Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - userfied NSLE _(T+C) at 06:09 UTC (2006-03-05)

[edit] Vit Zvanovec

This is clearly a self-reference, and does not belong in the article namespace. There is no claim to notability aside from within the Wikipedia community, so the official complaint is Wikipedia:Notability (people). Delete Makemi 00:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy-delete. No claim to notability. Alternatively speedy transwiki to Meta if someone wants it there. Haukur 00:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy transwikinamespace per the above below. Royboycrashfan 00:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (author's note on talk page) This article about events (and persons) from Czech Wikipedia is intentionally posted in English Wikipedia, as the conditions and lawlessness on Czech Wikipedia are not allowing postings there. Please do not delete anything - leave it for discussions. Ross.Hedvicek 23:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy per nom. dbtfz^talk 00:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if not userfied Tuf-Kat 01:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self-reference Gerard Foley 02:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Terence Ong 03:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: We only have his side of the story, but it sounds like someone outside his local wikipedia should hear him out. But, articlespace isn't the place for his grievance unless, god forbid, it furballs badly enough to get media attention somehow. — Adrian Lamo ·· 03:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but not speedy: give him a chance to move it to user space, or Meta. I agree with some of the others above: it may be a valid complaint and needs to be heard, but article space on this wiki isn't the place. Antandrus (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment The user has now userfied this (User:Ross.Hedvicek/Vit Zvanovec), so I believe it can probably now be speedied (I didn't originally speedy it because I didn't know where it should go, and wanted to give the user time). Makemi 04:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Tagged for speedy now that it's been duly userfied. — Adrian Lamo ·· 05:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete userfy. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-05 05:20Z

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:Harro5 — Adrian Lamo ·· 07:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undead Soldiers Of Ares

Was prodded, prod removed. Seems to be about non-notable gaming group, and their exploits in a game. Fancruft. Delete Makemi 00:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft. Royboycrashfan 00:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent clancruft. In an effort to arrange and order some of Earth: 2025's most notable "clans"... maybe the word "notable" should be in quotes instead. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. dbtfz^talk 01:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft. --Terence Ong 03:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as "clan"cruft. Deckiller 03:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft. Whatever that means, it seems apt.--Vercalos 04:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable online gaming group, and tagged {{db-club}}. — Adrian Lamo ·· 05:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable online gaming group. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-05 05:22Z
• Delete Vanity, non-notable nonsense. Ethereal 05:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as withdrawn nomination. bainer (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide and position of Turkey

POV fork of Armenian Genocide not discussed at all on talk page of article. In fact, previous consensus was that a page such as this should not be created. Point being that the goal is to get the original article to inclusive NPOV, rather than splinter off the minority view. pschemp | talk 08:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC) I withdraw this nomination. I feel the debate will be damaging to the community. pschemp | talk 23:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete if nominator provides evidence of a well-established consensus against such an article on the talk page. Otherwise, weak keep - it doesn't seem to be intended as a POV fork but rather as a factoring-out of material into a proper sub-article. Which I think might be legitimate, because the present-day disputes within Turkish society and between Turkey and the rest of the world are really a topic reasonably distinct from the historical discussion of the genocide itself, so a separate treatment might be not such a bad idea after all. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Ah, well this has been a nasty messy topic and the archives are full of fractured discussion, but I'll do my best to find the comments. pschemp | talk 16:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ok...here's one, (I am only including the opinions of serious editors to the page, it attracks a lot of POV spam and such from random anons. Also, its not like eveyone lines up after each comment and says, "I agree" or I disagree".) Actually, we would delete such an article since it is a POV fork. The point is that the Armenian genocide is hardly contested outside Turkey and widely accepted as a historical fact. Immediately after the genocide and more recently it is partially accepted in Turkey too. Both the history of the genocide and the fact that many Turks and few others have reservations is well covered in the article. Therefor it is NPOV. We also cover the recent recognition of the genocide in Turkey, but are still weak on its early recognition. gidonb 22:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• So what are the arguments in favour of deletion? Lacking such arguments, I'd say Keep, but perhaps call it Armenian Genocide, Official position of Turkey. Lambiam 18:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)</nostrike>
• Look at the history. Proposer changed her mind. Lambiam 18:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, especially in view of recent developments: Denial of Armenian genocide. It is a well-defined topic. mikka (t) 05:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per mikkala. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for same arguments as Lukas' "weak keep". (My struck-out comments above were added when this page was blank.) Lambiam 16:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Yo, guys, you are voting on a proposal that has been WITHDRAWN. It is still here for the records, but is not an active afd. Please respect my decision and stop adding votes. pschemp | talk 17:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge This should be perfectly fine to merge with the Armenian Genocide. -- Alpha269 16:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Armenian Genocide. It is well-established that POV forking is not the way to go. Stifle 09:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 10:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Colduck

Non-notable, vanity-ish. Being a radio news guy on a minor community college station is not really notable. It's just a job. DanielCD 01:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Just not notable. --DanielCD 01:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. FloNight 01:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nice work on the article. Now write an article on the employee at the Wendy's down the street so it can get *cough*deleted*cough* like this one. Royboycrashfan 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - CSD A7: Anyone can get a spot on their college's radio station if they want to, doesn't meet WP:BIO --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Suggest author write an article about the station. It'll probably be sent to AfD, but I support the keeping of articles about continuously broadcasting stations of any size. Staffers are usually nn tho. — Adrian Lamo ·· 03:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Terence Ong 03:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Deletenon notable. Deckiller 03:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gimme a break. dbtfz^talk 04:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, totally embarassing VanityDJCruft. Deiz 04:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete', vanity, non notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vercalos (talk • contribs) 2006-03-04 20:18:12
• Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-05 05:23Z
• Delete the only use of this article appears to be self promotion Kyle sb 09:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Tangotango 16:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Francisco Valverde 18:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alpha269 16:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 10:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jombob

hoax neologism, not a real architectural movement as said DVD+ R/W 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete new term created by architects without articles. Royboycrashfan 02:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant hoax. dbtfz^talk 04:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Hoax. Probable vanity.--Vercalos 04:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice, it doesn't even try to say what it is, let alone why it's important.Makemi 04:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-05 05:23Z
• Delete possibly a hoax, doesn't explain what it is. No sources. No content. Kyle sb 10:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ewlyahoocom 10:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Where ^(talk) 14:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alpha269 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with all speed. --Shannonr 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~ -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 03:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Light Smashers

Non-notable, possibly hoax. TigerShark 02:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as A7 - non-notable, no claim to notability. Was tagged as speedy, but tag was repeatably removed by author. --Red Penguin 02:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, this is a team which takes part in a online-football management game - it's not causing any problems or upsetting anyone on-line so please re-consider deleting this page.

Thanks

M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theweegrafter (talk • contribs)

Above user's edits have all involved this article. Royboycrashfan 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy A7 per the above. Royboycrashfan 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. I doubt that players in the league really have million pound transfer fees. I think that this is a team in a fantasy football league.Capitalistroadster 02:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment User:Theweegrafter is in the process of trans-wiking this page to the shared webhost http://bluwiki.org. If an admin could avoid speedying the article for about an hour, that should give him time to transfer what he wants to transfer. --Red Penguin 03:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'll hold off on the speedy. Just get the user to jot down a note that the transwiki is done when he's finished. Thanks. Harro5 03:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• I see it's done here. Harro5 03:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Clear consensus established. Punkmorten 09:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ERef, PRef, VRef

Three duplicative articles on a NN product by a NN company. Company website is an ad for a bartending DVD. ERef is their term for the MPEG version available for download. -- JLaTondre 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable spamvertisement. --Hetar 01:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Hetar. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 01:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn as per nom. Kuru ^talk 04:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete These may be trademarked terms but none of the articles contain a discussion regarding the notability of the software; WP:SOFTWARE refers.  (aeropagitica)  07:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as Notability essay states: This is an essay representing the opinion of some editors but by no means all or even most editors. This is not a policy or guideline. - TRDriver 07:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: User Anthonycaporale's only edits before this AFD were, you guessed it, ERef, PRef and VRef. Punkmorten 09:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as meets Notability criteria #3 and #4 for software - Whangdoodle 08:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is Whangdoodle's only contribution, and is most likely a sockpuppet. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 11:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Anthonycaporale. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Improve Notability or Delete. The second paragraph gives the impression that the file type is widely used, but does not explicitly say so. The only reference is the developer. The developer is an invalid software article reference.  Cdcon  18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 04:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Reads like spamadvertisment--Porturology 02:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Into one article MadCow257 03:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 03:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just unnotable AdSpamCruft Deiz 04:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. If it's notable later, allow re-creation of article.--Vercalos 04:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-05 05:24Z
• Delete as vile, rotten, smelly spamvertising. dbtfz^talk 08:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable club. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme Chix

Non-notable gamecruft. Brian G. Crawford 02:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as gamecruft and TMI (as of this writing). Royboycrashfan 02:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gamecruft. --Terence Ong 03:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. Tokakeke 04:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wow, serious GamerCruft here, Wikipedia is not the place to give yourselves new identities or superpowers. Ladies. Deiz 04:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

(note: The link to this AfD from the page itself has been sorted Deiz 04:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

• Delete Gamescruft, and POV--Vercalos 04:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as ugh, gamcruft. cruftity cruft. Makemi 04:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable online gaming group, and tagged {{db-club}}. — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete crufty. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-05 05:25Z
• Speedy delete Non-notable.Ethereal 05:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. "Clan"cruft. Deckiller 05:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Although many votes were for delete, the nominator withdrew the nomination. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matteo Carandini

Vanity page, non-notable neuroscientist. DeleteThis person has a record of publication that is comaprable to anybody at his stage in his career, none of the pubs appear to be from his own laboratory, but rather work done as a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow. Nrets 02:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Very Weak Keep Upon further reflection, this person is as notable as many others that are allowed to remain on WP, the bar seems pretty low. He does have some articles as a principal investigator (which come up in a medline search) in top scientific journals. While I still think he is not nearly as notable as many other Neuroscientists who are not in WP, I guess this is not a good reason to delete him, although the arguments for keeping him are pretty weak as well. So I have changed my vote. That being said there is very little in the article to reflect his notability, and perhaps the article could be improved to show why he is more notable than the avrage assistant professor. Nrets 02:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no real assertion of notability. Royboycrashfan 02:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep He might be notable enough, but the article needs major expanding to get up to snuff.--Vercalos 04:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable academic. Not everyone who's had a job is notable. Makemi 04:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 04:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteNeutral. not very notable for Wikipedia, though Monicasdude brings up some points. Deckiller 05:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion or evidence of notability. dbtfz^talk 08:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, obviously notable, extensive record of publishing scholarly work, scores of Google Scholar hits. Today's most flagrant display of aggressive ignorance by irresponsible editors. Monicasdude 15:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Instead of insulting Wikipedians who disagree with you, why not change their minds by adding evidence of notability to the article itself? dbtfz^talk 18:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    Because the already listed credentials and bibliography are sufficient, and should be seen as sufficient. As for civility, too many AfD discussions, especially about academics and writers, are just cesspools of derogatory comments about subjects and authors of articles that are labelled, often incorrectly, as "vanity" (even though the relevant policy is quite specific that "vanity" is not a grounds for deletion). The obsession with deleting non-celebrity biographies is extremely damaging to Wikipedia and to its reputation. The same editors turn up, over and over, in these discussions, sometimes even admitting they don't read the articles they vote on. If you look through the discussions and see how the misbehavior is unchanging, you'd come to the conclusion that "aggressive ignorance" and "irresponsible" are relatively mild, and entirely accurate, comments. Monicasdude 20:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Nothing in the article itself indicates that the subject is anything more than a run-of-the-mill academic. Incidentally, my name got over twice as many hits on Google scholar, and I am absolutely certain that I am non-notable. (I am a graduate student with a few minor publications and a fairly uncommon name.) dbtfz^talk 21:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just to second that, the subject of this article does not have any publications as an independent investigator. If you look at his publication record you will see that he is never the last author. In scientific publications the last author is the principal investigator in a study, the first is the one that does the actual lab work, and this could be a graduate student or postdoc. The subject of this article does not have any more publications that the average Assistant Professor and is not notable within his field. I'm not saying he's not talented or smart, just not notable enough to merit an article. So no, this is not aggressive ingnorance, but an informed choice by someone who is in the same field. Nrets 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Sound advice above. Also, see WP:CIVIL, when you have a chance. PJM 19:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn -- Alpha269 16:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 10:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Llull voting system

Is Wikipedia turning into an aristocracy now? Administrators have now disregarded official policies regarding this article two times. One time in keeping an article having a 3-1 vote in favor of deletion based on a personal judgement of the article's noteworthiness, the other for removing the entry from deletion review without there being a majority of votes endorsing the original result.

The Condorcet method already contained a reference to Ramon Llull, but this was later removed based on an argument that IMO borders on original research. There is no reason to effectively duplicate the contents of an article under a protologist title. Instead, Llull's role could again be mentioned in the Condorcet method article under a newly created history section. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 02:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• I don't agree with the tone of this nomination, but I agree that the article should be deleted. Llull did describe pairwise voting, but to consider his description a "voting system" in the modern sense is unjustified extrapolation. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Tokakeke 04:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, on the assumption User:Rspeer knows what he/she's talking about ;x . — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. I don't like their tone of the nomination either, nor its defiance of the Deletion Review (which just closed 2 days ago). If Dissidant had done more than just provide a vote count to the DR (like commenting on the closing admin's complex rationale, or Xoloz's support), maybe their call to overturn the previous result would have garnered some support. That said, please, no one vote speedy keep because of the recent AfD and DR; this article is not worth further drama. I was the sole full supporter in the first AfD, and though I want this voting system covered, I do not much like this article, and won't argue to keep it on principle. The material could be covered well with two or three sentences in Ramon Llull, and I'm sure someone add it there eventually. In the meantime it's not important to keep this article around (or order its merger), since no one (including me and Rspeer) seem to want to salvage it. ×Meegs 07:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Rspeer and an astounding one unique Google hit that is not from Wikipedia or a Wikipedia mirror. If it's worth mentioning, mention it on Ramon Llull or Condorcet method. And in retrospect the original closing should probably have been an extension given how few votes were available, but the tone taken in this nomination is unhelpful; you can hardly blame admins for not deleting when confronted with a 2-1-1 split and a no-consensus DRV. --Aquillion 10:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Aqillion. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Aquilion, thorough reasoning. Just zis Guy you know? 17:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. - Sikon 17:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no particular opinion about this article since I don't know much about voting systems. When I closed the first AFD as a "move" it was not due to aristocratic arrogance, but because Meegs presenting some reasonable arguments and evidence of the system being mentioned separately in a scientific paper. These arguments were, I felt, unrebutted, and moving this to the term used in that paper would satisfy some of the objections regarding the neologistic nature of the title. Such comments and discussion outweigh the pure vote count. The guideline is "when in doubt, don't delete". If it should have been deleted after all it can be renominated like here. Now, I see that Meegs no longer has voted keep because of the article's quality, so perhaps a consensus can develop this time around. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Alpha269 16:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 11:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hull University Union

• Delete Student organization in regional university. Much more information available in main university page. Prod was removed by user:JJay--Porturology 02:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good start to the article and I can't see why Hull is any less important than the 32 articles in Category:English students' unions. -- JJay 03:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, college clubs aren't encyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 03:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 03:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Deckiller 03:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as it is as notable as the other English students' unions, and the article is well-sourced. If this one should be deleted, all of the other articles in its category should be deleted as well. Carioca 04:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable group. No claim to notability that I can discern. The extent of what the article claims is that the Union exists, and perhaps that it is attached to something notable. Shall I write an article on Angelina Jolie's left arm? Makemi 04:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Why not? We already have 28 lines on her tattoos. Though I'd probably start with other parts of her anatomy. -- JJay 17:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see how "student organization in regional university" is a deletion argument, unless the organisation is really insignificant. But give their webmaster a few minus points for not making the webpage look decent in Firefox.u p p l a n d 05:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Carioca, who makes a good point. dbtfz^talk 08:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Uppland. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, (all 32 should be deleted unless notable!)—Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyO (talk • contribs) 17:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)- Note account created today. -- JJay 17:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect because although it's fair to have somehting here as a likely search term, this article adds nothign to the sum of human knowledge. What's here applies to pretty much any student union at a decent-sized British university - they all have sabbatical officers and so on. This really is a non-article right now. Just zis Guy you know? 21:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article needs to be improved rather than deleted. Student unions, which all students belong to, are legally separate from the university and they are notable. If Schools are notable, the much larger student unions certainly are. When one article in a category does not yet meet the excellence criteria of the others, real efforts should be made to get others to improve it or improve it yourself, rather than just jumping to deletion. --Bduke 21:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Bduke. This isn't just a college club, it's membership is the entire 16,000 students of a medium-sized university. Green Giant 00:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There are other student associations with similar membership numbers with articles --Midnighttonight 02:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn -- Alpha269 16:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

- Note. Above account created today, participation limited to AfD. -- JJay 16:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to University of Hull page JohnRussell 04:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. per Carioca and has potential for HUU-specific information MartinMcCann 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I'd rather like to see an expansion. Also, are we sure that that name is correct? Stifle 09:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 11:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cliff Davis

Non-notable minor leaguer, not in the Pros yet, no awards, etc... Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Minor league players are not notable. Royboycrashfan 03:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 03:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. JoshuaZ 03:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Single-A pitcher with a bad arm, unlikely to ever become notable. Fan1967 03:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above (nn). Deckiller 03:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn minor leaguer. dbtfz^talk 03:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above.--Vercalos 05:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-05 05:26Z
• Delete as above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Alpha269 16:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 06:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Datasheet

Withdrawing Nomination--Vercalos 05:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Largely a collection of commercial links, with very little other information. Also, a spam magnet. Vercalos 03:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The major complaint was spam. I rmed the non-essential manufacturer links & slapped a cleanup tag on what remains. --Karnesky 03:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article now itself is fine. Tokakeke 04:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't see anything wrong with it (now). dbtfz^talk 04:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this page has had recent spam, but apart from that it contains useful information. I compiled the main list of what's in a datasheet about 6 months ago, most people would agree it contains useful information. If in doubt, lock it to an administrator. Mjm1964 04:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, fine the way it is. Royboycrashfan 04:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, looks fine. --Terence Ong 04:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Deckiller 05:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering the change in the article, should I replaces the VfD with the result as keep? Or should administrators only do it?--Vercalos 05:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: You can withdraw your nomination, and someone will close the afd. — Adrian Lamo ·· 05:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 12:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austin rhodes show

Article itself asserts that subject is not notable outside of the (small) boundaries of his hometown. FuriousFreddy 03:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 04:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Geogre's rule. Makemi 04:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.--Vercalos 05:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom/norm. Deckiller 05:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Incidentally, I've noticed that we have a whole lot of stubs on non-notable people working in the radio industry. Most of these appear to be vanity/resume posting. dbtfz^talk 08:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alpha269 16:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's notable to someone obviously, even if it is just those in the second largest city in Georgia. -- GIR 13:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 12:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frazerton Ltd

Delete small family business, article written by family member who makes unsubstantiated pov claims about minimum wages and world economy--Porturology 03:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Pure vanity. Royboycrashfan 04:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. PJM 04:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, non-notable, only has 12 employees. Makemi 04:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per above.--Vercalos 05:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. In AfD, Rush's statement "everybody has to deviate from the 'nom'" doesn't apply :) Deckiller 05:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable small business. dbtfz^talk 08:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, business which lasted 70 years and had up to 100 employees. Kappa 10:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn company, vanity. --Terence Ong 15:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Eivind 20:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, sadly, and the same will quite possibly happen to the firm itself despite the author's best efforts. I really wanted to call keep here, but I can't find anything out there about them other than directory entries. The comment about the decline of British textile manufacturing is true, but generic, and in the end I couldn't turn up anything from a reliable source to substantiate the article or to indicate historical signifcance, and it very clearly fails WP:CORP on current size and turnover. Just zis Guy you know? 21:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn -- Alpha269 16:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as copyvio, and to meet its deleted brother at Kidnapping Part 1. Just zis Guy you know? 21:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kidnapping Part 2

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Bladeswin 04:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, WP:NOR. PJM 04:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT 1.3.4 WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Royboycrashfan 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, orginal research. --Terence Ong 04:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete original research, POV. Makemi 05:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, with the suggestion that the author obtain a blog. --djrobgordon 05:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, if anyone can find Part 1, it should be AfD'd as well. Unless this is without a predecessor, a la Leonard Part 6. --djrobgordon 05:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per above... more of a magazine article than an encyclopedia article--Vercalos 05:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Deckiller 05:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Who writes these things? Oh wait, it tells me at the bottom of the page. (Oy vey!) dbtfz^talk 09:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research Where ^(talk) 14:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete original research. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• COPYVIO: this is where this came from. I've tagged and bagged it. JDoorjam Talk 16:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with or without the copyvio. Just zis Guy you know? 21:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 12:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Eyed Kids

With a low Google yield for "black eyed kids", this appears very strongly to be a neologism. Is it in some use? Yes. However, the term is not widespread by any means. Are there notable cultural uses of kids with blackened eyes (i.e., the eye itself is all black)? Sure, there are plenty of scary movies that might use that effect, but they're not referred to collectively as such in any of those films, and cataloguing them and trying to make blanket statements about them is rather original-researchy, IMHO. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDoorjam (talk • contribs)

• Delete as unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 04:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced (I'm talking about real sources here, folks) original research non-notable neologism. With annoyance. Makemi 05:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is nonsense, as it claims this is a real, rather than fictional, phenomenon. --djrobgordon 05:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep it's unverifiable unverified and/or original research ... but weak keep anyway. Could be improved. — Adrian Lamo ·· 05:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Adrian. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep interesting piece of folklore, and fairly notable as folklore goes, but could do with a cleanup and de-POVing. -- Vary | Talk 17:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment added an 'unverified' tag for the time being. -- Vary | Talk 17:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Unencyclopedic with only ghost stories as references. Green Giant 00:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I've heard about this alot, and folklore or not, it deserves an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowitallWiki (talk • contribs) 2006-03-05 18:02:07
• Delete, as not sufficiently encyclopedic. According to a page on about.com, this is a reference to one of Art Bell's stories of the paranormal. It seems to involve the evil eye, vampire mythology, and a harbinger of death with a new twist, a fear of children. If it could be expanded and improved to something like Men in Black, it may be worth keeping, but since it hasn't been improved much beyond the version of June 15 of last year, I have no reason to expect that it will get any better. Brian G. Crawford 03:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Makemi. I really doubt this could be improved. Melchoir 04:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alpha269 16:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Interesting. Not everything on Wikipedia has to be highbrow. I looked this subject up on Wikipedia precisely because I couldn't find anything elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Infinity8 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment One of the biggest problems I have with this article is that it is not written as being about a piece of longstanding folklore (which is not clear that it is), but as undeniable fact. This is perhaps worse than writing about other fictions as fact, since the reader cannot easily understand it as being about a tv show or a book. It's in entirely the wrong tone for an encyclopedia article, and I don't believe with this particular article that can be easily fixed, from where it is now. Makemi 16:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Just finished a quick-and-dirty rewrite to make it clear this is an urban legend. -- Vary | Talk 03:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This article is referenced on http://www.abovetopsecret.com, a high-trafficking conspiracy news forum. --User:Carie 16:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[
• STRONG Keep, this is a notable phenomena that was reported on the reputable About.com paranormal directory. There may not be many sightings but it is nonetheless relevant and has been in the public eye, including reported in the media - seeing as this phenomena was experienced by a Texan journalist. It has also been reported in Above Top Secret and Snopes - to delete this would be wrong and silly. Piecraft 03:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I noticed many people speculating that this is indeed not fact but folklore - however from the various different sources and experiences it is as "factual" as any other paranormal phenomenon i.e. Chupacabras and Ghosts. Therefore it is not only part of folklore and legend but a rather recent form of paranormal phenomena which should be taken into account. Regardless whether you believe in it or not that is not what is up for debate. It is definitely verifiable as someone earlier stated Art Bell and the other sites mentioned. Piecraft 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Redirected to Bogside. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bogside

The few scant details are all in the article Battle of the Bogside though I added the dates. There is also an article Bogside related to this topic, so no need for this page. ww2censor 05:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, but needs expansion and details. For example, the primary forces involved in the conflict, the war this battle was part of, etc.--Vercalos 05:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• A redirect to Battle of the Bogside or Bogside. PJM 05:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Why bother to expand this stub when there is already a great start to the topic mentioned here even though the page does not use the title of the topic but of the title of the area where the Battle of the Bogside took place? Besides which the term Bogside refers to an area of Derry and not to the Battle of the Bogside. I suggest you check the other two pages out first because this is quite clearly duplication. If you really want to keep this page, then we should move Bogside to here, making it a redirect page and this the main article detailing the district and not the battle. ww2censor 05:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bogside. Capitalistroadster 06:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bogside rather than Battle of the Bogside. Although I think the redirect should actually be from Bogside to The Bogside as the latter is always the way it's referenced. Dlyons493 Talk 12:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per Ww2censor Vercalos. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect empty content fork to Battle of the Bogside. Expansion makes no sense. Melchoir 04:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect Agree with Melchoir -- Alpha269 16:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Bogside. Stifle 09:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Stargate (device). -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy vortex (stargate)

A very rarely used or spoken-of term for the "kawoosh" which is covered plentifully in many many other Stargate articles, particularly Stargate (device)  Alfakim --  talk  05:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Uncyclopedic at best.--Vercalos 05:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I just want to say that Stargate is very encyclopedic. We have a whole portal for it. It's one of the top 100 shows on TV. In fact, sevral Stargate articles may become FAs soon and Stargate SG-1 is on the good articles list. The whole reason this is up for deletion is because it's a nickname for something we already have. Tobyk777 07:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into a term list if notable. Deckiller 05:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Stargate (device) This is notable. It's just an alternate name for part of the stargate's function, which we already have a massive article about. Tobyk777 07:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be worth a redirect if any other page actually linked to it; but none do. -- Alfakim --  talk  07:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Stargate (device) per previous reasoning on AfD for Chevron (Stargate); SG-1 is notable; Stargates are a notable thing in SG-1 and sufficiently notable; components of stargates or features of the way they work, aren't sufficiently notable to go to a third tier. Georgewilliamherbert 08:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Stargate (device) per above. -- Saberwyn 10:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No need to merge, the kawoosh is already well covered in the Gate article. -- Saberwyn 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above... some more. Melchoir 04:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. -- Alpha269 16:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Dan, the CowMan 03:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, as the nomination is incorrect; this is not original research, and a name change is more properly a topic for the talk page. In the future, you can check in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics if you believe an article may be original research but aren't sure. SCZenz 06:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond the Standard Model

Appears to be original research, and in any case the article name is faulty. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't pretend to know what the heck this article is about, but if it's not original research, then the tone needs to be changed from that of an instructional manual to something more encyclopedic. --djrobgordon 08:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep For now, I suggest keep; it's got some summaries of stuff I have seen elsewhere in depth in physics literature, and is a good overview for aspects of the problems with the standard model. I think it appears to be straddling the line out towards original research, but isn't clearly over it. It clearly needs references, some cleanup, and to be made more encyclopedic in sections. But those are cleanups, not AfD justification. AfD is not a substitute for cleanup tags. Georgewilliamherbert 08:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Georgewilliamherbert. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per my assumption that GWH knows what he's talking about :) . — Adrian Lamo ·· 19:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is certainly not original research! It is a summary of well known ideas about physics beyond the standard model. There is also nothing faulty about the article name at all. It is good to see professional physicists taking the time to write articles here at wikipedia. We don't need to boot them out by removing their articles here. This article fits well into the category of articles on fundamental physics here in wikipedia. An article of this sort was actually needed. It's a bit technical, but this article will be linked from articles about the standard model, supersymmetry etc. to give the motivatons for physics beyond the standard model. Count Iblis 00:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No original research (but should include some references). Could very well grow into a nice article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The tone implies original research, but it most definitely is not. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This isn't my field, so I don't pretend to understand the article in detail but I think it's a sincere attempt which just needs some editing to make it more encyclopedic. Alison Chaiken 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — The text part looks legit to me and covers several issues I read recently. I can't begin to know whether the formulae are accurate or even representative. Hopefully they will be clarified at some point. :-) — RJH 04:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, and let me additionally note that that the article title is perfectly appropriate. "Physics beyond the Standard Model" is an extremely common phrase, for which Google estimates 241,000 hits. Melchoir 04:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the title be "Physics beyond the standard model" (notice case as well)? --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Standard Model is usually (perhaps even always) capitalized in physics, as it refers to a specific model. Adding "physics" to the title is fine with me. If the "beyond …" is considered to be too unencyclopedic, perhaps we can use Extensions of the Standard Model? But I'd prefer to have somebody who really understands this stuff to choose the title (that is, not me). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Physics beyond the Standard Model actually sounds more professional. I think "beyond" is just as encyclopedic as "Standard"; the word is entrenched in modern usage. Melchoir 05:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per all above. Needs cleanup, but valuable. Karol 15:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is not original research. In fact, everything in this article is fairly well known in the community. And "Beyond the Standard Model" is the standard name for it. I am writing this article because it had been in the request page for quite some time and no one else had created this article. QFT 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 22:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arcana Jayne

del nonnotable webcomic. Only 119 unique google hits. mikka (t) 05:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Less notable webcomics have remained here.--Vercalos 05:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Very Week Keep 119 google hits is actually pretty good for a webcomic if I recall, but I'm not a comic expert. Deckiller 05:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, because nomination misunderstands the concept of unique google hits. — Adrian Lamo ·· 05:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes I understand. mikka (t) 07:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't mean to be difficult, but I'm not sure you do. "unique" Google hits are a nebulous concept, and of little to no value in judging the notability of a given topic much of the time. While very low or very high numbers might be meaningful, midrange numbers just don't tell you much. They absolutely don't mean that all results other than that number are duplicates or repeats. Anyway, I'm sorry if my original reply was terse, but nominations based on "unique" Google hits are one of my pet peeves :) I hope this clarifies my position. — Adrian Lamo ·· 08:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  For an "internet phenomenon", 119 is way below "midrange". My son's personal website has more google hits than that. mikka (t) 10:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  Are you mixing/matching Google hits / "unique" Google hits? — Adrian Lamo ·· 09:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Nontrivial publishing. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If you so want to keep it, please provide reputable 3-rd party references, as well as evidence of notability. Website itself and blogs do not count, as you know. mikka (t) 09:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It was one of the early Girlamatic comics, and is still being published there. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 10:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Are the number of Google hits the only way to ascertain notability? There may be no Google hits for several notable things. We do not have google hits for all the Chief Ministers (past and the present) of Indian states and all the Vice Chancellors (past and the present) of all the Indian universities. Are they not notable? However, as I am aware of the nominator’s experience in such issues, I am voting a Delete. --Bhadani 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 15:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable. Not everything's notability can be determined by Google hits, but something that exists only on the Internet really can reasonably be judged by them. Angr/talk 09:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Adashiel. Kappa 09:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Angr. Stifle 09:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with Odyssey (Magic: The Gathering). Angr/talk 12:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychatog

Single Magic: The Gathering card. Single cards aren't notable enough for Wikipedia (though the most famous nine cards from Magic are notable enough for their own single page).

• Delete per above. -- Grev 05:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge Either delete it, or merge it into another article for MTG cards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vercalos (talk • contribs)
• Delete/merge per above user. Deckiller 05:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, all necessary information is already in Odyssey (Magic: The Gathering) --Cornflake pirate 06:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In which case redirect to the card series. When articles for cards 'notable' enough to be mentioned in the series article have been created in the past, we have redirected to that series. From there, the external link provides all the information on the card required. -- Saberwyn 10:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete already in main article, or just redirect.--MONGO 10:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Odyssey (Magic: The Gathering); the latter article and its external link do not provide the same depth of coverage. Melchoir 04:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This article consists of the stats for the card (which I'm pretty sure is copyright to Wizards), a few unsourced claims "(widely recognised as one of the best...", "inspired many..."), and a whole series of external links to what the article's composer think are cool cards to have in the same deck as this. Are we going to copy and rebuild the WOTC online Magic Card database on Wikipedia, diversified out with a little fan speculation and some material coped from copyright articles on the WOTC website? With thousands (close to ten thousand) of cards printed since the game start in 1992, you better start composing those article now. -- Saberwyn 09:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete Per above -- Alpha269 16:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not a valid vote. A merge must be followed by a redirect, in order to preserve contributor history for the GFDL. Please choose another vote. Stifle 09:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep or merge, looks like an interesting card. Kappa 09:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Odyssey (Magic: The Gathering), per precedent on AFD. Stifle 09:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasspeedy deleted NSLE _(T+C) at 06:03 UTC (2006-03-05)

[edit] Big 1-0

Non-notable neologism; WP:NOT a slang dictionary. --Alan Au 05:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Tried to prod it, but tag was removed so it's relisted here. --Alan Au 05:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-admins, please just do it now. I feel so terrible for having to even vote on this. NorseOdin 05:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and mention in on a page that mentions euphemism. I've heard this one before--Vercalos 05:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete tagged {{db-empty}}, close enough for gov't work (and wikipedia) . — Adrian Lamo ·· 05:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Userfy — Adrian Lamo ·· 19:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kiruththikan Senthilnathan (Kiru)

user probably meant to create a user page but created an article instead Rklawton 05:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or move to proper location(to userpage), and delete subsequent redirect.--Vercalos 05:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like vanity to me. As an aside, I question the literary talents of anyone with the email address "deathking69" --djrobgordon 08:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Userfied & tagged redirect for deletion. — Adrian Lamo ·· 10:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 12:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verma v.s. brewer

An obvious hoax, no ghits for case, someone created fake ACLU article earlier about lawyer, also no ghits. Delete Oh, right, prodded, de-prodded. Makemi 05:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete either a hoax or a recounting of something that happened to the editor. --djrobgordon 08:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. — Adrian Lamo ·· 10:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. -- Vary | Talk 17:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, not verifiable. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 00:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: User:Llbag51289 took the liberty of changing the above delete votes to keeps. [1] No need for me to pile on here, this nonsense will be deleted in due time. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable -- Alpha269 16:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this guy is putting up a whole bunch of hoax/joke articles. He already has a bunch of vandalism warnings; a few more of these BS articles and I'm putting him on WP:AIV. Daniel Case 05:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax Wangfoo 20:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 12:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willy_Wumpacheeks

This article is trivial and its entire content is already in its 'parent article', Crash Tag Team Racing Cornflake pirate 06:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no merge required. --Cornflake pirate 06:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom --djrobgordon 08:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 17:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alpha269 16:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This appears to be one of a series of articles with their own category Category:Crash Bandicoot characters. It would seen unbalanced to delete just one of them. Either the entire series should be deleted, or this one left alone. Or am I missing something here? SilkTork 12:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 13:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ah beng vs bangla

• Delete borders on nonsense. prod applied and removed without reason--Porturology 06:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete of no encyclopedic value. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Porturology. -- Vary | Talk 17:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 15:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alpha269 16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 09:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gflores ^Talk 18:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. The creator is clearly being playful. SilkTork 12:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 short article with little or no context. Capitalistroadster 06:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kickapoo rock festival

Attempted to prod, but tag was removed. No assertion of notability, fails Google test with only 1 hit. --Alan Au 06:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. I also protected the page from re-creation since this was the fourth time it had to be deleted. Angr/talk 13:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Footnote: I removed the {{deletedpage}} tag, as there are valid incoming links to Alex White (for a British musician). I don't predict recreation of deleted content will be a major problem, but I'll keep an eye on it for a while just in case. — sjorford (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex White

not notable / unremarkable person. Nominated by User:Theusualsuspect. (2nd Nom, result of first was speedy delete) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn--Vercalos 06:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable--A Y Arktos 06:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete student politician and former political staffer. May well be notable according to WP:BIO one day but not yet. Capitalistroadster 06:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of list of Australia-related deletions. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: probable vanity --djrobgordon 08:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I wrote this article, but if student politicians are not be included generally, that's fine Presumably this includes Scott Crawford and Julian Barendse. DarrenRay 08:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yep. Both have been AFD listed. --kingboyk 02:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Not noteable student politician Kyle sb 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Alpha269 16:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - student union advertising of a nobody.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete thoroughly nn. --kingboyk 02:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 13:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Crawford

DELETE - nnTheusualsuspect 06:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of list of Australia-related deletions. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable--A Y Arktos 06:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn bio. Harro5 06:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Alan Au 06:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Student politician and staffer. His one claim to notability was that he was President of the Melbourne University Student Union when it went bellyup. This is covered in the article. Capitalistroadster 06:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect -- and merge anything useful into Melbourne University Student Union. - Longhair 07:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable. Yet. DarrenRay 08:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Ought not Julian Barendse be deleted also? DarrenRay 09:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• There was a VfD vote last June, which resulted in a keep vote. Now the VSU bill has passed, it might be time to review this, but Barendse seems to be far more notable than Crawford. It's not just about what position you hold, it's about what you do in office. Crawford didn't do anything worth noting on Wikipedia; Barendse shaped a major debate. Harro5 09:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• And I certainly don't fault him for doing so but I'm not sure how he's any more notable than Crawford who seemed to get more press. I think they both ought to be deleted until they get into Parliament or something. DarrenRay 15:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 15:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-bio -- Alpha269 16:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn studentunion-vanity-cruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 05:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn --kingboyk 02:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. -- Ian ≡ talk 05:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 13:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe kamensky

Unable to find either Joe kamensky or the Allegheny Meat Fest. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, unverifiable, possible hoax. — Adrian Lamo ·· 07:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom joshbuddy^talk 09:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 17:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alpha269 16:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 13:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faith Community Church

Delete: vanity, no real content Cantara 06:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Church advertising. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete churchscruft.--Vercalos 06:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'd call it spam if they'd thought to include an external link. --djrobgordon 08:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's a biased article with no real content Kyle sb 09:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Judge not, lest ye be judged! Ewlyahoocom 10:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-church. --Terence Ong 15:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious delete. Grandmasterka 18:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Alpha269 16:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 13:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tibshelf services

Ip removed prod without expansion or reason. Prod reason was: "Non-notable mall. Not encyclopedic." Delete -- Perfecto 07:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't claim notability, not encyclopedic in tone --djrobgordon 08:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per djrobgordon Melchoir 05:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn -- Alpha269 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. There is a huge interest in roads, motorways and service stations in Great Britain and several organisations, publications and internet sites related to them. It is not my particular area of interest, but I am very aware of it. This article should be allowed to grow. A quick Google throws up several internet motorway services sites which mention Tibshelf. I think people should be responsible for doing minimal research before voting to delete an article. SilkTork 13:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with Horror punk. Angr/talk 13:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horror Hardcore

This article is pure neologism, the creator has tried this before with "Gothcore" which was deleted. - Deathrocker 07:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the term is real, although its 643 Google hits don't prove it to be widely used. Rather than an actual genre, it seems to be a neologism used by fans searching for a word to describe music that shares aspects of Horror punk and Hardcore punk. I'd hate to start a precedent of including every conceivable fusion genre, lest Wikipedia fills with articles with titles like "rebetika-rap" and "klezmer-rockabilly." --djrobgordon 08:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. What Deathrocker says is true, this is yet another article in a series of of make-believe genres by the same user, all of which have been deleted. Ley Shade 08:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete rm -Rf music_genres/*core - well, most of them, anyway --Obli (Talk)^? 14:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into horror punk if it's important enough, then just have this article redirect to horror punk. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Merge any unique content, delete this article. -- Alpha269 16:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. Keep it, it is a valid genre, and includes the subject of the "horror" themed heavy metal and thrash bands. If not, Merge into Horror Punk, but it wouldn't be able to explain the crossovers into Horror Metal.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 13:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skull Baby (band)

Self promo/vanity, it would seem as though this article has been started purely to sell CDs through CDBaby.com.. - Deathrocker 07:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC --lightdarkness ^(talk) 07:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I just listed this as a copyright violation, as it appears to be a direct copy of content from [2]. --djrobgordon 08:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as copyvio. --Rory096 04:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above -- Alpha269 16:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 01:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 13:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HexIt

Prod removed. I still think it's non-notable software. Delete -- Perfecto 07:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: Many other software titles share this name.

• Delete - Download doesn't have a domain, just an IP address, thus no alexa data. Google searches result in a Hexadecimal calculator, and not to the software in the article. Delete per nom. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 07:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a junkyard. Ardenn 07:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn 71.248.205.50 14:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn -- Alpha269 16:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The author's site is still up at http://mklasson.com/hexit.php or http://81.233.34.242/hexit.php . It appears they have a dynamic dns host that isn't keeping the domain name in the URL. Also per this article's discussion page 'Please rather improve article, instead of delete it. HexIt is available now as freeware, but formerly it was shareware.' Google searches for 'hexit editor' find the program (700+ hits). I think the article is useful and ought to remain. --Kaze0010 19:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It meets these Notability reasons for not deleting: "Valid content is deleted", "Obscure content isn't harmful", and "Deletion reform is necessary". Google Groups has evidence the program has been around since at least 1996. I have also edited the article to improve it. --Kaze0010 22:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, list of features reads like a muted ad for the software. If this is deleted, would the closing admin tag the image as {{or-fu}}? Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Lightdarkness. Stifle 09:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lightdarkness. Almost all Googles for the word HexIt are unrelated, the tool itself is almost impossible to find among the more notable alternative uses of the name. Just zis Guy you know? 13:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A search for "Mikael Klasson HexIt" returns enough results to show that this item is being talked about on a variety of websites, so it is verifiable. Download.com shows nearly 10,000 downloads in just over 6 months, so this is a piece of software that people are finding useful. This is not nonsense. This is software that people are using and talking about, and is growing in importance. Not notable is not a valid argument. And there is enough information there already to show it has scope for being encyclopedic. This is not a valid deletion proposal. SilkTork 13:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooops! - I just caught Perfecto's note that other software share the same name as I was about to surf away. My search may then have returned invalid results? SilkTork 13:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ardenn 20:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Party of Nova Scotia

A group that is having their first meeting this weekend. No media coverage = fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Mailing list has 27 members. Delete-- Perfecto 07:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per Ty89. --Perfecto 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable, borderline crystal ball. --djrobgordon 08:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Mentioned [3]. Appears to be a break away group from the national party. They will be in the next provincial elections. joshbuddy^talk 09:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What you cited confirms that it is crystal-ball. --Perfecto 10:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's “crystal–ball” to say they’ll be running candidates. It is not crystal–ball to say that they are a political party. —GrantNeufeld 10:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Given that they will be standing candidates and have held a convention, that gets them over the line. Capitalistroadster 23:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A newly formed Provincial Political Party that will be running candidates in the next election. Coverage by CBC News, CTV Television and the Chronical Herald. CBC Radio and The Daily News covered the second day of the convention.

See: http://www.cbc.ca/ns/story/ns-green20060215.html and: http://www.herald.ns.ca/Search/488087.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ty89 (talk • contribs)

• Keep per Ty89. Ardenn 01:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It’s an active (even though very newly so) political party. —GrantNeufeld 10:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Green party is an active federal political party that ran a candidate in every riding in the last election. User:heyjohngreen March 6th.
• Keep - newly founded party affiliated with a relatively successful national movement. - Jord 19:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- JamesTeterenko 21:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Osymyso (nothing to merge because all relevant info already there). Angr/talk 14:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro-Inspection

If you say this is verifiable only because of half-a-line in the New York Times that doesn't even say the song's title (See this link), then I still say this fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Delete -- Perfecto 08:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge I could be convinced that this belongs on Osymyoso, but the song certainly doesn't need its own page. --djrobgordon 08:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Songs don't need their own articles -- Alpha269 16:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now. If the article on Osymyso himself gets fleshed out enough, the page could be moved to List of songs used in Intro-Inspection, but, even as I type that, it seems less useful than it is now. --Flatluigi 03:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Create an Osymyso page and merge it into there.-PlasmaDragon 17:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I was bold and just did that myself.-PlasmaDragon 18:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 14:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candidates for the 54th United Kingdom Parliament

This article has no precedent for earlier elections, but more importantly there are more convienient ways for this information to be collated. The existing election "main page" and Constituencies in the next UK general election article bring together the information attempted to be listed here. This list is nowhere near complete, and seems unlikey to be adequately completed without massive duplication of information on individual constituency pages. Delete on the grounds of listing information which can be adequately covered on existing articles. doktorb | words 08:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep on the condition that the chart gets filled out. This is no less valid than the lists on United States presidential election, 2008, and I can see how having this information in one place, rather than scattered across various articles, could be useful. --djrobgordon 08:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I agree but the UK system means, in over 600 constituencies, over 3,300 candidates from an array of parties. This table has never been attempted before and I wonder if it the potential for duplication and inaccurate information means it would be acutally easier to keep the information in the current articles rather than this. I am interested in any clean up suggestions people may have... doktorb | words 09:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm admitedly ignorant to UK electoral process, and would welcome suggestion from anyone more familiar. Perhaps there's a way to divide this regionally. An Americentric example would be having separate pages for House of Representatives candidates from each state. --djrobgordon 17:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly possible. It could be done by region, for instance, like the Templates for constituencies are. David | Talk 10:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. You could possibly have it organised on the grounds of Government Office Regions for England and for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as constituencies. Perhaps this would be better discussed over at the UK Noticeboard as well as the noticeboards for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Welsh noticeboards rather than here for the moment. We will have plenty of time before it becomes a concern. Capitalistroadster 02:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. To include every candidate and every party would make this table enormous and sprawling. This information is much more useful on a per-constituency basis, and pages for each constituency already exist on WP. Qwghlm 10:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs good maintenance but it is encyclopaedic. I have at home a publication which included prospective candidates (as they were called then) from 1971 for the 1974 general election. David | Talk 10:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, cruft. -- Alpha269 16:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • User's first edit was today and has done nothing but add their opinions to AfDs. David | Talk 21:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep assuming someone adds info to it, renominate if that doesn't happen within a reasonable time. Kappa 09:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because it will become original research, if it isn't already, and I strongly doubt that necessary updates will be performed. Stifle 09:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk

[edit] Aspire Auctions, Inc.

Subject of only one media article. Fails WP:CORP. There are hundreds of auction sites around. Delete -- Perfecto 08:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Almost everything said about this site could be said of any auction site. Future generations will not miss out if this article is deleted. — Adrian Lamo ·· 10:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless article creator provides evidence of article meeting WP:CORP (e.g., sales, # of customers). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 17:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Alpha269 16:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 14:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article purity

I find very little instances of this terminology to mean as such. Unless it means "purity of an article", which we don't need an encyclopedia or dictionary for! Delete -- Perfecto 08:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Useless article Kyle sb 09:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, useless. --Terence Ong 15:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear to be a notable concept. dbtfz^talk 19:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above. -- Alpha269 16:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk

[edit] alt.fan.nb

Delete nn news site with alexa ranking>200,000 and article is full of the usual cruft and in jokes. Was prod but unproded. Current main topic is how to prevent deletion. Prepare to repel sock-puppets--Porturology 09:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: How did you derive an Alexa ranking for something that's not a Web site? : ) — Adrian Lamo ·· 10:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • ranking for www.alt-news.net/alt.fan.nb--Porturology 11:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi. I'm sorry to be difficult, but that's only the Alexa ranking for a news aggregator site. The actual newsgroup cannot be ranked via Alexa. Usenet is not a Web-based service :) — Adrian Lamo ·· 19:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We seem to have many articles on these newsgroups at category:newsgroups so I see no reason to remove this one. -- JJay 19:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The difference between those newsgroups and this one is analogous to the difference between Something Awful and Joe's Off-Topic Discussion Forum. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Uh, thanks, but I have no idea what you meant. -- JJay 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Those are widely-discussed and/or historically important newsgroups. This one isn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This seems to be Yet Another Topicless Not-Particularly-Popular Forum. Forum vanity is forum vanity, be it Usenet or webforum. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete according to WP:WEB. There is no evidence presented of verifiable third party coverage for this newsgroup. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per A Man In Bl?ck -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above, nn -- Alpha269 16:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

- Note. Above account created today, participation limited to AfD. -- JJay 16:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, webcruft. Ned Wilbury 15:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, webcruft incog 21:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Payasam. Nothing to merge since there is no encyclopedic content. Angr/talk 14:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Payasa, MungDalKheer

recipes, unsuitable for Wikipedia per WP:NOT. Delete, or possibly move to Wikibooks Oldelpaso 09:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT joshbuddy^talk 09:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand (a lot). Obviously a recipe is unencyclopaedic, but we should have information on foods. --Rory096 04:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge both the articles into a much better written and older article, Payasam. --Gurubrahma 16:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Agree with Gurubrahma -- Alpha269 16:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks. utcursch | talk 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 14:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wholesale meat music

Vanity/advertisement for record label. Gets 36 Google hits. Punkmorten 09:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Note: User:Scottykav removed this entry from the afd log page and also vandalized the nominator's user page. — Mar. 5, '06 [10:49] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Delete as vanity, creator hangs himself pretty effectively on the vandalized userpage.Bjones 16:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Bjones. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 20:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete smells like advertising warpozio 08:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn -- Alpha269 17:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete This is just an indie label and just want to get out the work about Wholesale Meat Music. You should check out there quite proffesional web page WholesaleMeatMusic.com I say keep the article. Give it some respect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.68.210.149 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete per WP:VSCA and so on. Stifle 09:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 00:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny

Deleted here, redirected to Neil Cicierega at The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny and elsewhere, redirect endorsed by WP:DRV, but the article is back again. Maybe it's notable by now (after three months "out there") but maybe it's not. Either way this seems to me to need an AfD decision to avoid being speedied as a re-creation of previously deleted content. My personal view is that individual Flash movies are not notable except in extraordinary circumstances, but there you go. I'm also just the teensiest bit fed up with content being endlessly re-created until eventually it gets kept; for some reason this content is almost always related to some internet fad or aparent neologism. Yet more proof, in my mind, that we should not even try to document anything until at least a year after it happens, to allow a proper perspective to develop. Just zis Guy you know? 09:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep definitely notable, it has been mentioned in different venues and was the number one video (and is still high on the list) on Newgrounds. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 09:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, unless convincing links to mentions in notable outside sources are provided. Sandstein 10:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, very notable. Unless articles like Mahir Cagri, All Your Base and Badger Badger Badger are also going away, articles on internet phenomena are valid. Iceberg3k 14:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable song and animation. --Billpg 16:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Quite notable by now. If it is to be deleted, though, then I would suggest reinstating the Lemon Demon article (which is currently a redirect to Neil Cicierega) and having this material be a section thereof. --AdamAtlas 22:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Iceberk3k. --Rory096 04:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep.Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk) Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 06:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Internet Fad. --Mmx1 06:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. How is that a valid reason for deletion? --Rory096 19:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Just zis Guy you know? 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notable song, animation, and is well known. JONJONAUG 19:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I believe that it should stay on because of it's impact. It is well known online, hence it should keep its article. --Shaoken 06:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This user has 5 other edits. --Rory096 00:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User has been editing 10 days before this AfD was called. --Billpg 19:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This item is not really worth mentioning as of yet. --Chris Buckey 10:04, 7 March (GMT)

• Keep This item is definitely a notable flash cartoon and song on the internet, the lyrics are well-known, as well as the response to the song. Still at the top of Newgrounds Top 50 Flash Cartoons. --User: Matt Neuteboom 9:26, 6 March (EST)
  • Note: User has 26 edits on 7 pages including this one. --Rory096 00:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User has been editing 26 days before this AfD was called. --Billpg 19:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep "more than one million" views on Newgrounds, 640 000 views on Weebl's Stuff, #7 on Newgrounds Top 50. Big following. 96T 14:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And as for reliable sources, per WP:RS? Just zis Guy you know? 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oxymoron :-) Just zis Guy you know? 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Noteable song, noteable flash animation - the article just needs a lot of help.--Naha|^(talk) 07:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep exactly what Naha^^ said Jakemcmahon 18:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Anyone who can achive this much internet fandom deserves noteriety and is therefore noteworthy Vcelloho 21:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• That's why we have an article on him. But that does not make every single thing he does independently notable. Just zis Guy you know? 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge somehow to Neil Cicierega, keep as much as possible. The guy is way talented, I imagine that one day TUSOUD will be viewed as his vanguard work, and then we might have an article on the various critical deconstructions of it. Or not... KWH 07:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 15:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Factory Network

Non-notable fansite, seems to fail WP:WEB badly. Was prodded before, but got unprodded by an anon after two days.

• Delete. --Aquillion 09:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Delete I see many independant mentions of this website in a google search. joshbuddy^talk 10:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• That seems to be because their forum has a lot of subpages. If you count the number of unique Google hits, it only comes to an unimpressive 74, which still includes many subpages of their domain. --Aquillion 10:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. joshbuddy^talk 10:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails to establish notability per WP:WEB as far as I'm concerned. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per no Alexa rank to speak of. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alpha269 17:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 10:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monocan

Hoax or patent nonsense, I originally tagged this as speedy under CSD G1, tag was removed by author. On reflection its borderline whether or not its a speedy, so listed here. Delete Oldelpaso 09:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Cupid. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cupid's bow

This page just repeats what’s already in the Cupid article. Philip Stevens 10:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Cupid joshbuddy^talk 10:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per Joshbuddy _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Joshbuddy. Ewlyahoocom 10:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Redirected per above. — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 15:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denzil's Online Comic

{{prod}} removed without reason, so bringing this here. Article on a web comic designed in MS Paint of which a massive 26 have been released on the website. Other than the phrase "the very noteable comic", no assertion of notability is given. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• delete 26 comics and ~700 google hits isn't notable. Henrik 11:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Does it matter what its made in? Is an artist who uses a single brush any worse than one who uses 20 different types? 26 comics have been released, one a week, and there are plenty more to come. Sure I could release another 15 now, but the whole "1 comic a week" system would break down don't you think? Everything starts somewhere. LoudHoward 11:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment You're right, it doesn't matter. However, this AfD isn't an attack on your comic, it simply means that it may not suitable for inclusion in wikipedia yet, as it may be too new and/or have too few readers. Henrik 11:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment DOC is a read no one should go without that weekly hit of fun is what makes me count down how many hours are left in the week Denzil is very prompt and all the comics come out on time. LONG LIVE DOC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.173.142.161 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete Clearly does not meet WP:WEB. No Alexa rank for either page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vslashg (talk • contribs)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Vanispamcruftisement, lack of reliable sources, doesn't meet WP:WEB, borders on nonsense. "[T]he comic never fails to amuse and while sometimes critics argue the comic isn't funny on any level ..." -- Dragonfiend 18:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:WEB. Bad ideas 19:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable webcomic, less than 250 Google hits, no Alexa rank. And I figure that a web comics artist who can't draw better than I can isn't going to be very popular. JIP | Talk 09:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I figure a guy who needs to have his name in different colours isn't going to be very popular, or smart for that matter. LONG LIVE DOC! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoudHoward (talk • contribs)
  • Comment This looks more like a personal attack on the actual website itself as opposed to discussion on the Wikipedia article. Hny
    • Response: On second thought, maybe it does. Comment struck out. JIP | Talk 15:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment ... LONG LIVE DOC! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LoudHoward (talk • contribs) .
  • Explanation: I am really bad at drawing. I suck at drawing anything more complicated than stick figures. The majority of web comics artists can draw better than me. I do not know for certain whether this comic's author really draws like that or just pretends to. JIP | Talk 12:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well I have difficulties drawing perfect circles and straight lines Sish
• Delete nn per above. -- Alpha269 17:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I find it quite interesting in knowing the origins of the notable DOC comic. This page should definitely stay. -- Chris

Vote added by 211.26.126.147 [4] not Chris. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Well, I think its pretty good too. I have nothing against it at all. -- LH

Vote added by LoudHoward [5] not LH. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, I've made a few comments above but I'm voting now, I think with some of the pages on kids' art and such shows that this page should not be rulled out simply because of the artistic style, I also think that given some other webcomics which are in a similar vein this page deserves a place in wikipedia. -- Hny

User's only edits have been to this article and it's associated image, talk page, and this AfD. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment The issue here isn't the quality of the comic. What matters is whether or not it is notable, based on the WP:WEB. My vote is unchanged. Bad ideas 00:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albion High School

This a disambiguation page for two pages that don't exist. Further, it is an orphaned page. I say that it should be deleted, and should the need for a disambiguation page ever arise, it can then be reinstated. -Fermion 10:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. No need to disambiguate between pages which don't yet exist. Can be recreated if there's a future need. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per UkPaolo
• Keep. Disambiguation pages such as this do no harm, with or without red links. Some new blue-ish links have been added. Silensor 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — RJH 04:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now with two blue links, although I agree with the original nom. Melchoir 05:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have no problem with disambig pages that contain only red links, as long as all the red links are notable. They can serve to distinguish between redlinks in external articles, and simplify future architecture. -Colin Kimbrell 16:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There now exist blue links. Red-linked dabs aren't a huge problem, anyway; they simply encourage further expansion. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as nomination no longer applies. Pepsidrinka 20:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wow the need arose pretty quickly. Who knew there were three Albion High Schools? -- JJay 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now there are blue links. Also note that there should not be many inbound links to disambiguation pages. Thryduulf 11:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rebelguys2 Gflores ^Talk 18:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no good reason to delete Inventm 02:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Is it possible to go back on my nomination for deletion? Now that there are the two pages that it links to, and a third on the way, I also think it is no longer needed to delete the page. Thanks, -Fermion 05:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 15:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyler Lewis

{{prod}} removed without explanation, so bringing this here. Seemingly a non notable musician, but I guess listing films starred in etc is an attempt to establish notability, and thus this isn't speediable. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn bio. joshbuddy^talk 10:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn bio. dbtfz^talk 19:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The films in question don't seem to have ever been released commercially, or at least not with a major distributor. No listing on IMDB. -Colin Kimbrell 16:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn bio -- Alpha269 17:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 15:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The physical tv company

Non-notable dance company. -- Longhair 10:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair 10:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn, article fails to establish notability of subject.--MONGO 10:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• I would have speedily deleted this myself. --Roisterer 11:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It also looks like the subject or a representative may have posted this article to begin with. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There are two mentions of this company in the Australian media namely writing the soundtrack for Thursday's Fictions and participation in a seminar at Viva La Gong in Wollongong. They don't seem to be sufficiently notable as yet. Capitalistroadster 02:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Alpha269 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)"
• Delete as nn. -- Ian ≡ talk 05:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn --Mane 06:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and protect from re-creation. Angr/talk 15:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperwind

I'm probably the last person who should be consulted on Russian music but here goes. This has been deleted four times, the last time by me, but the author strongly objects. He has brought in new evidence of his notability, that he is "included in St. Petersburg's trance & ambients artists' registry http://psytrance.spb.ru/music " although I'm not quite sure what that means or suggests. The article at this point seems to suggest that the subject is not a public figure. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 11:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Sandstein 13:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC as well; there's also a DRV on it, but that's another axe to grind.  RasputinAXP  c 15:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --HappyCamper 23:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• looks fine to me, keep Axiomm 07:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: User has eight edits, and has twice tampered with voting on RFA.[6] [7]. -Colin Kimbrell 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• seems reliable, I studied links, keep Dircon 08:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: User's first edit. -Colin Kimbrell 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for failing WP:MUSIC. -Colin Kimbrell 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Alpha269 17:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete, then {{deletedpage}}. Stifle 15:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 14:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cherubs

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. --CrypticBacon 11:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 11:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Sandstein 13:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above -- Alpha269 17:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC Dan, the CowMan 03:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 15:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exulcerate

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. --CrypticBacon 11:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Sandstein 13:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. Melchoir 05:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Alpha269 17:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC Dan, the CowMan 03:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 15:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remnants of a Cannibalistic Debauchery

Non-notable album by a non-notable band. --CrypticBacon 11:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Sandstein 13:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. Melchoir 05:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Alpha269 17:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC Dan, the CowMan 03:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 15:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Askew

Original {{prod}} removed without explanation. The original prod was {{prod|non-notable podcast, only 32 unique Google hits, not affiliated with View Askew}} Royal Blue 11:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC, sigh. Sandstein 13:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, as a podcast, WP:MUSIC is not the criteria to use; WP:WEB is. —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above and because author has removed delete tag--Porturology 17:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. (AfD tag restored to article and message sent to deleting editor's talk page.) —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. You might keep it on your watchlist, because I just restored the AfD tag again. NickelShoe 19:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Plea for keeping article*

-The reviews on iTunes give the Podcast 5 out of 5 stars

-Although not directly affiliated with View Askew, Kevin Smith has acknowledged, approved, talked about, and appeared on Radio Askew

-This is by far the biggest, most devoted View Askew fan project ever

-I brought the deletion of this Wiki up on the official View Askew Message board [8] and several other fans were willing to search for 'Radio Askew' on Google for no other reason than to keep this Wiki alive.

-The fanbase for this Podcast is huge, because they share the View Askew fanbase, and the number of listeners increases nearly every single week —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TylerMertens (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC).

• Comment: I added the above attribution but made no other edits to the above "plea". —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The reviews on the iTunes Music Store don't count for anything, since they're user reviews...except for the fact that it's on iTMS! Does this make it "distributed by an outside source", and thus notable per WP:WEB? —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable under criteria #3 of WP:WEB, because it is distributed by the iTunes Music Store. (As soon as I can figure out how to link in, I'll add this as an external links.) Secondarily notable because it carried an audio scene from Clerks II: this escalates it, IMHO, from being just another fan blog to something with official standing. —C.Fred (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per C.Fred, and thanks doing some work! NickelShoe 04:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per C.Fred, assuming this user knows what he/she is talking about. Kappa 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 15:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The gosh guys

Nominating as not notable per WP:MUSIC. I think this is supposed to be a parody cover band. A Google search doesn't turn up much. --CrypticBacon 11:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC. It's maybe just me, but if I can copy-paste this exact statement six times in a row on AfD, something is rotten in the state of Wikipedia. Suggest we make more liberal use of {{db-band}}. Sandstein 13:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn-band, link comes from nn-bio --Grocer 21:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. -- Alpha269 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC and Support Sandstein Dan, the CowMan 03:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 15:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Healthy Mind Body Planet

Was deproded without explanation. Delete. As Self-promotion/Advertising, per WP:NOT -- Royal Blue 11:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanispamcruftisement Just zis Guy you know? 17:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bad ideas 19:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ardenn 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Had this on my watchlist, but didn't check it until now. --Grocer 17:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alpha269 17:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy-delete as attack page. Haukur 19:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dwarf State

Delete. Derogatory for Japan. I think this page is written as joke, "So today the dwarf state is obsolete, dwarf should no longer be discriminated.". This belongs somewhere else. No Google hits. Lord Snoeckx 12:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as attack page. -- Saberwyn 12:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as attack page, so tagged. Sandstein 13:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but it may still be deleted as a copyvio. Angr/talk 15:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tassimo

Delete. brand name for coffee-maker, article reads like spam/ad. prod removed without explanation--Porturology 12:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Article does not meet the standards for notability set forth at WP:CORP. --CrypticBacon 14:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is notable because it meets the first criteria for inclusion for products and services: The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. DLC3172 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Pokemon's a commercial product, too, and nobody's nominating it for deletion. Monicasdude 15:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisement for product with about 650 Ghits - many for sites related to it. Note DLC3172 is the article creator. Also the link in the article claiming to be unbiased is to the company website a site which claims to have no connection with the company - I see no way of checking that. [9] Dlyons493 Talk 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note http://www.tassimo-world.com is not the company web site. Read the text at the bottom of the site and note that the site claims not to be associated with the makers of the product. It is a site for Tassimo enthusiasts and provides unbiased information. The official web site is http://www.tassimodirect.com. Furthermore, this article is not an advertisement for a product. Look at the article for Kraft Foods. Many of Kraft's product brands have Wikipedia articles. This article is no exception. DLC3172 17:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note this is a second vote from the article's author. Dlyons493 Talk 17:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note My mistake. I changed the vote to a note. DLC3172 17:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Monicasdude. Note no serious reason was given with the prod tag and no reason is required to remove a prod tag. -- JJay 18:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per above comments. Deckiller 20:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Copyvio, tagged as such. Slight rewording and the fact that the source isn't a commercial content provider are irrelevent. See Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. Melchoir 05:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• So far we've got one keep because we haven't deleted pokemon, and two keep's per we haven't deleted pokemon? Anyway, despite the "Unbiased news and information about Tassimo" from www.tassimo-world.com I'd have to call this advertising and unencyclopedic unless sources provided. - brenneman^{T}{L} 14:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• It's tagged as a CV right now, but I'd keep a legit article on the topic. Among other things, selling them was the featured task one week in "The Apprentice: Martha Stewart" (see The_Apprentice:_Martha_Stewart#Week_9:_The_Coffee_Achievers), and that probably counts as notable media coverage. Until we get a non-copyvio article, Redirect to Kraft Foods, the parent company. -Colin Kimbrell 16:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note I still insist that a rewording of information is not a copyright infringement. But, in any case, the author of the article is also the owner of the web site in question. So, no infringement. Somebody please remove the infringement notice. Also, if you are going to consider this "unencyclopedic", please proceed to delete the thousands of brand name articles on Wikipedia, including all the brand names mentioned in the Kraft Foods article, of which Tassimo is now one of DLC3172 18:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How can we verify that the article and the website were written by the same person? -Colin Kimbrell 18:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I quote from the very notice you wish to remove: "Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright violation". Melchoir 19:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is quoted from Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ: "Generally, a summary (or analysis) of something is not a derivative work, unless it reproduces the original in great detail, at which point it becomes an abridgement and not a summary". It's all very subjective. DLC3172 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right; there is a subjective element. I have compared [10] and [11], and the latter does "reproduce the original in great detail". I'm sorry if you spent a lot of effort switching words, but it was a copyright infringement, and it must be removed. Melchoir 00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • What do you propose I do? Invent false information for the sole purpose of preventing the article from sounding like the web site? Or maybe I should switch sentence one with sentence three. Honestly, this is all becoming quite ridiculous. DLC3172 01:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • You can use Wikipedia as something other than a mirror for a webpage. Use multiple sources, and don't copy anything. Summarize. If this isn't possible, the subject isn't notable enough anyway. Melchoir 02:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Can anyone agree with me that a rewording of plain, factual information is not a copyright infringement? We're not talking about a rewording of a creative, artistic work mind you. We are talking about basic, factual information. Anyway, if you want to confirm that the article author and the web site owner are the same person, send an E-mail to the contact listed on the web site and you will receive a confirmation. The whole copyright issue is a moot point, because you can't infringe on your own copyright! DLC3172 20:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No--Porturology 22:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No??? What kind of a response is that? Show a little respect for the people who are trying to contribute material to the encyclopedia. -- JJay 22:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If the original author places his work under GNU Free Documentation License it's no problem. Barring that, it is possible to "infringe on your own copyright" because you don't own the text once you hit save, Wikipedia does.
        brenneman^{T}{L} 01:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • That doesn't make any sense. It's the original author who reserves the copyright. Wikipedia doesn't inherit it once it gets submitted regardless of who submitted it. In fact, Wikipedia allows copyrighted material if the copyright holder gives permission. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems: "Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia: If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published (especially online), and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of copyright, stating that you are the copyright holder of the work on the article's talk page helps, but will not likely prevent deletion. It is sufficient to: Make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication OR send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation". DLC3172 02:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

          Isn't that just what I said, but in more words? The 100% soultion is GFDL, everything else is just a sticking plaster on an amputation. Wouldn't a re-write be easier than all this wiki-lawyering? And after all that, we don't seem to have established notability all that well... - brenneman^{T}{L} 02:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

          • No, you said that it is possible for someone to infringe on their own copyright. I refuted that by quoting from Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I'm not putting any GFDL statement on my web site. I'd rather just give Wikipedia permission to use my copyrighted material on their web site, even though I don't agree that my article would be in any way violating my web site's copyright if in fact the copyright wasn't owned by me in the first place. (Can this get any more ridiculous?) If someone would remove the copyright violation notice and the potential deletion notice I could actually resume working on the article again. DLC3172 04:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Sorry to be pedantic, but it is possible to violate your own copyright. I pointed out the preferred way to avoid doing so, you pointed out another. And, as the notice states, this isn't the venue to determine the outcome of a copyright challange. - brenneman^{T}{L} 04:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The copyright holder still has to grant permission in that email. Besides, this is all academic until such an email is sent. I'm guessing it hasn't been. Melchoir 02:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I just sent it. DLC3172 02:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Um, I don't see any activity at the Wikipedia:Copyright problems entry. Are you sure you got it right? Melchoir 06:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
              • I sent it to permissions at wikimedia dot org, as was instructed. I've done my part. DLC3172 16:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep assuming copyright issue is resolve. I type "tassimo" in google and I see 1,760,000 hits, with three sponsored links at the top of the page and eight at the side. Kappa 08:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 15:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Prymak

Vanity biography created by User:Josephprymak (see WP:VAIN, WP:BAI); no notability (see WP:BIO) is apparent from article or Google results. Sandstein 12:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn--MONGO 12:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nomination. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since User:Josephprymak already has a page (otherwise I'd speedily userfy). Just zis Guy you know? 17:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, I agree that this article should be deleted. Sorry for my mistake in not providing evidence of notability. Thanks for the good editing done by all of you. You do a good job of improving the Wikipedia. --joseph 15:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as now blank -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 19:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Angr/talk 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immaterial world

Mr. Joseph Prymak (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Prymak) has seen it fit to grace Wikipedia with his original research, which I hereby all nominate for deletion in one fell swoop: Immaterial world (incl. Non-material world), Universal questions (incl. Eternal questions) and Anthropogeology. -- Sandstein 12:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all, as per nomination. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete interesting subjects but clearly original research. Just zis Guy you know? 17:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Not Delete incorporeal and immaterial because it needs to simply be edited and connected to other philosophy subjects. I do apologize for some sloppy work, but the basic ideas are there, and I will continue to edit and improve the article about the incorporeal as many past philosophers claimed to have knowledge of. Any classical professor of philosophy would agree that this is a major concern and topic for many ancient and medieval philosophers. This is not original work. I am merely trying to summarize what has been written about for thousands of years. There is no other page on Wikipedia that covers this topic. Please help me to improve it, and not delete it. Thanks. --joseph 02:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant Delete (Or Perhaps a FIX) I hate to say it, but it seems that this is original research. I do, however, believe that there is some salvagable information, if anyone would like to take the time to fix it. I just have no idea if the ammount of savable information is enough to warrant an entire page. Billvoltage 02:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Not Delete the updated and edited version of immaterial and incorporeal concepts. Ideally Anthropogeology can also be edited, but I can do that at another time, so delete it if you wish. The three articles in question are very seperate and distinct topics and should not have not been lumped together. Therefore I see it fit to vote on each seperately. Thank you for your very considerate help and comments. I do appreciate the good editing that you all do. --joseph 04:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC) I do hope you will reconsider this important and not original topic that does not come up in any search on the Wikipedia. It is not right to keep out such an ancient and common idea among many famous philosophers for thousands of years.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephprymak (talk • contribs)
• Not Delete the updated and edited version of universal questions, or perrenial questions because it is another common idea for many famous philosophers, and it would be wrong for the Wikipedians to completely dismiss this ancient concept that was debated for thousands of years.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephprymak (talk • contribs)

• Comment: It is very important to note that the above votes for deletion are not specific about what should be deleted and there are no good reasons for why exactly. Three distinct topics were lumped together. This is an improper procedure for deleting the hard work of other wikipedians and academics. My wife is also an editor, along with friends at many universities, and they would defend me, and a few have helped to edit some of this work. There really are no clear explanations for why each distinct topic should be deleted. Please do not take this personally. I am only trying to defend the writings of many famous philosophers whose books have been passed along by many humans who saw something very worthy in their ideas. This is a fact that cannot be denied. --joseph 05:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I can also list many others who defend these ideas if you need more humans to explain why. I hope that we gave some satisfactory reasons, and that these alone are sufficient instead of a majority rules situation, which is against the Wikipedian rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephprymak (talk • contribs)

• Comment: All of the nominated pages are in violation of WP:NOR, WP:V. I have already explained the specific problems with these articles in this discussion. Please note also that you should sign your comments, that you should vote only once and that removing the AfD tag (as on Eternal questions) is impermissible. Sandstein 12:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Sorry for my mistake of not signing properly. I am new to all of this. Thanks for the editing and deletion of improper articles on the Wikipedia, however I have attempted to edit and improve the two main articles in question. I sincerely apologize for not having properly edited in the first place. I notice that there are other articles on here that require editing as well, and are not to be deleted. Thanks again for your time and effort. If I deleted anything it was by mistake. Thanks for your patience with me. Yours truly, new to Wikipedia, --joseph 15:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks for your considerate reply. However, the first articles in particular still read like a slightly confusing personal essay to me, and not like an encyclopedia article. And Anthropogeology still lacks any sources to indicate that anyone except you uses this term, so it also looks like original research. While we're on procedure, please also note that it is considered bad form to change one's previous comments; if any amendments are necessary, it is usual to strikethrough the old text like this and append any necessary corrections as a new comment. Best regards, Sandstein 16:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Dear Sandstein,

Thank you for your guidance and patience with me as a new Wikipedian. I am impressed. I was once edited by a very rude Wikipedian, and you are by far superior. I agree to delete the article of Anthropogeology. Yes, you are right, the other articles need a lot of work, so delete them. I could not have been nominated for deletion by anyone more kind and reasonable. Thanks again for your patience and treating me with respect. I hope to improve my ability to properly contribute to the Wikipedia. I learnt some good lessons. Yours sincerely, --joseph 05:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 16:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Vedic studies

Reason: The article is so obscure that it is not clear either what its subject is or why it is significant. Must be deleted. Pecher ^Talk 12:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as apparent neologism / original research of Ali Ibrahim Kalyanaraman, who is himself a candidate for deletion per WP:BIO, IMHO. Sandstein 13:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand I see no reason to delete this. Islamic + Vedic gives lots of hits [12], should be easy to make this to a good article. --Striver 14:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, but a search for the phrase "Islamic Vedic studies" gives zero hits. And your search results for Islamic and Vedic do not seem to imply the sort of connection between the topics that the article does. Sandstein 15:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Possibly rename, but certainly keep.--Irishpunktom\^talk 16:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless referenced. Seems largely to be the area of one scholar which wouldn't make it notable. But if there are others active in the area then add references to what they have written. Dlyons493 Talk 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since it is not vident that anyone other than the originator uses this term. Just zis Guy you know? 17:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason to delete this either. I would say it must be kept but that would be a wee bit presumptuous of me-- JJay 19:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If Ali Ibrahim Kalyanaraman survives AfD, this could be merged into it, except the content of the article is so negligible and poorly written I'm not sure it warrants it. Шизомби 20:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Beyond chance of being salvaged, that bad it is. Alternatively merge into Kalyanaraman article. Pavel Vozenilek 00:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the article is attempting prove a link between two separate religious traditions (Laws of Manu and Laws of Noah or Nu of which the latter is non-existent) quite probably based on Manu containing the name nu. The linked article on Ali Ibrahim Kalyanaraman is related to the recently deleted Vadyar Kalyanaraman Shashtrigal which was apparently this individual's former name but it does not bring up any relevant hits on Google apart from three wikipedia-related items. Green Giant 01:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sandstein and Шизомби. Melchoir 05:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. utcursch | talk 09:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avengex

db tag removed, prod tag removed, so here goes. Link to non-notable website, does not conform to Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline, advertising. Accurizer 17:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "Far from original" says it all. Fagstein 19:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Melchoir 05:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Episode VII: The Fallen Hero

I've put this up for deletion since info on this entire SuperShadow/Sequel films hoax is already well-covered at both SuperShadow and Sequel trilogy (Star Wars). Delete. The Wookieepedian 13:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sequel trilogy (Star Wars) or barring that Delete. JoshuaZ 15:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. --Terence Ong 15:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Insanely speedy delete - please! MikeWazowski 15:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax and/or fanboy speculation. 23skidoo 16:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to SuperShadow, or Delete. In no case is there a need for a sloppily written and verbose summary of a hoax on Wikipedia. - Tangotango 16:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete or redirect to SuperShadow. This article has been up multiple times (with different titles, of course), and every time it has either been speedy deleted or deleted. Deckiller 18:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Tactical Nuclear Ewok Delete all SuperShadowcruft. -- Saberwyn 22:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Saberwyn. -LtNOWIS 23:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Already deleted once before (the previous version actually had a plot synopsis) and the info is just totally unverifiable anywhere other than supershadow, which is notorious for just posting fake junk. Kill it and let's move on. --BinaryTed 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. bainer (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Muslim Christianity scholars

Reason: only 3 links on the list of which one is red. The description is obscure and does not specify who "Muslim Christianity scholars" are. The list should never have been created. Pecher ^Talk 13:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; should be merged into Islamic comparative religion but has probably too little info for that, especially if the article on Thomas McElwain also ends up being deleted. Sandstein 16:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - And expand. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keepthe list must have potential for expansion by including classical scholars. Merge as per Melchoir Dlyons493 Talk 17:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Sandstein. Шизомби 20:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Muslim scholars, where it'll be more visible anyway. If it grows enough, it might be split out. Melchoir 05:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, List of Muslim scholars explicitly states "This is a list of Muslim scholars, divided according to fields of study." Currently it has only one field of study; this could be the second. Melchoir 05:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Muslim comparative religionists is identical to List of Muslim Christianity scholars, and that should be dealt with somehow. Melchoir 05:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Melchoir. Pepsidrinka 20:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete after moving names to List of Muslim scholars. joturner 20:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Muslim scholars -- Karl Meier 06:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, one of the keep votes was confused about which site it was about, the other was based on an alexa rank, which actually reflects all of wikicities.com, and this site has under 1% of those hits according to alexa. - Bobet 22:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiHowTo

Non-notable wikicity. —Cryptic (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Au contraire. It is not well argued. Why is it non-notable? This site is to me and my wife one of the most usefull internet sites. I think it needs an article. --Bduke 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but you killed your argument yourself when you said that it is important to [sic] "me and my wife." (in other words, it has to be important to a far FAR greater amount of people) The below user said it all with its low Alexa rating - if it is related to this site it needs to be Wikipedia:HowTo (in other words, in the Wikipedia, not the article space). I think this is best deleted. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it seems I was confused. The site I use is WikiHow and that is a very usefull site and I think it should be referenced somewhere from Wikipedia. However, it seems that this artcile is about a different site. Is anybody else confused? My comment about the use by my wife and I was merely to say that it was usefull and if we fiound it so it is likely that many others would too. However, that is different. --Bduke 22:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete; Alexa is borderline at 9,726, but I see no assertion of notability, and there's no media coverage. Melchoir 05:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep per alexa rank. Kappa 08:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no media coverage. Ned Wilbury 15:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 22:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas McElwain

Reason: the stub does not specify why this person is notable Pecher ^Talk 13:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, CSD A7.--Blue520 15:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Thank you Monicasdude, some how I over looked the book.--Blue520 16:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. greatly improved--Blue520 12:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, certainly not a candidate for speedy; apparently notable as published author of scholarly work. Monicasdude 15:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just publishing something does not make an author immediately notable; see WP:BIO for guidelines. Pecher ^Talk 16:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete; he apparently is a bona fide academic, but does not appear particularly notable: his book - which I hereby co-nominate for deletion - has a Amazon rank of 2,475,176. Sandstein 16:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete book too. Pecher ^Talk 16:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Is verifiable. Delete book though. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete one book, nothing on Google Scholar and a few hundred Ghits mainly for namesakes. Insufficient notability. Delete the book also - it's a stub that I don't see expanding
• Keep as per Шизомби. Delete the book. Dlyons493 Talk 17:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Amazon has three titles authored by him (I'll add them to the article), and his name is mentioned in eight other books - though it is possible they're not all the same person. I'm not sure about this one, but the book should go. Шизомби 20:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I saw those in Google Scholar but felt it was probably a different McElwain - if it's the same person then he's heading towards notability all right. Dlyons493 Talk 21:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Quite sure it's the same guy: U. Stockholm and languages. See also http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Thomas+McElwain%22+site%3Aworldcatlibraries.org (click on the details tab on those pages). Still not sure how notable he is, or if he is still with the University (I couldn't find a page for him on their website). He is also AKA Ali Haydar Шизомби 21:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep very notable Shi'a twelver scholar in a narrow field, his book is reproduced in its entirety on al-islam.org [13], assuring that he has more than the 5000 demanded in WP:BIO. Deleteting his biography is plain wrong considering only this link, the book having been repreinted in the biggest Shi'a website says it all. --Striver 19:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

al-islam.org itself is of very dubious notability, and not surprisingly it was nominated for deletion. The link on globalresearch.com is essentially the only link saying something meaningful about that book. Not notable, whatever way you look. Pecher ^Talk 20:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to look things in perspektive. Of course you are going to find a Shi'a twelver book only on Shi'a twelver sites, you expected to find them on atheis sites? Al-islam.org is THE bigest shi'a twelver site according to Yahoo. It doenst get bigger and more notable than that, not as long as the book is addressing only Shi'a twelvers. --Striver 00:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If McElwain is notable, I think it's probably more for his work with languages. As for Yahoo, it's difficult to judge their criteria for popularity. The top-ranked site is the most popular among Yahoo! users and only among the sites listed in that category of the directory, and it doesn't indicate how popular the most popular site actually is. It could be that there are more popular sites among all internet users, or among sites not listed in that directory category. Шизомби 01:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• keep. We need more scholars, not fewer. --Zero 09:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems perfectly notable to me. David | Talk 11:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Since his book either is academic or has academic pretensions, its low Amazon rating is of no interest to me whatever. (For that matter, even if it had no academic pretensions, a low Amazon rating might not worry me.) Whoever it was that wrote the nominal article about it clearly put no effort into the article; a small and perhaps inadequate amount of my own effort failed to turn up anything about it. Have it redirect to McElwain, at least until somebody can be bothered to write an intelligent short article about it. Even though McElwain is merely a real-life human who has written published books (hardly a matter of indisputable cognointellectual significance to millions of right-thinking Wikipedia users), his existence seems verifiable and of some note. Thus, keep. -- Hoary 07:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, published author. Kappa 08:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  ALKIVAR™ 09:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goolash

Seems more like a dictionary definition, if it's even a word. I can't find it in any dictionary anyway. Reads more like nonsense to me. Perhaps they meant Goulash? --vortex ^talk 13:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, should not be on Wikipedia according to the standards etc. 84.47.67.126 14:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

* Speedy Delete This really is a no-brainer J.J.Sagnella 14:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect J.J.Sagnella 20:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a load of goolies. Just zis Guy you know? 14:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nonsense. --Obli (Talk)^? 15:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Dlete, nonsense. --Terence Ong 15:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Using a neologism, it could be a protologism. There for WP:NEO. --Blue520 15:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete It's a shame there's no color of speedy deletion that covers this, by any real stretch. — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Goulash as a conceivable (and even probable) misspelling. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, don't redirect to Goulash. Pavel Vozenilek 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Why not? I was under the impression that we use redirects rather frequently for conceivable misspellings. [14] Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and then redirect as misspelling. Melchoir 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beta butterfly

Dicdef. - Sikon 14:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; not really a dicdef, but non-notable anyway. Melchoir 05:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julia Cats ReBoot Corner

Reads like an advertisement, award is listed as Unofficial ReBoot Award on it's google'd results. I feel that it does not meet the guidelines for Website notability. Bladeswin 14:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 15:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising --Blue520 15:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Futuretrack5

Advertisement for non-notable web design company. Originally littered with linkspam as well, which I have already removed. —Cleared as filed. 15:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Deckiller 18:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bad ideas 19:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KHProductions

Delete does not meet criteria of WP:WEB SailorfromNH 15:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn-company, lines like "on the site is other cool stuff like the latest smilies and instant music creators." make it sound like the company is new and created by teens. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 15:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. JoshuaZ 15:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Deckiller 18:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Euro America

The term is a neologism and the content found in the article is original research, and other content information which is blatently fabricated (and unssubstanciated in the case of Chile, by its census figures). Although "Euro America" may be vaguely based on reality (at least in the case of Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil; the ethnic demography and culture in those areas are overwhealmingly European) it cannot be credibly substanciate with the countries it presently specifies (again, I'm refering specifically to Chile).

In regards to Chile being a part of the so-called "Euro America", that nation is overwhealmingly mestizo (93%) and conforms a part of the Southern Cone in geography and politics, not by demographic or cultural affinity with either Argentina, Uruguay or southern Brazil. Then there is Paraguay, another mestizo country (95% mestizo, with its ethnic composition identical to Chile) which is also a part of the Southern Cone, yet not included as part of the the so-called "Euro America".

Then we have the contention of the "America" of "Euro America". If the neologism where to be taken seriously, would it not be "Euro South America" since it doesn't include Canada or the USA?

There already exists the article Southern Cone, and the subject matter to be found in Euro America is already touched there. Al-Andalus 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC).

• Delete Reason given already. Al-Andalus 15:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Passionate nomination, well thought out, and logical. Deckiller 18:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; nomination is better than the article itself. Melchoir 05:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --MaNeMeBasat 15:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaibandha District

The page gives no info. Can be remade when people contributes more info.Soumyasch 15:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the page has been expanded enough in less than a day. I take back the nomination now. --Soumyasch 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious Keep. A stub article on a subject of undenied notability. So fix it. Monicasdude 15:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: It's a standard stub. In fact it might be a little nicer than standard with some placeholders for sections. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep verifiable place [news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4367193.stm] Dlyons493 Talk 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep DevanJedi 01:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep: Quite a bad faith nomination. I have created stub articles for all the 64 districts of Bangladesh. Gradually, information is being filled in. The place if verifiable, and it is the norm in Wikipedia to have articles for geographical places, administrative regions etc. Thanks. --Ragib 17:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Geographic areas are always notable, regardless if they are stubs. Eivind 19:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep With 1,244 villages the population must be at least a few hundred thousand. Hawkestone 19:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep {{sofixit}} we don't remove stubs on actual regions. — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand by filling in blank sections. However, there is enough here worthy to be kept. Capitalistroadster 02:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Ibrahim Kalyanaraman

Non-notable as per WP:BIO: no Google hits on him or his supposed book on martyrdom. Sandstein 15:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails the professor test. Just zis Guy you know? 17:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless independently verified. Googling Martyrdom and Rebellion oddly enough mostly returns Jane Eyre! Dlyons493 Talk 17:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Apparently is is the same person as the recently prodded [15] Dlyons493 Talk 01:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article needs NPOVing, but he certainly haves the 5000 audience in WP:BIO. Only since it doesnt show in the english google, it doesnt mean he is non-notable. How many hits for Martha Stuart do you think the Arabic Google gives? --Striver 17:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I absolutely accept the Google argument here, but some independent verification is necessary. The book must be in some libraries, for example, are any of their catalogues searchable? Dlyons493 Talk
• Delete the english google proves he's not-notable, because he works and lives in North America [16] Eivind 19:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pecher ^Talk 20:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Irishpunktom vote is serious, rationale isn't ... . — Adrian Lamo ·· 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this article is related to the recently deleted non-notable article on Vadyar Kalyanaraman Shashtrigal which was apparently this individual's former name but the new name does not bring up any relevant hits on Google apart from three wikipedia-related items. There is also a linked original research article on Islamic Vedic studies which is being debated for deletion at [17]. Green Giant 01:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dlyons493. If there were any evidence of notability, I would vote to keep with a cleanup tag. Melchoir 05:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (unless evidence of notability is presented): Either he is actually non-notable, or his name has an alternate spelling, or the title of his book is wrong, because I can't find anything on WorldCat. Ardric47 07:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Apparently is a Professor and has speeches on-line. Notable amongst Moslems.User:kornrow\ 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[18] [[19]]

• Keep. -- I authored the article, I believe like many in the Muslim community that he is notable and his book has been published but rights over the ISBN and UC Berkeley Press have been a problem--Also Vadyar Kalyanaraman though having a similar name is not his former name it is the name of his vedic instructor. User:afzalhussain\afzalhussain\ 8:35 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - How cute, new user Kornrow's first edit is to this debate [20]. The links provided only show the main pages of two Shia Muslim organisations, with no indication of any speeches by this individual. Perhaps Kornrow or Afzal Hussain could point to the relevant pages? Green Giant 04:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Fast Delete (in spite of evidence of notability presented): I found the speeches on two of the "Shia cites" that kornrow put up. I listened to the speeches and since I live in San Jose called over to the SABA, to find out about Ali Ibrahim, it turns out he is a Professor, that he was there at the Center when I called and I did speak with him, and he was surprised that he was on Wiki and asked for the article to be deleted. New User 14:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC) This comment was made by User:206.210.225.131. Sandstein 18:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per Ardric47. unless evidence of notability is presented. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Does it matter about notability when the man has requested the article to be deleted. I mean if he feels he is not notable, does it matter how many people as per Wiki rules... advise? Wikkid 10:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)This comment was made by User:206.210.225.131. Sandstein 18:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, essentially, no, it doesn't matter whether the subject himself feels he's notable or not. Otherwise, we'd have to keep all vanity pages, where the author feels he's notable but most others think not. So essentially, all deletions require consensus on AfD irrespective of the article subject's wishes (which are only reported second-hand by you, incidentally). Exceptions are divine intervention or articles fulfilling the Criteria for speedy deletion. -- Please also note that you should sign all discussions thus: ~~~~. Do not try to create a signature for an user that does not exist, like the "Wikkid" signature above. Sandstein 18:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks sandstein, this though raises a problem, even though the authorship of the text is in question, the fact that these two muslim centers and who knows where else, may have more than 5000 parishiners sp? would that qualify. I don't know, when I talked to the guy, he was suprised like "online encyclopedia, what?" as if he would characterize himself as non-notable. I called back there and he is not there, apparantly he travels during these muslim calendar months to different mosques. Its seems to me like he's just not there as far as notability, we've had to search too hard to find evidence. Based on all this I think its better to delete it. 12:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC) ~~~~ This comment was made by User:206.210.225.131

• Delete, per nom. Also, red links voting keep delegitimize keep arguments.--Jersey Devil 23:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exburb

The article readily and proudly states that this is a neologism derived from another neologism. Delete as—you guessed it—a neologism. JDoorjam Talk 15:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC

[edit] FALSE (in reply)

An entirely false premise from the outset. It holds that any neologism is invalid (or a more commonly cited line of reasoning, that any additions to the collective phraseology are somehow self aggrandizing in nature and without applicable merit.)

Exburb is an entirely valid phrase labeling a structure of pattern migration that didn’t exist until recently. Furthermore, it’s status as a neologism is entirely reliant on ones own involvement in the relevant academic pantheons. Those involved in urban planning or the various human sciences are well aware of the term in spite of it’s relative obscurity amongst the public at large.

If exburb is to be deleted, than so shall be exurb, one of the most commonly cited components of the centricity of dwelling patterns. Wikipedia has the ability to remain on the cutting edge of the collective lexicon by virtue of it's open addition procedures.

Your position is akin to a linguistic xenophobia that maintains that anything new must be invalid by virtue of being new. While it may be new to you (and shockingly, Wikipedia too) it isn't new amongst those who are involved with the study of such things.

I agree that in many cases, neologisms are invalid. To wit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shizzle

In this case, it most definitely isn't invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:24.26.19.116 (talk • contribs)

• Delete exurb has been used for a long time and seems to overlap the term exburb, borderline protologism. Eivind 19:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for that speech. "A structure of pattern migration that didn't exist until recently"? I think this term didn't exist until you made it up. Delete as original research. And if it's relatively obscure, it's probably not fit for Wikipedia anyway. Grandmasterka 19:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Er, wha? Anyway, delete as per Grandmasterka. Sandstein 20:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- shocking, I know, but one angry rant out of 1000 has to convince someone, eh? — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep On one hand, it's a neologism. Yet on the other hand, a google search reveals suprisingly quite a few hits. For that reason, I'm voting on keep. J.J.Sagnella 20:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I got 170 hits when I googled it, all of which seemed synonymous with "exurb"... to which perhaps this should be redirected? JDoorjam Talk 21:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect All the google search results I seem to get seem to be simply misspellings of 'exurb'. KWH 05:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article lacks verifiable sources and as such is indistinguishable from original research. Sliggy 20:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Get It, Others Don't

I'll refrain from casting my own vote since i'm the one who penned the article and it must be obvious as to where I stand.

I wish I made it up. If I did, I would probably own the domain for it (which I just checked, and is taken by someone). To say that exburb overlaps with exurb is akin to saying that tread and retread are the same thing, or anything else where the basic logical construct is altered by virtue of a letter or a prefix is the same as it's parent phrase.

The specificity of exburb in no way negates it's applicability or validity. I'm sure there are a panoply of medical terms on wikipedia that you or I wouldn't know from a hole in the ground yet to that particular community, the're as valid as a page on the Boston Tea Party might be to a historian. You cannot on one hand cite the reference to a neologism (exurb) in support of your claim for deletion yet come to defense of said neologism when the premise of your entire point is that any neologisms that you have yet to hear of must be invalid. As I maintained earlier. If exburb goes, than so shall exurb.

Exburbian living is particularly common in the beltway. Many formerly exburban communities (like closet communities in New York City) have since evolved into bona fide exurbs or even suburbs. Human migration is one of the most fluid and constantly changing things, and as such, the phraseology might take a little time before it leaves the confines of academia into the common lexicon.

I understand that most people don't study planning just as I know nothing about video games or those Asian Cartoon things. If someone were to post a phrase native to those areas of interest, if I were the sort who were inclined to vote for deletion for anything that I didn't understand, I might take such a position too.

Let it be known that taking such a position is incorrect and if that thinking (I'll refrain from calling it "logic" as "logic" it ain't) were applied universally across this site, about 3/4 of it would be gone.

[edit] Nope

• Comment: You misunderstood my comment. Things on Wikipedia are supposed to be verifiable through secondary sources (pretty easy for all "Asian Cartoon things".) If you can provide a source that shows that the term is commonly used in planning as you describe, I would change my opinion. Otherwise, it probably doesn't belong here. (The links in my previous comment are to applicable pages on WP policy.) Grandmasterka 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And that kind of tone certainly doesn't help convince me. Grandmasterka 02:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reply: Tell ya what. Since you feel bold enough and consider yourself sufficiently qualified to not only "comment" but vote for actual deletion, then i'll post a simple challenge. Everyone has a college of some kind local to them. Most of these have a Human Studies department, of which there will often times be a planning or urban studies professor.

Call him up and ask him or her what's a commonly used phrase to the communities that are outer lying to the exurbs yet still service the central metro area.

This isn't a matter of "research" as there isn't anything here that's quantifiable no more than you could justify the shizzle other than by abstract reference. The word exburb is indeed a recent addition to the lexicon in spite of you personally being out of the loop. The point of contention here is the validity of said word. You are saying it's invalid. I would ask what field you work that affords you a perspective into the common phraseology used daily by the people who study this stuff day in and day out?

There is nothing more offensive than getting advice on field-specific linguistics or phrases by an IT guy or a video game programmer who maybe took a relevant one credit class in college 6 or 7 years ago.

My desire to "convince" someone like you is about nil. You have already displayed your ignorance by virtue of your position, thus I have no desire to educate ignorant people. I spend too many hours during the work day doing that to waste my time with it here.

The internet allows you the oppurtunity to naysay by virtue of casting a vote for deletion. It allows small and underqualified people "the power" to have a voice even though their qualifications to speak are none. Your qualifications to comment here (I would wager) are non-existant. You used a flimsy, blanket logical premise and applied it incorerctly to this word.

In short, we have is a petty and ignorant language xenophobe. THAT is not the wiki concept.

With that said, I would like to vote for deletion as well and it's my article.

This whole Wiki concept, while very clever, fails in it's most essential precepts. You cannot have valid information without vetting, but vetting isn't a matter of "public vote". It's peer review. You cannot allow unqualified individuals to impact those who are qualified just because they can adfford a computer and an internet connection and "have an opinion". Valid information comes from field-specific men and women who study and research the topic as a matter of their lifes work and is in turn reviewed by their peers in the same field. It is not a matter of "consensus" nor is it a matter of "public opinion".

What we have here is akin to the "internet public" voting on the techniques a doctor might use for a heart surgery. Anyone can vote, majority opinions might go one way or another, but few are qualified to comment in spite of their seemingly endless desire to do so.

• Delete, no prejudice against redirect to Exurb. I am a professional land-use planner. "Exurb" is a legit concept & word. However, I have never encountered "Exburb" (or "Exoburb") as a separate concept. Google Scholar gets two hits, both of which seem to describe the same concept. Can a reference for this new concept be provided (preferably to the APA's Planning magazine - I am have a suscription)? --maclean25 03:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Sliggy and maclean25; some of the keep arguments sound reasonable, but there isn't a single reference in the article. Melchoir 05:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reply To Maclean: I don't seem to get the APA's Planning magazine so I couldn't source it from there no more than I could source exurb from that magazine. I do regularly steal a colleagues quarterly copy of JAPA, and I can't source exurb or exburb in that either. The ability or lack thereof to cite a peripheral source when the scope is limited to a single magazine is fairly absurd.

I am quite confident that the "exburb" concept is very regional in nature, existing only in areas where the demography affords it an opportunity to exist, thus a planner from an area without any exburbs to speak of might not be up on the cutting edge of the colloquy. For example, you won't find any "exburbs" in areas that are suburbanized 100 miles out from the main urban center. They exist in some Metro area corridors where the transit times are within reason. Jacksonville, Florida is a community well known for "exoburbs"- suburbs of the exburbs- as is Atlanta Georgia. There are quite a few in Texas as well. Of course, now everyone who lives in Florida, Texas or Georgia will confidently chime in and say that at their job as a dump truck operator, they've never heard the word "exoburb" before.

As an aside, you work in the field of land use planning? I have colleagues all around the country in that field. Might I ask what area you are in? I knew it was only a matter of time before someone chimed in claiming to be in the field yet disagreed with the term. Enter the basic invalidity of the "internet expert".

• I figured it was a regional thing. Unfortunately, that may not be enough for Wikipedia, which works with Wikipedia:Verifiability as a core policy. If this concept can be cited to a reliable source then it will probably get kept. If not, it will probably get deleted. The deletion is not forever, just until it can cited and meet Wikipedia's guidelines. In the mean time there are many other planning-related articles to build upon: Category:Urban studies and planning (help yourself). On your side note, I work as a rural land use planner for a government in northern British Columbia, mostly dealing with agricultural subdivisions and non-farm uses, as well as the normal zoning stuff. --maclean25 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reply To Maclean: I'm actually very much OK with the article being deleted as I know that in due time, it will be back. I am correct about "exburb" today just as I will be when it returns, whenever it may be. Unfortunately, when someone else makes an entry for it, there is no doubt in my mind it will face a similar degree of unfounded opposition (as there are always nay-sayers for anything, no matter how valid, and they're far more common than the truly qualified) I now understand that the concept of this site is not to remain on the cutting edge of anything, but rather to catalogue things that can be quantified with a certain threshold of google hits, or, as "common knowledge" with a great emphasis on "common". We aren't talking about original research here with the word exburb. It's a simple addition to the lexicon that is unknown by more people than there are those who know it. I guess this entry and it's inclusion or deletion really comes down to the most fundamental philosophy of this website. But hey, look on the bright side. At least we all have a shizzle entry to reference! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.19.116 (talk • contribs)

• • Shizzle has cross-references. Exburb has one red link. Exburb has 197 Google hits; shizzle has 2.5 million. Fo' shizzle "shizzle" has an article. I mean, look, if you want low-hanging fruit for a "then why not delete article X" argument, try an article like ass worship. Shizzle's got pretty strong, verifiable roots. Except even an anti-ass-worship argument doesn't get to the point: if everyone here were a land use planner, we wouldn't need references. But we're not, as you've so, ahem, politely pointed out. So we need citations. If it's so commonly used, c'maahn, you gotta be able to find some source for it in the context you use, right? Allll we're asking for is a few citations. JDoorjam Talk 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reply To JDoorjam: Your own position keeps shifting.

First, your case for deletion had to do with anything you classify as a neologism is invalid by sole virtue of being a neologism. Now, well, golly, neologisms are valid so long as they can be sourced through a certain degree of google hits. The basic logic (laugh) of your position is that validity is predicated on google hits which is just plain dumb. Google is no friend to regional specificity, nor highly specific topical matters. For example, a regional phrase for a touchdown scored at the Meadowlands arena is "Stomping on Hoffa" derived from the urban myth that the missing body of Jimmy Hoffa is supposedly encased in the end zone at that arena. Would you believe that not a SINGLE google hit came up for "Stomping On Hoffa", "Stompin On Hoffa" Stepping On Hoffa" or any variants thereof. In spite of googles inability to catalogue this regional colloquialism, it's heard about every ten seconds in that area when a game is being played. An entirely valid regional "saying", not one single google hit. I am sorry but your case for deletion is very, very weak. It basically holds that anything new is invalid so long as you personally haven’t heard of it or it doesn’t meet a certain threshold of google hits. This site is not an extension of google. It’s a consortium of knowledge from many different spectrums, including those that you don’t know or understand.

• So what you're asking is that we have to swallow anything you give us just because you say it's notable? In elementary school I learned to cite sources when I wrote papers, in order to prove that what I was writing was not made up and it was not being copied directly from another source. The same concepts apply here. I can make anything notable if all I have to do is to say it's notable. Nobody is buying your latest "logical" arguments, which you keep making after you've already said you wanted this deleted.

• • And an apology to me would really help matters. I was not trying to attack you earlier, I was trying to tell you what Maclean25 told you better than I did. Grandmasterka 19:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, or redirect to exurb as legitimate typo. The case for deleting may be weak according to the author's tirades, but the case for keeping is even weaker due to his lack of desire to provide reasonable and timely verification of any sort. I'm not even going to bother watching this, so save yourself the trouble of writing a paragraph to explain why I've never heard this term in my career as a dump truck operator. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Argotist

Barely asserts notability, but does not appear to be actually notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. [21]. PJM 19:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Argotist Online

Similar to The Argotist above, but appears to assert even less notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 19:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gipp's Egylet

• Delete: A Hungarian band that has done nothing but release two albums of Bee Gees covers. Nothing on Amazon or AllMusic. Google brings up 29 unique hits and clicking on some of them go to broken links. Admittedly, I'm not sure what the standard is for cover bands - but come on... not a single piece of original music nor any sort of hype anywhere. Even among coverbands, this seems non-notable. Most of the Google hits appear to be general lists of Bee Gees coverbands without any special emphasis on this one. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eivind 18:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A cover band would have to be somehow extraordinary to have an article. Ned Wilbury 15:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strat (drinking game)

The article is unsourced and a Google search doesn't show me much: [22] or [23]. It doesn't seem very notable, to me. PJM 16:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A frat house invented a drinking game and now want to share it with the world. Not notable. (Make sure someone comes back for the picture, too.) JDoorjam Talk 16:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 16:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete literally a thing made up in school one day. No sources, in any case. --djrobgordon 18:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: not notable. --Francisco Valverde 18:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm fairly certain this came across AfD in another guise in the last month or two, and was unanimously deleted. But I can't find that AfD. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Something similar, perhaps. This one's been here since June 2005. When I glanced at its history, I did not see any AFD taggings, which is surprising. PJM 01:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Remain. This article is a legitimate entry in the category of drinking games. By nature, these grames are frequently esoteric and localized, and so would not produce many hits on a Google search. Also, as the article attempts to demonstrate, Strat was not "made up at school one day," but has been around for nearly ten years. In addition, though the game may seem arcane to some readers, to many it is indeed notable and the Wikipedia entry serves as a public record of the game's nature, past, and present existence. Many of these charges could be directed to any entry of a drinking game; I don't understand why this page is the only one up for deletion. Desmond 13:01, 8 March 2006 (PST)

Rome wasn't built in a day. Other non-notable drinking game articles will find their way here eventually. PJM 22:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFT. This content is not verifiable. If Desmond wishes to point out any other such games with Wikipedia entries, I will gladly nominate them for deletion also. Stifle 11:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Vestre

delete. Non-notable individual, despite claims in the article. 45 Google hits DMG413 16:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Francisco Valverde 16:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --djrobgordon 18:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eivind 18:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Not a vanity page (as not by the person concerned). In general, we don't have enough pages on horticulturalists; however, he doesn't appear to be that famous, so have to agree with delete, but vote so with some regret. - MPF 23:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capping stunt

Delete: Non-notable, non-encyclopedia material JimmyO 16:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. --Francisco Valverde 16:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 16:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's mainly a definition; the example mentioned in the article is unicited rumour. —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article seems fine to me. Maybe the nom could provide more explanation of why this is "non-encyclopedia material". -- JJay 17:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Deckiller 18:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as of now, this looks like a thing made up in school one day. Show me a couple of legitimate sources, and I may be willing to reconsider. --djrobgordon 18:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in response to JJay's source. --djrobgordon 04:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Not sure why people are voting if they don't know what this is about. In any case, the foot and mouth scare was suspected to be a capping stunt by the police. See ref [24]-- JJay 18:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep should be expanded to prove it notability, though. Eivind 18:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I originally deprodded this because I didn't think it was a clear-cut case, considering it had a few incoming links which didn't seem to just be thrown together by the article creator. It looks to me like I'd think it was notable if I was from New Zealand. If the newspapers are talking about this tradition in this way, I think it deserves a spot on Wikipedia. NickelShoe 19:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge where appropriate --Grocer 20:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep. Highly notable and significant part of New Zealand university culture - would be about as prominent for NZ university culture as, say cheerleading teams are to US university culture. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Grutness. Capitalistroadster 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• "
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)" .Capitalistroadster 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Surely places other than New Zealand also have such traditions? But, even without it, it is notable. --Midnighttonight 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Grutness.-gadfium 03:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Grutness, especially if the article is expanded to talk about the tradition and history more. I don't see how one could include it in an article about New Zealand university culture readily. By contrast, the pranking tradition at Caltech is specific to that US school and is a section of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay's refs. Melchoir 05:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep , very common at all NZ universities. If occurs elsewhere then perhaps a merged article like Graduation Prank perhaps. - SimonLyall 08:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' per Grutness Brian | (Talk) 08:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a common NZ phenomenon. Ziggurat 08:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Looks good to me. Ashibaka tock
• Strong keep. Notable to NZers. Recent edits have also made it more encyclopedic. -- Avenue 04:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 23:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibroker

Delete. Pure advertising. As far as I know, advertising is not a crteria for speedy deletion, so i'm reporting it here. SGJ 17:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete/Prod. Meh, I was hoping for some BJAODN'able (or Meta-able) wikianalysis, but it's plain dull advertising. Not even AFD-worthy. - Sikon 17:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete please. It is a clear ad. --Francisco Valverde 18:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I listed this as a copyvio, as the text is lifted directly from here [25]. --djrobgordon 18:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - spam abakharev 11:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising. --MaNeMeBasat 15:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Youth involvement in the Asia-Pacific Scout Region

This page looks more like an advert than a Wikipedia article. Philip Stevens 17:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advertising (it hasn't happened yet!) and not much room for expansion Cantara 17:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystal ball-ism, probably non-notable anyway. I can't even figure out what the meeting is for. --djrobgordon 17:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Francisco Valverde 18:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a bulletinboard. Eivind 18:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree. However, I have added a truncated part of this article to Asia-Pacific Scout Region, which is what should have happened in the first place. Note that it is not an advert. The meeting was in 2004. Youth members are important in Scouting. Their participation should be mentioned briefly somewhere and I think I have now done that appropriately. --Bduke 23:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Bduke was so kind to have merged the pertinant info into a relevant article -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Bduke. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 23:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_notable_American_liberals

• Delete: does not meet standards of verifiability; has no clear orientation or definition of term liberal; has no content other than an unsorted and non-associated list of names. Ted 17:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there are no clear standards for inclusion, and phrases such as "American liberal agenda" scream bias. See the recent AfD discussion for List of martyrs. --djrobgordon 17:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pre nom. --Francisco Valverde 18:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Deckiller 18:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a POV list. Eivind 18:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: There is no standard for inclusion. The definition of liberal is too hotly debated. Griot 18:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment If Alf Landon's on the list, it's an awfully broad brush. Fan1967 04:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 20:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. List of people described as neoconservatives got deleted, and that one actually had content beyond being just a list. Шизомби 21:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Irretrievably POV. Fan1967 04:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Carlossuarez46 and others. -Will Beback 21:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 23:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jacob Groff

Delete Notability is uncertain, reads like a section of family history. Prod removed without reason--Porturology 17:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for geneological data. I'd do a Google, but I don't think it would shed much light on the subject. --djrobgordon 17:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I haven't found a trace of notability. --Francisco Valverde 18:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Deckiller 18:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eivind 18:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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