort from the contributors. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I never said LG ICC cricket ratings is a well constructed article. I just said it was better than this one. Gizza^{Chat ©} 13:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm the author and I don't see the problem. I took an article that was over a year out of date and updated and improved it. If this article is a problem why was it not deleted when it was horrendously out of date. In this article, my aim was to gather useful information from a variety of sources, combine them into a single piece, and detail how recent innings affected the Test ratings. The LG ICC cricket ratings article is poor, and other than an external link offers no up-to-date information. I fail to see the harm that this article was doing. With regards the comment about just taking information from other sources, of course that's what i've been doing. You may as well shut Wikipedia down entirely if this is the source of your problem, because i'm sure just about everything on here can be found somewhere else on the web. I'm sorry if i've stepped on the toes of whatever club you have going on here, and am dissapointed that contributors to an online encyclopedia would want to erase information - especially as this information that can not be found in this combination anywhere else on the web. I enjoyed updating it, and my work affords me plenty of time to have done so. Please delete the article.

The article as it was before you updated probably would have been deleted if anybody had noticed. You did update it well, and made us notice it by linking to it on other pages. I agree that it contains interesting information, but it is not all the sort of information that you would expect to find in an encyclopaedia. Any information that is appropriate would probably be better added to LG ICC cricket ratings, rather than in a completely separate article. JPD (talk) 04:55, 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 speedy deleted as vandalism. I didn't think it was that funny, but if anyone strongly disagrees send me a message and I'll dig it out for BJAODN. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fried briefs

Unverifiable, unproven, suspected hoax Cozzlewood 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Article is genuine... not nonsense, says it all. --Katch Pole Piker 10:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Katch Pole Piker is a vandal. [18] --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A bunch of vandal sockpuppets added keep votes to the article, impersonating regular editors. Most have been blocked indefinitely for impersonation, sockpuppetry and vandalism. Rather than bother to annotate every single vote I just removed them. Look in the history if you care. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as there is more about Fried Brief than Fried briefs on Google. Gu 10:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nonsense. Proto||type 11:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete possible move to BJAODN. Eusebeus 11:25, 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 also taking the liberty of recreating it as a redirect to James Hill as suggested by Proto. Stifle 22:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Hill

• Delete. Article does not provide references. Could not get even a single Google hit which speaks about the Jim Hill mentioned in the article. None of the contibutions mentioned could be verified. Soumyasch 10:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, googling various keywords (like the query '"Children Of The Covenant" Jim Hill') give no results at all. Non-notable. --Chris (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to disambiguation page at James Hill. Proto||type 11:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, per above. PJM 13:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, non-notable! --Deville (Talk) 13:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Author's thoughts I started this page with the intention that people more knowledable than myself might complete it. Perhaps you are correct that I didn't note or expand on the more notable aspects of Reverend Hill's ministry. I don't feel qualified to do so, and so I thought that I would leave it to others. --98Hooker 09:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Jonas Silk 14:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Davidpdx 12:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Actually this is interesting..there is someone running for Governor of Oregon who's name is Jim Hill. I was hoping to write an article about him, but I can see this article name is now taken. If I do write it, I'll use something diffrent I guess. Davidpdx 12:39, 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 NO CONSENSUS. GTBacchus^(talk) 22:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marie Ljalková

No real notability claimed, although she had a pretty productive military career. Google pulls less ~125 hits. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn-bio Gu 11:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I originally removed the speedy due to the fact that I thought she may have a claim to notability. However, after looking at this list of snipers I see that she does not. If in this case notability is claimed by the number of kills then there are alot more deserving of an article than Ljalková. We have two female snipers from that list Lyudmila Pavlichenko and Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • While there seems to be several reasons why Lyudmila_Pavlichenko can be seen as notable, Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya looks more similar to the case of Marie Ljalková and should maybe also deleted if this one is. Gu 11:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's worth noting that snipercentral.com is a very poor source of information on historical persons, since it's been caught editing in its own members names as "famous historical snipers!" before, inflating kill numbers, and similar indiscretions, just FYI Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 23:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, google indicates very little because the Western-centric internet does not have many records on Soviet heros, for that you must turn to books. She is verifiable, and Wikipedia helps combat western ignorance of foreign veterans. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I speak english very little, unfortunately. What is "pretty productive military career" ? You need more info ? Nina Lobkovskaya has so brevity biografy. Is not problem. I look trouble only with text in English. I need helph - repair errors and redaction this text. User:Snipermouche
• Weak Keep - marginally notable Jonas Silk 14:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non verifiable sniper. Haven't stumbled across the name yet from Snipershide.com ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Reasonably notable. One of the few female snipers with that many kills, and the only Czech one. Apperars to be verifiable: there is a reference in the article. Certainly more notable than many other people than have been kept (e.g. musicians) Imarek 00:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Imarek, but without the music bias. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: also per Sherurcij, combat systemic bias. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, notable sniper, appears verified. Sandstein 08:45, 8 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 Deleted as a nonsense article.  (aeropagitica)  12:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hover Trousers

Delete. Non notable. Couldn't find relevant google hits, thus could not confirm. Soumyasch 10:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Come on, this is too easy. It is clearly written as a joke. Maybe even speedy, this is wasting everyones time. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 10:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as pure nonsense. Tagged. 193.122.31.188 10:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete "It's the wrong trousers! They've gone wrong!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:21, 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 keep. --Terence Ong 12:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hardware Lane, Melbourne

The article fails to distinguish itself from any other street or road located in Melbourne, thus failing to establish notability. Bumm13 11:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete sounds like millions of other small lanes. Gu 11:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article makes no claims to notability for said lane, so no reason to differentiate it from thousands of similar lanes, alleys, streets, walks, etc in Melbourne and any other city.  (aeropagitica)  12:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If it were a person, it would be speediable. Dlyons493 Talk 13:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I haven't decided which way to vote yet, but I want to comment that it is a well-known restaurant / cafe precinct in the Central Business District of Melbourne. Cnwb 22:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If it is a notable street in Melbourne, this article doesn't show it. Mind you, there were 72 hits on an Australia New Zealand database so it has some prominence.
• Keep an important part of the City's café culture and now has a bit of its history tacked on. Keep and allow to expand. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Allow to expand. --Bduke 02:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 23:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fishhead64 06:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Please Allow This to expand! Hardware lane is the most cultural and vibrant laneway in Melbourne! It's a world away from the world! —Preceding unsigned comment added by user:202.7.176.130 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. There is an incoming link, and the WikiProject Melbourne people seem to be aiming to cover all their significant streets. WP:NOT paper. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. ScottDavis is dead right. Ambi 01:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this street is notable enough, and the article is of an acceptable length. If this were deleted, I'd await the nomination of all those insignifant London streets and alleys lucky enough to have gained Wikipedia articles.--cj | talk 05:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, will expand. Needs to focus more on history than Maccas. Harro5 06:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Harro5 (except for the bit about "will expand" — I'll let him do that bit without me). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as part of WikiProject Melbourne. -Canley 04:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep at least for a while. Now that it's had this much attention focused on it, an expansion will no doubt be forthcoming. Lokicarbis 05:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I would expect that in the CBD of a city of 3.8million people that there will be a number of smaller streets, lanes and arcades which are worthy of an article on wikipedia. Hardware Lane is but one of many which I hope will eventually be part of the WikiProject Melbourne - given time. Please have patience. Cuddy Wifter 06:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Agnte 12:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Scott and cj. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- the lane is notable enough for myself, who doesn't live in Melbourne but an hour away, to be able to recognise it by name only. See the article history. - Longhair 22:49, 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. JIP | Talk 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red light says go

Not notable - the band hasn't released any material, by the writer's admission. Tellkel 12:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 13:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom--Deville (Talk) 13:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, CSD A7. --Blue520 14:15, 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 13:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pram Maven

Delete non-notable band with no albums. --Bruce1ee 13:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, WP:NMG. [19]. PJM 13:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BAND and WP:VANITY --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 15:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:19, 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 13:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sneek Brothers

Unkown cartoon with no sources. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 13:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's a hoax. If anything in the article were even close to true, it would be famous. No IMDB entry or Google references. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the sneek brothers are two "notorious lecture skippers", apparently. [20]--Irishpunktom\^talk 21:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:19, 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 13:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gotmail