Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 9 May 11 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] May 10

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew W. Vassar

Non-notable student vanity bio, re-created persistently by known vandal (see: [1]). Joho1 00:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete why not tag as db then? M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not quite enough of a nobody to speedy, IMO, but I wouldn't complain if others disagreed. Fan1967 00:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Verified as a student (class of 2007), it is pure vanity. Ted 01:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article claims notability, but I can't find any Google hits of this person (with middle initial). Possible hoax. Fagstein 01:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Fagstein and TedE. --BrownHairedGirl 01:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Nick Y. 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- stubblyhead | T/c 04:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, vanity -- PageantUpdater 04:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but IMHO not clear-cut enough under speedy delete criteria for speedying. Metamagician3000 07:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN--Eva db 09:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 12:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 2 Google hits cannot get notability.--Jusjih 13:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not really speedy as notability is asserted, but the assertion does not really stand up. Just zis Guy you know? 15:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, pointless, non-notable and slightly egocentric DannyM 18:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above Perimosocordiae 21:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. -- Caim 05:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, fails many guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, nomination withdrawn. Metamagician3000 07:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian folklore

Notable subject, but article non-notable as written. Argon233 T C @ ∉  23:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  04:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Itihasa. The topic deserves better treatment than this elementary-school-level substub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • redir per starblind M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • merge Merge into Itihasa. Redirect would lose content.
  • Weak Keep and Revert to 13 September 2005 version. Bad writing (or extremely bad writing) in and of itself ought not be the criterion for deletion. Indian folklore is certainly a more intuitive title than Itihasa. Fluit 00:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Folklore is not the same as history. Redirecting it to Itihasa is incorrect. It definitely needs some attention, though. Ted 01:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete until someone comes around to write a real article. Keeping this won't help, and not deleting it may actually hurt. Somebody who stumbles across this randomly may form a bad impression of Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford 02:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I just realized that we'd better be very careful about labeling someone's living religion as mere "folklore." That's what the stub as it is now implies. Am I the only one who thinks that could possibly be offensive? I really think this ought to be left to an expert who is qualified to separate Indian religion from folklore. Brian G. Crawford 02:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The way the article is written now, it isn't even clear what is being identified as folklore. Hence the need for a major re-write and expansion. Edit: How can we leave this to a qualified expert if we delete this article? -- backburner001 03:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the subject is notable, the article should stay. Tag it for cleanup, edit for NPOV, and keep it tagged as a stub. -- backburner001 02:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per Backburner. Who knows, this could, one day, after only being a faint gleam in the eyes of some, become a featured article! Morgan Wick 02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep important article that got vandalized. I have reverted. But still needs lots of expansion and illustration. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Horribly written but should exist and be expanded. The current attempt is a major failure and is almost devoid of savable content. I can go either way on this one but the artilce should exist but the author has, without bad intentions, completely failed. Major rewrite.--Nick Y. 02:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It is definitely an important article and there are a number of books available on same book. However I am not knowledgeable or have no interest on the subject. Someone has to come for its rescue. Deletion may not help. as I feel. User:Malapati
  • Keep until someone gets round to paying it proper attention. In the meantime, tag it appropriately. Tyrenius 03:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep expand and cleanup. Notable topic but definite room for improvement in the article. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleanup tag --Astrokey44 03:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, topic is notable. --Terence Ong 03:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-fluentials

This formerly had a transwiki tag on it, but I don't think that's an option here. Seems to be original research to me. TheProject 00:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete pernom M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (OR) —Mets501talk 00:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No transwiki. I don't think neologisms should automatically be dumped onto Wiktionary. If someone wants them there, let them do it. Fan1967 01:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable (though Google suggests verifiability/notabilty may not be far off). Fagstein 01:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--Nick Y. 02:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A Google search shows it is not original research. It is a term that is being used by different organisations. Tyrenius 03:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Nothing I could find on Google tells me exactly what makes a person e-fluential. The term isn't well-defined -- everybody has their own definitions of the term -- so I still think anything Wikipedia puts on is someone's original definition. TheProject 04:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind you'll have to point to at least one reliable source. Google hits are less than a dime a dozen these days, and don't necessarily mean it isn't OR. Fagstein 06:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I suggest starting with one of the surveys commissioned by Burson Marsteller. However, there seems to be some misunderstanding of the nature of NOR (which I have encountered on more than one occasion). NOR refers to the Wiki editor, not to the data that the editor collects. To quote from the policy: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." To attempt to synthesise a definitive meaning for "E-fluentials" would be specifically barred under NOR. The necessary approach would be to cite the differing definitions of the term, citing sources. Tyrenius 07:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, 100% persuaded by Tyrenius. Vizjim 10:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure I agreee this is a WP:NOR violator, but it does appear to be a WP:NEO that is not used outside of viral marketing websites and a few Tucker Max fancruft sites... no opinion yet.
  • Delete per Tyrenius and others. This is vanispamcruft masquerading as a neologism. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment...err, Tyrenius voted Keep, in case you guys didn't notice that. Teke 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • LOL. Hey, either these people are commenting on autopilot, or my "keep" argument is so bad it's convinced them to "delete".Tyrenius 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete That's pretty funny. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's marketing cruft. If I had a penny for every word these people make up... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As it stands this article is probably copyvio. See bm.com delete ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was d313t3. Mailer Diablo 01:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zero Speak

NN internet language. Essentially fancy leet, article makes no claim to notaility. Seems more like vanity than anything else -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 00:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete This page doesn't seem to be notable. However, wikipedia excels at all things internet. The page may yet improve and be useful to those who hear of the concept.--Chaser 00:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete most certainly NOT leetspeak, as this is randomcrapcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps a merge to leet is in order? It clearly is a derivative, and if it is somewhat notable, that's the better place for it then a delete. --Lakhim 01:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Merging to leet would be good Zoan 9:05, 10 May 2006
  • Delete and maybe merge. Apparent vanispamcruftisement. Morgan Wick 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete' "Zero isn't very widespread. It emerged somewhere around in 2005 and in 2006 has gained little popularity...".  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable cruft -- stubblyhead | T/c 04:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable invented language, I can't see how this is any different from 1337sp33k. JIP | Talk 08:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously. Any article which starts off by telling us how the origins of some new form of supposed speech cannot be traced is already well off the cruft-o-meter. Just zis Guy you know? 15:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or give it a line at leet, seems like a few highschoolers who want to outdo leetspeak. Lundse 17:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • {)|[[_|[7|[ or in english Delete This is 100% grade A number one CRAP Aeon 22:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pile on - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete please. quickly. make the bad article go away. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, nn-group. — xaosflux Talk 02:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deutschherrenklub

non-notable club; deleted from German Wikipedia, now it's here. Tom Harrison Talk 00:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. {{nn-group}}. Dr Zak 00:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. If the German wikis got rid of it, there's no point in it being in the English version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaser (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete nngroup per above unsigned M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn group. Ted 01:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can't read the German wikipedia, but one reason why it might have been deleted from there was because it's illegal to promote neo-Nazi philosophy in Germany. I'd suggest that the article does not assert notability, but otherwise its political flavour does not qualify it for deletion. - Richardcavell 01:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess it was the same version that I deleted here before, taken directly from their homepage. Choice quote: "Wir sind der transzendentalen Idee des ewigen Zustandes der Deutschheit verpflichtet, denn die Deutschheit ist unser Reich." (We are committed to the transcendental idea of the eternal condition of Germanness, for Germanness is our realm). The contents are not illegal in Germany. There are some Google hits for this group, all from either nationalist or anti-fascist websites. Nothing really notable though. Delete. Kusma (討論) 01:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • 170 unique ghits, a fair amount of those in guestbooks, never made news anywhere. The German colleagues deleted it as patent nonsense. "21:02, 9. Mai 2006 Dickbauch hat Deutschherrenklub gelöscht (wirres Zeugs)" Dr Zak 01:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete NN group--Nick Y. 02:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kehlog Albran

Non-notable &/or not verifiable &/or vanity &/or hoax. Argon233 T C @ ∉  00:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I must have misspelled "Kehlog Albran" when I did my google query. This is one of the reasons that I never do speedy deletes. Thanks Tyrenius for catching my mistake.
-- Argon233 T C @ ∉  04:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Team work Tyrenius 07:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete If the book doesn't have an article, the pseudonym for its author definitely should not. —Mets501talk 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per mets501 M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and Mets501. Article also appears to meet WP:SPEEDY A7. --BrownHairedGirl 01:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment FYI the book was published in 1973 and is now out of print, but still returns 10,100 Google hits. It achieved a certain frisson at one stage, as a parody of Gibran's best selling The Prophet, and I can certainly remember looking through it. Kehlog Albran doesn't merit an article, but should certainly be kept as a redirect, probably at the moment to The Prophet (book) where it is mentioned. I fail to see how it could be suggested that it is not verifiable or a hoax or even vanity.Tyrenius 04:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and use as redirect. Tyrenius 07:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mets501, fails to assert notability. --Terence Ong 05:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and use as redirect.Vizjim 10:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Mets501. DarthVader 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable spoof of The Prophet. Amusing name, though, involing Kelloggs Allbran while being similar enough to Khalil Gibran. Made me chuckle, anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is there a redirect now? Is this AfD over? Smerdis? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Shay

Unelected candidate for local elections (non-notable person). Furthermore, the page contents are a copy of candidate's promotional website ([2]). Jadriaen 01:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Richardcavell 01:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete for copyright violation. It is a copy from the website. Ted 01:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. No speedy delete because it is most likely that the article came from the candidate himself, so it would be released (or at least, good faith should be assumed) --Lakhim 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as copyvio. Lakhim: copyvios of the author's own material are still required to be explicitly released, IIRC. TheProject 01:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well aware, but I'd rather give them a chance to do so it if there is a chance that it may be released in the future rather then SDing it. Lakhim 01:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi Lakhim, but even if the copyright gets released... the person is described on the page Maryland General Assembly Election, 2006 (with too much red links to non-notable persons) as "Carpenter, skipjack captain, environmental advocate from Churchton". Quite non-notable to me. Jadriaen 01:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Admittedly pedantic, guilty as charged, but I like to follow guidelines :] Lakhim 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable person --Nick Y. 02:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, WP:NN, WP:COPYVIO. If the article is from the candidate himself, it's WP:VANITY. Morgan Wick 02:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: it should not be speedily deleted as a copyright violation. It is not less than 48 hours old and it is not from a commercial content provider, two things that A8 requires. Speedy deletion as non-notable might be possible. -- Kjkolb 03:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy A8, A7 --Terence Ong 05:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. A7. DarthVader 13:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas J. Voigt

I speedily deleted this before. The person is certainly non-notable as an author (the book isn't even available on amazon.de) and I don't think his notability as a neonazi leader (the articles about his nationalistic clubs Kreuzritter für Deutschland and Deutschherrenklub were deleted from the German wikipedia as linkspam; he also opened a neonazi cafe once) and criminal (apparently he was jailed for injuring an ex-neonazi), which is not talked about in the article at all, is sufficient. Delete. Kusma (討論) 01:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN and as per nom. Lakhim 01:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because the article does not assert notability. It is not the case that he should be deleted from en-wikipedia for his political leanings. - Richardcavell 01:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the exemplary lack of notability. Dr Zak 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: nn -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 01:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as a recreated article. Badgerpatrol 02:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable--Nick Y. 02:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G4 and Badgerpatrol, recreation of deleted material Morgan Wick 02:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 03:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong 05:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 07:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. DarthVader 13:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, already been deleted on a previous occasion, so must be viable for deletion again and non-notable DannyM 18:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable Perimosocordiae 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as randomcrapcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete die nazi die, I mean, delete per nom - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a Nazi soapbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Stadium Arcadium. It has actually already been done by an anon IP. Good deal. Proto||type 09:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snow (Hey Oh)

Delete by WP:NOT crystal ball. Tony Bruguier 01:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep as possibly notable. I don't think crystal ball applies here, as it is clear that the song is going to be released (the single part is pure speculation, to be sure), so it becomes a notability issue. Is the song justified as notable beyond a possible single?Lakhim 01:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this is crystal ballism. I think the song just isn't notable. As of now, the only single from the album is "Dani California", so unless this song becomes a single- and then a hit single- it doesn't have the notability to be on WP. Otherwise, every track from every album would have its own page. -- Kicking222 01:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete as per Kicking222. After review of the song criterion for notability, this song currently fails, my fault for not reviewing it first. It can always be restored later. Lakhim 01:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Stadium Arcadium until notable -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Stadium Arcadium until notable. Definitely not a crystal ball issue. —Mets501talk 02:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Stadium Arcadium, crystal ballism, nn as for now. --Terence Ong 05:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Stadium Arcadium per User:Mets501. JIP | Talk 08:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect I always redirect random songs to their performers - why not. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect To Stadium Arcadium. There is no real reason for this song to have it's own page untilit is at least confirmed as a single.- Sabbre
  • Keep due to the other information concerning the song presented in the article (this is NOT a crystal ball issue) and the article's potential for even more info. Why delete, saying you can restore later? Space isn't an issue. » K i G O E | talk 00:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but expand. 65.43.218.53 20:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan Ave

I am unsure about this one, but it doesn't look notable. It is just a street. Hit me up if I did something wrong. Tony Bruguier 01:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN. Lakhim 01:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. If by some chance it is kept, definitely needs to be renamed to be specific. Based on the title, I thought it was an article about the Magnificent Mile. - Fan1967 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above: WP:NN. --BrownHairedGirl 01:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of notability, and because the article is garbage. -- Kicking222 01:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: The businesses are most dense between Central and Livernois where someone can eat at their choice of fast food, sit down, Chinese, family restaurants, and more. You can do your laundry, rent a movie or furniture, eat ice cream, get hydraulics for your ride and still make it home by 9pm -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: as NN. --Ragib 01:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NN. See also WP:NOT section 1.7 - Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Morgan Wick 02:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Michigan Avenue in Detroit is a major street -- it is U.S. Route 12. However, as I am not from Detroit, I can't make a judgment in the article's notability. Perhaps the text should go into Southwest Detroit, but I don't know if that's an official neighborhood. The author has also created Michigan Ave-Corridor, with the same text as this AfD. Someone who's an expert on Detroit has to look over all of Z180's contribs. --Tinlinkin 04:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm from the D. I'll have a look.--Isotope23 13:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to U.S. Route 12 Michigan Avenue. US 12 is a major route and but I can't see any good reason to break out one little section of a US Route by it's in-state name. Besides... the article is only about one tiny section of Michigan Ave... US 12 is called "Michigan Avenue" all through the state (and possibly into Chicago). Still, a redirect would be the best solution here because at least in Michigan, it is always referred to as "Michigan Avenue".--Isotope23 13:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think a redirect is a good idea because there have to be many different Michigan Aves. I know there's one in DC, and I think there are other places where groups of streets are named for states. Fan1967 13:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No redirects to disambigs. Morgan Wick 23:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 13:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - and Michigan Ave-Corridor has appeared too. The JPS talk to me 15:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I prod'd Michigan Ave-Corridor, though since it is a carbon of Michigan Ave I have no objection if the nominator wants to include it in this AfD...--Isotope23 15:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep We seem to be keeping all roads - from Ohio Drive to Kentucky State Highway 2259. Why should we single this one out for a higher sandard of notability? --Bachrach44 16:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Primarily, this road is already covered at Michigan Avenue & U.S. Route 12. Author just took an aribtrary subset of this long road and created a new article about this little section at a new namespace.--Isotope23 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable Aeon 21:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Fold the content here into Michigan Avenue & U.S. Route 12 as appropriate and make this a redirect. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It is just a street and a quick google proves that the text is copied straight from here. Benjaminstewart05 16:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --JoanneB 14:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brendan R.J. Smith

Non-notable (WP:NN), possibly vanity (WP:VANITY). Note explanation of the article's history on Talk:Brendan R.J. Smith BrownHairedGirl 01:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as above. Jadriaen 01:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 01:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. Great explanation on the talk page, BrownHairedGirl. -- Kicking222 01:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. --Nick Y. 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Does anybody know if ESA-Great Lakes Masters division surfing champion in the article is of any note? Tyrenius 04:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as {{db-bio}} candidate.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No indication of notability other than the Great Lakes Masters which I doubt is notable for two reasons. First, lake surfing is not a professional sport as oceans surfing and masters champion means it is not an open field. Capitalistroadster 07:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. A7. DarthVader 13:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial stormtrooper spies

nonsense, fictional tales. Not encyclopedic, or notable --Ragib 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: as nominated. --Ragib 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Deletion as patent nonsense Lakhim 01:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete for all the above Jadriaen 01:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete - and the defense written into the article just makes it worse. That defense should have been written here. - Richardcavell 01:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete All of the above. 69.145.36.133 01:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 01:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as utter nonsense, indeed nonsense of such a high degree that if there was a WikiNonsensense I'd urge a prompt transkiki. --BrownHairedGirl 01:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Utter nonsense speedy please--64.12.116.8 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Hold on a minute The nonsense at the top of the article was not from the author. Somebody had created a template called {{hang-on}} with all the nonsense about GGFan. Author of this article got confused in trying to put the {{hangon}} tag here. I have fixed the misspelled template to refer to the real one. Please review the article again. It's now bad fancruft instead of absolute garbage. Here's the bad version of the template [3]. - Fan1967 01:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, that changes everything. Delete as bad fancruft. - Richardcavell 01:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Exactly, or maybe fanficcruft. Fan1967 02:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete It's still patent nonsense. The bad template wasn't the problem, even if it was irrelevant and misplaced. Not only is it WP:CRUFT, it's badly written and unsourced. Morgan Wick 02:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense and likely fan fiction. BryanG 02:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Starwarscruft, fan fiction. Better on the author's own webpage, as this is unencyclopædic in all respects.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Starwarsfanficcruft. JIP | Talk 08:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some sort of nonsense. DarthVader 13:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete precisely as per Richardcavell: bad fancruft. It has a trivia section! I got news for the author - the whole article fails to rise to the level of trivial. Just zis Guy you know? 15:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with 501st Legion (Star Wars). There is Star Wars stuff here for the entire Expanded Universe. Even though the article is badly written, I think the author was trying to write about something that exists in the Star Wars universe. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 19:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:NOR Aeon 21:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete randomcrapcruft with poor punctuation M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I love this new "randomcrapcruft" you're sticking everywhere. My new favorite term. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified, unsourced nonsense. I haven't finished Battlefront 2, but I've never heard of any significant trooper espionage units after the Clone Wars. -LtNOWIS 16:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westfield Eastridge

This is an advertisement that does not add any valuable content to wikipedia Richardcavell 01:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn Lakhim 01:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn Jadriaen 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no attempt to assert notabilty, unless using ths advertisingspeak "premier" counts as an attempt. (In which case, let's have a premier delete). --BrownHairedGirl 01:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and cleanup: seems notable to me; plenty of smaller malls have articles. The mall has 151 stores and 1.06 mil sq. feet. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 01:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is nothing extraordinary about this mall and I think a mall would have to be extraordinary to have an article. -- Kjkolb 03:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Is there a list of Malls anywhere? That would be OK for it. Tyrenius 04:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No claims as to notability of this mall over any other mall in existence.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 13:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete though some people hold that malls are automatically notable and some crappy ones got kept before. Thank God for WP:NBD. I am considering proposing mall notability guidelines, btw. Keep eyes peeled for those. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 University of Göttingen. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I wish people would stop redirecting articles while the AfD is still in progress. Please read these guidelines about what you can and cannot do while an AfD is in progress.

[edit] Cricket Team of the University of Göttingen

A non notable university cricket team, about 20 years old, so I don't think it has merit on heritage grounds. It also is not notable on cricketing grounds, especially as Germany does not play cricket (well, it hasn't ever qualified for the ICC Champions Trophy and the Cricket World Cup, and let me tell you that the United States qualified for the last ICC Champions Trophy in 2004, with a team half of whom were over 40 years old, they were Sunday social cricketers, basically all of them were actually Indian/Pakistani/Sri Lankan/British expatriates having a bit of fun, and were defeated by the Australian cricket team in about 20% of the allotted time for the game). So that tells you where cricket in Germany is below.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Possible keep. We might want to consult the author of the page, to give him/her a chance to work this out. A request for a clean-up maybe? Well, I'm not sure of the keep though, it might as well be a possible delete. Jadriaen 01:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Based on the article and the info presented above, there's really no notability whatsoever here. So they're one of a few cricket teams in Germany- they're still an unimportant (in the grand scheme of things) college club. -- Kicking222 02:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak Delete. Nothing to convince that they are any more notable than any other university sports team, but cricket is rare in Germany, hence possible notability-by-novelty a la Jamaican bobsleighers etc (+ website states appearances on TV etc). A delete unless someone can make a convincing case for notability. Badgerpatrol 02:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with University of Göttingen or Delete not notable enough for it's own page.--Nick Y. 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because it's a rather interesting story and I learnt something. It is one of only 50 cricket clubs in Germany. Merge would also be OK. Tyrenius 04:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there any chance this could be merged into some more general article on cricket in Germany? Assuming some cricket fan can find the topic interesting enough to write about, obviously. Just don't merge the whole thing with University of Göttingen. That would be worse than keeping it as a separate article. u p p l a n d 05:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The above suggestion is a good one. The article has a redlink to German Cricket Association and that could be expanded. The article has external links to two other teams that they play. Does the Wikiproject Cricket know about this article? --Bduke 07:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as per u p p l a n d's ideas.--Eva db 09:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into University of Göttingen, as sports do play a crucial part in university, but on its own, definately NN DannyM 18:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Merge into a subsection of University of Gottingen. Not enough history (perspectivally) to grow into an expansive article at this time. If they were a professional team, it could stand alone as is. Teke 19:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a cricket club in Germany - that's notable in itself. Merge would also be acceptable. Nloth 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to university per Nick. --Eivindt@c 23:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Merging with the University of Göttingen will give undue weight to this cricket club. This will make this cricket team look much more important than it does in its own article. Göttingen is undoubtedly one of the most important universities in history, and a lot of things could be written about it in its main article. But this cricket club isn't one of them. If it is merged, I am pretty sure someone will soon remove it from the article (I might do it myself), because it would be outright silly to keep it in there. u p p l a n d 06:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why not then move the article to a subspace of the University's article, that would keep it out of the mainspace. Teke 02:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please review your votes. With a heroic effort on my part (as I know absolutely nothing about cricket), I attempted a rewrite to make the article be about cricket in Germany as a whole, although still, obviously, with a bit too much emphasis given to Göttingen. With a history going back to 1850, there must be something interesting to say about cricket in Germany. I used the history page on the website of the German Cricket Federation to write an introduction, but that page is completely silent on what happened during the Nazi period. I suspect that there is an interesting story in there somewhere. Let's keep this now and move it to Cricket in Germany. u p p l a n d 06:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. Keep and rename. --Bduke 06:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Just found German cricket team but I do not think it where this material should be moved to. --Bduke 09:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Cricket in Germany per Uppland. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Uppland Runcorn 19:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, defaults to Merge with Salesian College. Please note that Delete and merge is not a valid action as it violates GFDL. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salesian Old Boys Cricket Club

It is a completely nn high school cricket team. Unfortunately it makes a dubious claim to having "state-of-the-art" facilities, which I find hard to believe (where are the floodlights, electronic scoreboard, slo-mo cameras, biomechanical testing equipment, etc), which gives an assertion of notability.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. Jadriaen 01:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Lakhim 01:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Salesian College and use as a redirect.Tyrenius 04:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and likely team vanity. --Chaser 23:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Worth a mention on the Salesian College article but not notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. Capitalistroadster 09:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Redirects are free, and the content can be accomodated on the Salesian College page easily. Ansell 11:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete particularly non-notable cricket club. --Roisterer 13:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect -- stubblyhead | T/c 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Salesian College as per Tyrenius suggestion, high school teams in my opinion aren't notable enough to be stand-alone DannyM 19:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge per tyrenius M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect nothing to merge - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete & merge Perhaps deserves a line in the Salesian College article. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Clear Delete Runcorn 19:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lansing Cricket Club

non notable suburban cricket team. It is not notable on cricketing grounds, especially as US does not play cricket to any meaningful extent (if I recall correctly there are only about 10 cricket pitches in America) and let me tell you although that the United States qualified for the last ICC Champions Trophy in 2004, with a team half of whom were over 40 years old, they were Sunday social cricketers, basically all of them were actually Indian/Pakistani/Sri Lankan/British expatriates having a bit of fun, and were defeated by the Australian cricket team in about 20% of the allotted time for the game). So that tells you where cricket in the US is, let alone a random suburban club .ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --Lakhim 01:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Jadriaen 01:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. If cricket is that rare in the U.S., then an organisation which promotes the sport has a certain rarity value, as would a polar polar bear in the Sahara. --BrownHairedGirl 01:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd have to respectfully disagree. If they were good, or had some other minor claim to notability, maybe, but simply being rare does not in and of itself make a topic notable. Lakhim 01:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • You have partially persuaded me, Lakhim! Yes, rarity is not always of itself an indication of notability, but nor is it a barrier to inveitability. See Tyrenius's comment below. For me, the question is whether they do indeed have one of the ten cricket pitches in the USA. --BrownHairedGirl 07:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak Delete, unless a convincing claim to notability can be made. Defeated by Australia? That is bad, 'cos their cricket team is rubbish now, or so I keep hearing. ;-) Badgerpatrol 02:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think rarity is a notable quality and of interest. If this team has one of only 10 cricket pitches in the US, I would definitely vote Keep. I have notified one of the article contributors to see if they have anything to say on the matter.Tyrenius 04:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - there are only 10 cricket pitches in the US, but I didn't mean that this club had a cricket pitch. In most cases, they are playing on a piece of concrete, instead of a proper grass pitch like Wimbledon.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Eh? Wimbledon cricket pitch? I think wires are definitely crossed here!! Badgerpatrol 15:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you think that there are no cricket pitches in Wimbledon? Runcorn 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, he must have meant the one in Dundonald Road! Well, that changes everything! (????eh????). Badgerpatrol 00:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think that the assertation is being made that this happens to be one of the ten, but rather that there only are ten. Even if that isn't the nom's assertion, I don't see any evidence to suggest that it is one of the ten, nor is a proper assertion of notability being made if that is the case. --Lakhim 20:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I meant that most cricket pitches are concrete, not a proper grass surface in a similar way to a lawn tennis court.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom... Cricket in Lansing MI, is worse than NFL Europe...--Isotope23 15:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom... Cricket in Lansing MI, is worse than MLS... --Eivindt@c 23:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom... Cricket in Lansing MI, is worse than...well I can't top those above! --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Runcorn 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 unmaintainable list, nonsense/nocontext. — xaosflux Talk 02:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs whose title constitutes words cosequencing the first letters with the words

Say what?

From the creator of List of word puns where one or more of the included words is used in whole, List of songs whose title starts and ends with the same letter, and the relatively brand-new List of non-traditional songs that interpolate or parody lyrics from traditional songs. Calton | Talk 02:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete PLEASE. I'm BEGGING you. --InShaneee 02:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense and other silly stuff --Lakhim 02:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. And really... wow. I'm honestly speechless on this one. This is the... wowwiest... article ever. -- Kicking222 02:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Also can we put up for deletion that other terrible list that hasn't already been deleted? The crazy lyric one with only two songs listed that also makes no sense? -- Kicking222 02:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I second that as strongly as possible. --InShaneee 02:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete for all the reasons above. The guy/gal has too much time, too much time. Jadriaen 02:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Can someone talk to the author please? No hard feelings, just tell him/her to cut it out. - Richardcavell 02:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Burninate this retardation. Danny Lilithborne 02:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of non-traditional songs that interpolate or parody lyrics from traditional songs

Patent nonsense. --Lakhim 02:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --JoanneB 14:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counterpartivity

WP:NOT something made up in school one day. Zero google hits for the term. Fluit 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete for patent nonsense and original research. --Lakhim 02:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete before someone else will discover the genius of the author. Jadriaen 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy delete. Hoax and absurdity, must've been a slow day in chemistry class. Begone.--cjllw | TALK 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete This is the truth, and we have serious followers. Please leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepieman (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Delete per nom--Nick Y. 03:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per cjllw --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It is at far too early a stage of development at the moment, but do say hi from Wikipedia to Mr Lutman and Mr Krey. Tyrenius 04:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, made up in school one day. JIP | Talk 08:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 13:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo limited 02:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snob detector

completely made-up term with no assertion of notability or sources to identify its use; also appears to violate WP:POV Fluit 02:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about flatulence

From the same author (Special:Contributions/Nintendude) who brought us some other pointless lists today. Someone should talk to this guy/gal. Delete. Jadriaen 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Pointless list.--Nick Y. 03:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Standard Nintendude listcruft. --InShaneee 03:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Listcruft yet again.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. It's funny and I think would actually be read by people. Tyrenius 05:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- Listcruft. It's easy to pick a random criterion and make a list of songs of it, but that don't make it encyclopedic. Reyk YO! 07:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft, I can't see how flatulence is such an important topic. JIP | Talk 08:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a suitable subject for a list. Cedars 08:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid. -- GWO
  • Delete pointless list. It's things like this that make me think hardcore deletionists have a point: why are people creating this stuff rather than contributing actual knowledge? Go out inot the net, find a real topic nobody's covered in Wikipedia, research it, write it up. There's so much missing here... why create any lists at all? Vizjim 12:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, slightly sick, a bad joke, and definately not encyclopaedic , Keep BUT add joke footer to it i.e. not to be used as proper research. DannyM 19:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above, and transwiki to the uncyclopedia.Bridesmill 20:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, transunning is the Uncyclopedic equivilant to transwikiing. By the way, Uncyclopedia is a good place for lists that do not fit in Wikipedia. --Nintendude 01:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and transwiki as Bridesmill suggests. --Bachrach44 20:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but put these AfD discussions into BJAODN. I am really red from laughing at the above. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to the Uncyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Blah, their license is incompatible. BJAODN. Stifle (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete cruftfest. Just zis Guy you know? 14:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-8 (artist)

I marked this db-bio originally, but am changing to AfD. I see no assertion of notability. The closest is that an art magazine did an article on him, but the rest of it is mostly "drank nyquil" and "supported the LA death rock scene" and whatnot. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, messed up the original nom and forgot to list it. Re-listed under current. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY
  • Keep Flipside is well known among punk rock circles, or was 10 years ago. This isn't just an ego-tripping page (although it is probably that too) Brianski 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)(☎) 04:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why delete this? I think that someone involved in this narrow field of visionary art should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.244.128 (talk • contribs)

x-8 has had many exhibitions and his work is featured in galleries around the world. I was looking him up on the web and was delighted to find a wikipedia article. It could be edited to be factual and thus conform to Wikipedia principles - I think that x-8 deserves to be featured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.109.169 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, vanity incog 02:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite. Reads like self-promotion. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 17:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Rewrite definately if it stays. Some self-promotion, not totally unnotable artist. Alot of the individual points are not notable junk.--Nick Y. 03:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep For a start he has been given international recognition and is listed as an Outsider artist by Henry Boxer the editor of noted Raw Vision. Wiki needs to build up its contemporary art coverage. Tyrenius 05:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems really wierd, and some self-promotion, but at least slightly notable.--Eva db 18:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - exhibited and represented artist, co-founder of well known publication within a notable genre. Agree it could do with a rewrite but that shouldn't reflect on the subject. Ac@osr 18:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I posted the article. It was my first. I used his bio as a template. If anyone would like to help rewrite, that's fine.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.130.195.108 (talk • contribs) .

  • Well done on your first contribution. Please don't let this AfD put you off. It's just an attempt to maintain standards and make sure. A lot of vanity articles with no notability get put on Wiki all the time. Tyrenius 08:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Not completely sure about this one, and I don't want to bite a newbie. Runcorn 19:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, or Merge with Glenorchy, Tasmania. Whether this is a Keep or Merge can be discussed out of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glenorchy Plaza, Tasmania

not notable small shopping plaza that now has a supermarket! - Nick Y. 02:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • redirect and merge anything useful to Glenorchy, Tasmania.--cjllw | TALK 03:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Glenorchy, Tasmania. Capitalistroadster 03:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)"
  • Merge--cj | talk 04:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable mall, can be merged with Glenorchy, Tasmania and deleted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per previous comment. Tyrenius 05:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ambi 05:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge --Chaser 06:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, don't bother merging — it's not even significant enough to merit mention in the article on Glenorchy, Tasmania. --BrownHairedGirl 07:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or merge to Glenorchy, Tasmania, article looks OK and establishes some notability. JIP | Talk 08:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per cjllw. Vizjim 12:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, sub-nn trivia. Honestly, the world does not need to know that the smallest shopping plaza in Glenorchy has acquired a "Big W". Can we please also delete or merge Northgate Shopping Centre, Tasmania and Glenorchy Central, Tasmania? Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. — Haeleth Talk 14:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and Haeleth. Also agree with Haeleth about deleting the other two shopping centres mentioned. Not enough useful content to merge into Glenorchy, Tasmania. Paddles 14:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, mall asserts notability. --Terence Ong 16:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    How? By stating it is the lesser of three local shopping centres?--cj | talk 06:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, utterly non-notable. -- stubblyhead | T/c 17:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Terence Ong. I also disagree with deleting or merging the other Glenorchy shopping centres. Sure, they're smaller than some of the Melbourne shopping centres, but hey, they're Tasmanian. Certainly notable for the region. --Canley 05:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete utterly non-notable, and even if something asserts it is notable, doesn't mean it is.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. JPD (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Found numerous mentions of this shopping center in Hobart Mercury and other news sources. Seems notable for the area. Since Wikipedia is not paper, I think we can include more locally notable topics, so long as they meet WP:V and WP:NOR. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • comment. Although I voted above to delete/redirect & merge, it seems there are more than a few other articles on individual shopping centres in AU. It is not at all clear what threshhold of notability (if any) has been applied in creating/maintaining all these- what makes one shopping centre notable, while another is not? Personally, I don't see why any of these can't just be mentioned in their respective localitys' articles, and none seem to say much beyond that the centre exists, and has a Coles, Woolworths, or whatever. But given the number of already-existing similar articles...--cjllw | TALK 09:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep until criteria for shopping centre notability are established, per cjllw. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 09:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, notable in the local area, perhaps. Lankiveil 02:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete Hard to judge from afar, but seems unlikely to be notable. Runcorn 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Since this was so very near a delete consensus, I have no prejudice against this being re-AfDed in the near future if there is no improvement to this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Perpetua

I've been reverting vandalism on this article for months, and every time I do I wonder why. The vandals have singled out this particular article because he's an MP3 blogger and he's a running joke, or something, on a music board. But every time I look at this two-line stub, I think, why do we have an article on Perpetua? He has a reasonably well-known MP3 blog, but other than that he's not particularly notable and the only edits to this article since forever have been either vandalism or reverts of vandalism. So let's just put this article out of its misery. Delete. · rodii · 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Note the sorry edit histories of this and Fluxblog. Vandal magnets, no real improvements to the article likely. I like Perpetua a lot; it's too bad he has such a sucky article. · rodii · 03:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable --Nick Y. 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as he has some web notability. I suggest asking for the page to be protected until there is more to add. Tyrenius 05:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable and a hassle. --Chaser 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that his page here is being targeted by vandals is neither here nor there, as the nominator recognises (all that deleting will do is mean that vandals start creating fake new pages for this person instead). However, Mr Perpetua does seem to be no more notable than you or I at present. Should we all have articles as "pioneers of wikipedia"? Cos in 100 years' time, that's what we'll be. Delete. Vizjim 10:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, what little notability he may have comes nowhere near the threshold of WP:BIO, so far as I can see. — Haeleth Talk 14:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Tyrenius's comments.--Eva db 18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - since the drive behind this nomination is the fact that the nominator is fed-up reverting vandalism, would the deletion not mean that the vandals have won? Is Wikipedia giving in to bullying? Ac@osr 18:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Not really... it's just that every time I revert it, I think "why am I looking out for this useless article?" It seems like the vandals are the only people in the world who are truly interested in the article. · rodii · 19:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.  Grue  09:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If kept, needs a bit of expansion. For what it's worth, I've put him in Category:Living people, so maybe more people will keep an eye on the article. Runcorn 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of portmanteau words and word puns used in video games

This clearly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Brian G. Crawford 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete obviously. --InShaneee 03:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. What are we going to do about Special:Contributions/Nintendude? He/she keeps generating lists like this. --Jadriaen 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe there was an RfC against him a long time ago under a different username, but I'd be all for opening another. --InShaneee 03:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I let him know what's going on by leaving a message on his talk page. Brian G. Crawford 03:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as yet another example of listcruft.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete on this occasion, but full marks for inventiveness, which I'm sure can be turned to good use somewhere, somehow on Wiki. Perhaps someone can suggest to Nintendude some lists that would be useful. Tyrenius 05:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this seems rather useless. -AndyBQ 05:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the love of... This is Wikipedia, not Uselesscruftylistipedia. Reyk YO! 07:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 @ 13:05 UTC
  • Delete as original research. Plus the entry for Warcraft is just plain wrong. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. 23skidoo 13:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 13:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. --Terence Ong 16:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and is it possible to put a block on this guy creating new articles? Also, i don't think that either Warcraft or Wolfenstein is a portmanteau. -- stubblyhead | T/c 17:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've left a warning on his talk page that any more useless lists may be considered vandalism. Stifle (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Christine Maggiore. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christine Maggiore Action Committee

Christine Maggiore seems to be reasonably notable, but this action committee does not. I suggest a delete. Tony Bruguier 03:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with Christine Maggiore. --Jadriaen 03:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • CMAC recently incorporated as a small non-profit in the Baltimore area. We were able to register www.ChristineMaggiore.com, and will be launching a full website on May 16, 2006, the one year anniversary of her daughter's death from AIDS-related pneumonia. Christine Maggiore is a prominent figure in the AIDS Denialist movement and her daughter's death has been covered in the LA Times and on ABC's "Primetime." CMAC is the first organized effort to counter AIDS denialists' claims that is directly targeted at Maggiore. --Robbieisfun 03:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment let's add linkspam to the list then. Tony Bruguier 03:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I am new to Wikipedia. Does the organization need to make it into the newspaper or be mentioned on multiple websites before it is "important?" If you could clarify this for me, I would appreciate it.--Robbieisfun 03:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Suggestion: make a section in the Christine Maggiore article about this Acion Committee, and this page will redirect to that one. But I suggest you even wait with doing that until your has launched. For the moment, you are non-notable (cf. Wikipedia:Notability). --Jadriaen 03:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Jadriaen. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I am happy with merging this with Christine Maggiore until the organization achieves some more notariety. I am not sure how to do this though. Thank you everyone for helping out a WikiRookie.--Robbieisfun 03:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment deletion would also be fine. the website will be up in a week. can the sentence I added to the Christine Maggiore article be left in?--Robbieisfun 03:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Your comment there links to the committee page, that will probably be deleted. I'd rather put the name of the committee in bold or put an external link to your homepage. --Jadriaen 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I think I fixed it. I bolded CMAC and added a "Criticism" section to the links with a link to the CMAC site. Okay? --Robbieisfun 04:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It does not even merit a mention on Christine Maggiore as there is not even one hit on Google for the committee. Even the web site is only a holding page. There is no verification whatsoever for this committee. I have deleted it from Christine Maggiore. Wiki is not the place to promote new ventures. Sorry. Tyrenius 05:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, at least for now. If they achieve some notability once they're actually online, I fully support an article, however. -- stubblyhead | T/c 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete for now. But CMAC will be back..."notably"...very soon! Thanks for everyone's contributions to this discussion.--Robbieisfun 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for making the effort to understand Wiki policy.Tyrenius 20:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs that reference sex acts

Listcruft, too broad a topic, not encyclopedic. Brian G. Crawford 03:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per nom --Nick Y. 03:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pointless. List for list's sake. --InShaneee 03:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom --Jadriaen 03:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete At this rate, "Nintendude list" will be a running gag around here. Danny Lilithborne 03:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "This is an incomplete list of songs..." no kidding. A list of songs about sex would be about as possible. Not speediable, but unmaintainable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that the article should be deleted, but I don't think it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. It is helpful to say which criteria that you believe the article meets, like "A6" or "attack page". Note that "speedy delete" is not equivalent to "strong delete". Also, an article may violate WP:NOT, but it cannot be speedily deleted if it does not meet the speedy delete criteria. -- Kjkolb 04:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as another example of listcruft.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think a better one would be List of songs with sex act noises. Tyrenius 05:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 13:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 16:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete words fail me --Bachrach44 16:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; however, note the long history of List of songs about masturbation. -- stubblyhead | T/c 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, horrendously inappropriate (maybe not as bad as List of songs about masturbation though), DannyM 19:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. UnDeadGoat 22:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Be On the Lookout", as American cops like to say: Nintendude (talk · contribs) has added a link (so far red) to List of lists of songs for List of songs containing cheerleading quotes. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Way

vandalism page ॐ Priyanath 03:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Granada High School

Completing AfD for Kdepa Metros232 03:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable, though I wonder why I bother. --InShaneee 03:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably delete as non-notable. --Jadriaen 03:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, WP:SCHOOL, inherently notable, yada yada ... -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 03:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "This proposal was rejected by the community. It is inactive but retained for historical interest." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Just saying that I approve of inherent notability -- Samir (the scope) धर्म
        • Then say that. Don't cite a rejected policy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Non-policy shortcuts are cited all the time. Many people believe that schools are inherently notable and will still refer to the shortcut as a succinct form of their argument. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Cool, does that mean I can start citing <link removed> as a succinct form of my argument in school AfD's?--Isotope23 15:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SCHOOL and no apparent reason by it should be deleted. Pepsidrinka 03:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but a cleanup seems appropriate. --Jadriaen 04:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. A major cleanup is required as the tone of the article is entirely unencyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but fun facts should be deleted --Tom Bonnie 05:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. High schools are inherently notable. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 05:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the good teachers giving out "donuts". Tyrenius 05:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the school. I threw out a lot of stuff, so hopefully others will look over the changes, and see if anything can be added back (with sources). --Rob 06:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Lots of high schools have block systems and school sports teams. There's nothing notable about this one. --Chaser 06:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clear precedence on high school inclusion, and while the article is not great, it is at least an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. High schools are typically not notable unless they are the location of a significant event. Cedars 02:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this might be a bad faith nomination. Kdepa is a student at the school's main rival [4]. Metros232 11:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are notable. DarthVader 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, all schools are notable. --Terence Ong 16:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — The usual arguments regarding High Schools. — RJH 16:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, up for deletion due to petty rivarly, stupid tbh DannyM 19:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep High school. ReeseM 03:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable, and no clear reason has been given for deletion. Zaxem 11:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renegade Comic Forum

This page appears to be about an internet forum, variously called "Renegade Forums" and "Renegade Comic Forum". The page is entirely unreferenced, and has been so since its creation. I have been unable to locate a single work that might serve as an independent, reliable source for this article. A google.com search for "renegade comic forum" was unhelpful, producing only two hits; one to what I presume to be the forum itself, the other to the Wikipedia page under discussion. I do not think it is currently possible to write an encyclopedia article on this subject, and request its deletion. —Encephalon 03:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of successful products that spun off of failed commercial products

Another unmaintainable "Nintendude list." Brian G. Crawford 03:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. We really should do something about this guy/gal. --Jadriaen 03:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the unmaintainable bit. Melchoir 04:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The realms of listcruft beckon.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research, not clearly defined and not written in a particularly interesting or informative way. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wow, my neologism caught on. :) Danny Lilithborne 04:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is an interesting and valid idea that could provide an article. As I understand it NOR applies to content of articles, not ideas for articles in themselves, and presumably there is a lot of existing information that details connections such as the ones listed. The title could do with being more succinct. Tyrenius 05:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Off from", not "off of". Delete the bad grammar. Vizjim 10:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete huh? --InShaneee 14:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the title is bad grammar and the content is poor. Let someone create a decent article with a different name and my vote would be different. Alternatively move to a better name and tag as stub. Guinnog 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete archetypal listcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, then expunge the memory from your brain. --Bachrach44 20:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, although the content could be merged into the respective articles as useful (if verifiable). Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Nintendudecruft. (Also POV, OR, LC, ...) Stifle (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, notable content could be merged as per Tijuana Brass.--blue520 15:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Kuelbs

Short biographical article about a Not Notable minor league hockey player whose team the Dallas Freeze does not even have a page, Probable Vanity Nick Y. 03:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Melchoir 04:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The closest Wikipedia has is Central Hockey League. I don't see a single article on a player from it, though. Melchoir 04:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - The CHL (which is a low minor league, come to that) used to have a team called the Dallas Freeze, but that folded years ago, and even there a player for the CHL would not qualify under WP:BIO unless he'd played in the NHL, which very few CHL players ever manage. This is some rec league. RGTraynor 08:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable bio/vanity. It looks like the Dallas Freeze do have a website [5], but it indicates the team is just a rec. league team. Could Rob be this guy [6]? --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but good luck in the game. Tyrenius 05:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable yet -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the amateur athlete. NN until they reach the NHL. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • While I don't agree with the "NN until NHL" comments (I'd say, for instance, a top AHL player or a very nice Canadian Hockey League prospect deserves a page), the optimistic appraisal of this guy is that he's playing in the Central League, which is to my knowledge the lowest professional league in North America whose players are usually of strictly local importance. Delete. Lord Bob 03:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - It'd be a fantastic appraisal, too; the Freeze dropped out of the CHL after the 1995 season. (The lowest pro league in North America is probably the SPHL, too, but the CHL is right down there.) RGTraynor 14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought the SPHL was semi-pro, but a quick look at our article on the subjects shows it is not. Point, RGTraynor. Lord Bob 00:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table 12

Non-notable website per WP:WEB, possibly also a non-notable club. The main YCC forum has just 262 topics; Table 12 has just 7. Alexa rank is terrible, and Google is no help. Melchoir 04:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never known a forum or club to have that many topics... The church that the forum is affiliated with has over 40,000 just in the main denomination, a feat for a church only 60 years old... Membership spans to Netherlands, America, Canada, Australia, South Africa, South Korea, and Scotland. No less notable of an entry than many others in the database. It may be noted that some members have in excess of 2000 posts within a couple years... this is obviously the only life they have... as pathetic as that may be, it may also be 'notable'. In a certain community, this group is having a large impact. -batmanhatguy

I'm not sure what database you're looking at, but the typical forum with an article at Category:Internet forums has tens of thousands of topics. Melchoir 13:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But consider: there are only a limited number of people talking, the discussions are distinctly topical, and the whole forum is flushed periodically. All in all, there have been far more than 262 topics.

Possibly there have, but even if the forum has been flushed a thousand times, that doesn't prove that it's notable per WP:WEB. As you say, there are a limited number of people talking; how many people do you think are listening? Melchoir 23:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

---Brian Bratcher, member

    • This Wikipedia article is no more your business than it is mine, I'm afraid. But if you're so familiar with the forum, perhaps you can point us to multiple non-trivial reviews of the forum in reputable, published sources? Or a well-known, independent award it has earned? See WP:WEB, please. Melchoir 23:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Halo 2

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Weaselriffic. This is a review of Halo 2, not an article about a controversy. Currently, it's pure original research, and laden with weasel words. Rather than a description of a groundswell of negative criticism, it's a laundry list of complaints, some of which are vague and purely aesthetic (e.g. "Other fans complained that the plot of Halo 2 was less appealing than that of Halo.")

I would suggest that it be merged into Halo 2, but that article is already a trainwreck, and this useless pile of OR and weasel words would do little to improve it. (Halo 2#Criticism needs to be improved, though.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Jadriaen 04:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Nick Y. 04:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated and as nominated twice before. Delete this piece of garbage. Please, I'm sick of seeing it here. Brian G. Crawford 04:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, but let's calm down the language. Mangojuicetalk 04:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, OR, and POV. Kevin 04:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, all previous reasons, and all my recent edits on the article and talk page. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kevin's arguments. Colonel Tom 05:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Shall we see if any valid sources can be provided for any of the statements, in which case some of this material could be merged with Halo 2. Presumably there is something credible in it. Wikiquette requested. Tyrenius 06:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; this article has violated content policies literally from day one. After four months and two AfDs, it has yet to find a single reference. Time's up. Melchoir 07:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pathetic Juvenalia. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge I'm sure you can cite some criticisms and Halo 2 could use them to be NPOV. Are we going to AFD this every month until it finally gets deleted? (Last one closed April 1st, one before that was 10th of February)Kotepho 14:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not a Halo 2 fan, but I like POV OR even less. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game review site, and Halo 2 is not notable for its criticisms. — Haeleth Talk 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and others. Content belongs in a gaming forum, not an encyclopedia. Paddles 14:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. I added the noncompliant tag almost three months ago and the article has not improved since. Not a single source for any of the blatantly POV claims in the article. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOR, POV article, WP:V. --Terence Ong 16:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, up repeatedley, let's just finish it DannyM 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subsection in the Halo 2 article is good enough. Jgamekeeper 08:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete AMIB knows his stuff, and I can't but agree that this is useless from an encyclopaedic standpoint, given that it fails numerous policies (starting with the POV title). Just zis Guy you know? 11:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Metamagician3000 11:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God's algorithm

The article reads:

"For a particular type of problem, "God's Algorithm" is the most efficient way of solving that problem for a particular composite of space and memory efficiency."

This is only a dictionary definition, and I don't see much scope for expansion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not even a dictdef, as the article doesn't explain what God's algorithm actually is, or the problems that it can solve.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No, as the definition says, "God's algorithm" for a given problem is the best algorithm for solving that problem - we're not talking about a particular algorithm or problem. A useful definition, but not an encyclopedia article. There is more than the definition in the article. Robin Johnson 15:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Optimal solutions for Rubik's Cube, which seems to be the context on Google. Melchoir 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep as rewritten, although it could use some references. Melchoir 19:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Melchoir. Maybe it could be expanded later. Kevin 05:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's certainly capable of expansion, and is not restricted to Rubik's Cube, so a redirect could be misleading. Check out some of the Google results. Tyrenius 06:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I would agree that the concept is not restricted to Rubik's Cube, but I wonder how it can be expanded. Could you give an example? The search for an optimal algorithm is certainly interesting, but it seems to me that the natural place to treat this is not in God's algorithm, but in some other page talking about the specific problem being solved. For Rubik's Cube, we have Optimal solutions for Rubik's Cube; for matrix multiplications, this is discussed in matrix multiplication, and if it gets too large for that, it can be discussed in Optimal algorithm for matrix multiplication, et cetera. I don't think it has any use to gather all these optimal algorithms for diverse problems in one place. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • This could work as an overview which directs to other articles with specific examples.Tyrenius 06:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with algorithm, this looks like an important concept, but there is too little to say about it for its own article. JIP | Talk 08:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've rewritten the article. Please have another look. LambiamTalk 10:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Lambiam's rewrite. As Tyrenius mentioned, the topic has quality Google results. There appears to be substantial interest in the topic. ScottW 13:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NFT made up on rubik's cube forums. There are optimal solutions, heuristic algorithms, and optimal algorithms. Even with the rewrite it is just an article about some people inventing a term for something that already exists and is not notable. Combinatorial optimization is where this should be discussed. Kotepho 14:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak keep I had a reactionary prescriptive instead of decriptive response there. It seems that this term can be sourced, even if I don't like it. Kotepho 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite. I don't know what the NFT has to do with this, but Kotepho appears to be claiming it's a neologism used only to talk about Rubik's Cube; the briefest glance at Google's output reveals that while that is the community in which it is most common, it is used in plenty of other contexts. — Haeleth Talk 14:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I was referring to WP:NFT. NFT => Wikipedia is not for things... Sorry about the Newspeak. Kotepho 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef. Robin Johnson 15:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Keep and cleanup. Apologies: I voted before I read the article, for which I deserve to look like an idiot. I thought the nominator meant that was all the article said. Interesting mathematical article. Needs references added, which should be possible as there are plenty of Google hits on academic sites. Robin Johnson 15:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That was all it said, but it was rewriten. Kotepho 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting enough, is it linked to optimal algorithm properly? Lundse 17:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This subject is a relevant mathematical theory. 1652186 19:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not just use God's algorithm to determine whether or not to keep the article? In all seriousness, Keep. It passes the google test. BigDT 21:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This concept of a proof so succinct that it is beautiful or elegant is referred to in "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers : The Story of Paul Erdos and the Search for Mathematical Truth"...and, as I came to find out, in the article about Paul Erdos. Although this afd seems to show that the term has gone beyond Erdos, one way or another, his article should be tied in here. --129.107.81.12 23:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC) (a random wiki surfer)
  • Comment I have some issues with the rewrite. It changes the definition of "God's algorithm": it adds the requirement that it be practical and it restricts it to games modelled by digraphs. The links served up by Google seem to be ambivalent on the practicality requirement. I think that this shows the difficulties in writing an article about what I believe to be an ill-defined phrase mainly used colloquially, which is why I'm standing by my nominiation notwithstanding the rewrite. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I've slapped an OR tag on it, but I think it's salvageable. Google books turns up a couple of references by a David Joyner, who seems to define the phrase. Melchoir 04:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can think of ways of improving it and expanding on it. Paul Erdős used to talk of a "proof from the book", meaning God's book, which might be considered God's algorithm applied to a proof. Ideas like this are studied formally in proof theory. Is there a reason for deleting it, beyond a crazed desire to delete content? Gene Ward Smith 04:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • There's no connection between this article and The Book. Melchoir 05:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
There's exactly the same connection as there is to the Rubik's cube. Of course, the shortest string in, for example, Peano arithemtic which proves something might not be something that would make you call it one from The Book, but there would likely be a connection. Gene Ward Smith 05:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep JeffBurdges 11:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a worthwhile article. Runcorn 19:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, while the article may need improvement, the term (and meaning) is estabilished AFAIK. LjL 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid concept, references in literature (I have added one to article), well on the way to becoming a useful article. Gandalf61 08:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All*Star X

Vanity, promotional blurb for fan fiction SoM 04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Jadriaen 04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. Kevin 05:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Tyrenius 06:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 13:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Kevin1243's comments DannyM 19:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All*Star X-Men

Vanity, promotional blurb for fan fiction SoM 04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Jadriaen 04:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Delete. --BradBeattie 04:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. As above Kevin 05:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Tyrenius 06:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 14:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per my reasoning above DannyM 19:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional electronic games

Crufty list not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, indiscriminate collection of information. Brian G. Crawford 04:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Obviously a lot of work has gone into this list, just look at the history. I really don't know who other than the people working on the list would benefit from its existence. Who cares? So I think I'm inclined to vote for delete, but I'm going to bed now. You decide! --Jadriaen 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I consider that an article which has been worked on by a whole number of different editors over this time period (since June 2004) and has reached this advanced stage, has effectively achieved a community consensus, which is a major factor to be taken into account when assessing this Afd nom. Tyrenius 06:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep they are all referenced --Astrokey44 06:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep so much effort into this list! I agree with Tyrenius that time and number of editors on the page is suggestive of consensus -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There are many other pages that have not been deemed to meet the criteria for inclusion, no matter how many editors have worked on them or how venerable they have been; the Draft Busts/Steals articles for various professional sports leagues, for instance. Granted, about half of them will pile onto this AfD and shoot it down, but it's still a mere list, unblemished by any actual content. RGTraynor 08:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting information, many of these are verifiable. I don't see why it should be deleted just because it's about fiction or popular culture. JIP | Talk 08:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with the notion that the article having many editors should be given some degree of weight. However, with a few exceptions, the edits of the last year seem to be mostly drive-by additions. Edit history aside, I just don't see how someone could come across this article and find it useful. In the event that someone has an interest in fictional electronic games, there is no further context for 90% of what's listed here. I'm also a little concerned that it's not possible to have any reliable oversight of this list. ScottW 13:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. However much work has gone into it, it's still an indiscriminate collection of information, and that is something Wikipedia is not the place for. — Haeleth Talk 14:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fictional electronic games? What's next, fictional names used in movies? --Hetar 17:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listmania indiscriminata rampans. Sandstein 19:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Random fictional objects from unrelated series. If that's not an indiscriminate collection of information, nothing is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JIP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep useful collection of information.  Grue  09:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:LC. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete, then move Shikari Lonestar to this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Crap, I was blinded, change the result to No consensus, it'll take some effort to fix a move. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shikari

Disambig page which contains a link to (1) a comic character (who, upon checking, doesn't have "Lonestar" as a surname" (2) a dicdef for a non-English word and (3) A non-notable band which doesn't have an article SoM 04:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC) [BTW - I agree with ExcaliDragon and Haeleth about Delete/Move Shikari Lonestar to Shikari, if that wasn't clear SoM 02:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

  • Redirect to the comic character. --Jadriaen 04:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Move Shikari Lonestar to Shikari, since she doesn't have a surname. - ExcaliDragon 06:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now Not sure about the band, but redirecting to a particular comic character is a bit of a mistake. I can off the top of my head think of two notable characters in Indian pop culture -without articles as yet- that are equal candidates sometime soon, at the rate that the Indian presence is growing here. So I would hold off on deleting this right now. Second best is Redirect. Hornplease 07:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and move the other article per ExcaliDragon. Hornplease, the time to disambiguate a name is after the ambiguous articles have been written. At present we have only one article that should be called Shikari, so disambiguation is pointless. — Haeleth Talk 14:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment MoS:DAB#Redlinks advises "Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject. Adding links to articles not yet written should be done with care. " So if Hornplease is very confident these articles will be written, adding redlinks is a possilbe solution. JackyR 11:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and move the LSH character article on top of it. I can (re)confirm that her name is just Shikari (in Legion Lost, she introduced herself as "Shikari, of the Path". - Psi-Locked 00:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep Given that these other articles exist, a DAB is needed. Runcorn 20:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qasim Saddique

Self promotion article. No encyclopaedia value. Siddiqui 04:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom + not notable.--Nick Y. 05:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Presidency of a body with 150 members doesn't assert sufficient notability, IMO. Colonel Tom 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as the President of the Future Leaders of Pakistan. Tyrenius 06:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nick. Hornplease 11:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:VAIN, NN. (It also strikes me that it must be tough to be the leading "future leader" of Pakistan and go to school in Canada, but that's just me.) RGTraynor 08:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 14:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as with all the self promotion articles I've voted on. Pointless, NN and egocentrical DannyM 19:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete member of student club. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and speedy delete per nom. 1652186 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mahir Sheikh-Nisar

Self promotion article. No encyclopaedia value. Siddiqui 04:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. --BradBeattie 04:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete- being previously ranked in Pakistan's top 10 tennis players doesn't seem to sufficiently assert notability, and IMO that's the most notable claim in the article. Colonel Tom 05:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as the founder of Future Leaders of Pakistan. Tyrenius 06:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. And we should get to Future Leaders of Pakistan next. Hornplease 07:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and a good idea there, Hornplease. -- stubblyhead | T/c 18:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete member of student club. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and speedy delete per nom. 1652186 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AskReeze

Non-notable website per WP:WEB. Delete. Jadriaen 04:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as a non-notable blog that can't even afford its own hosting costs. --Hetar 04:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. Gwernol 05:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB. I generally like to add more specific reasoning when suggesting a deletion, but the above covers it well, really. Colonel Tom 14:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Scientizzle 22:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. TheProject 05:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DanEduc

Non-notable consulting firm. Delete. Jadriaen 04:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I revert my own AfD. Lots of Google hits, on notable websites. The article should put more emphasis on the importance though (I can't find the relevant template). --Jadriaen 05:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment template {{importance}} added to the article. Colonel Tom 05:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial specialists

Nonsense, star wars funcruft.fan-cruft Not encyclopedic. --Ragib 04:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry I meant fan-cruft. :) --Ragib 08:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft. — Haeleth Talk 14:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FICT. No context, does not seem to be a good candidate for merging to another Star Wars article. Barno 17:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable at the very least, and possibly fan fiction. BryanG 02:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Since this comes very close to a consensus to delete, I have no qualms about re-AfDing this in the near future if there is no improvement to this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universe Today

Non-notable space and astronomy news site. So far out there that it doesn't even register for an Alexa rank, delete. --Hetar 05:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It is a weblog, cf. WP:WEB. --Jadriaen 05:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. It's actually got a rank of 38k, but that's pretty low. Melchoir 05:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Universe Today is a pretty popular website in astronomy circles, and sends out a newsletter that reaches 30,000 people or so every day (the site itself gets a million hits a month, I think, and has a very lively forum). Definetely noteworthy. Andromeda321 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep UT seems pretty popular and borders on notable. I am a subscriber myself which might have influenced my vote, I therefore voted weak.(voted on May 10th but didn't sign vote)Kalsermar 15:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Universe Today has been around for years. It's no fly by night website and it's sponsored by Phil Plait the Bad Astronomer. I listen to him on the radio sometimes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.143.239.77 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete Runcorn 20:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis Country

Should be Elvis COuntry (Album)? Pure POV comentary on that it is a horribly produced album, does not meet standards, improperly named Nick Y. 05:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Exactly as nominator describes. Ted 05:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Colonel Tom 06:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN compilation. Acording to amazon.com it's a compilation album, and there are so many Elvis compilations that wikipedia ca't include them all. --BrownHairedGirl 14:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and expand. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard J. Stillman II

Does nothing to establish the gentleman's notablity-- is the professor of public administration at the University of Colorado notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article? ekedolphin 05:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I understand the nomination because as it stands the article is rather poor. Yet he is a published author of some academic books which is mentioned in the article, and a look at this Amazon page seems to indicate that when it comes to notability, this professor seems to pass WP:PROFTEST. Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but expand should be marked as stub. As per Sjakkalle. In fact one of his books is cited as further reading in Wikipedia article on Dwight Waldo. Paddles 15:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. [Google search for this name] returns plenty of non-blog hits for his books and papers. I had to look to be sure this wasn't really Richard M. Stallman of the Free Software Foundation. Barno 17:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and expand. 24 items in the Library of Congress catalogue, all from good publishers. His American bureaucracy has been published in three editions, and Public administration: concepts and cases in six editions. u p p l a n d 07:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per everyone. JeffBurdges 11:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand; he's definitely notable. Runcorn 20:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 {{nn-band}}. Stifle (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Wide-Mouthed Frogs

Non-notable band. Argon233 T C @ ∉  07:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - career starting point for 2 people with existing articles. My reservation is that the article contains no information not already included in those existing articles. Ac@osr 18:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was CSD-A2 speedy deletion. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 08:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campelos

The article is a simple copy from pt:Campelos without translation; lenghty text of rather mean encyclopedic quality; the topic is not important. Seems to be better to start from scratch later. Ioannes Pragensis 07:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete --mboverload 07:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tustena CRM suite

POV claims and some claim of notability which is belied by the <1000 Ghits for Tustena CRM - in other words, the article looks like spam for a non-notable software product. Just zis Guy you know? 08:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update software AG

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange but not part of the calculation of any stock indices, employs 180 (slightly more than the single office of a multinational where I work, one of about a dozen offices in the UK alone). Has under 1000 customers, no real indication of influence or notability. Just zis Guy you know? 08:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not encyclopaedically notable. Zaxem 11:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Black Year

Only use of this term is found in a novel Telsa (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. My full reasoning is at Talk:The Black Year#Black Year? but in sum, we already have articles on Anglesey, Druid, and the main source Annals (Tacitus); and we have articles on Bernard Cornwell and his The Warlord Chronicles, in which novels the narrator refers to "That Black Year" and the author (in an afterword) refers to "the black year of AD60 when..". I think this is an honest confusion of these descriptions in Enemy of God with a real name used historically. However, once you take the name and Merlin's quest for treasures with which to repel Romans out, there's nothing in this article which we don't already cover. I did not turn it into a redirect because, as far as I can tell, this name is not used in history, so the redirect would be a sort of original research in itself. Telsa (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Telsa, including his reason not to redirect to another article. Google search shows lots of "2003 was a black year for <topic>" quotes, but none except this WP article indicate that it's used by historians to refer to 60 CE. Barno 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I tend to agree with Telsa's reasoning, but the article could possibly also be moved, cleaned up, and NPOVed to something like Suetonius' attack on Anglesey. (PS: If her user page tells no lie, Telsa is female Wikipedian...) QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 20:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was deletedeletedelete. Mailer Diablo 12:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape Music

A listing of RuneScape music locations in-game, apparently. Doesn't appear to be all that encyclopedic. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 08:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is a comprehensive list, and obviously some effort was expended in the creation. I certainly don't wish to disparage the contributor's efforts, but I do agree with the nominator that this is non-encyclopedic, precedent being set by many other unencyclopedic list deletions in the recent and less recent past. Colonel Tom 13:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: when wiill the gamelistcruft end? --Hetar 17:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If not copyvio from runescape.com, this still constitutes trivia from a computer game, not of interest to non-playing readers. I don't think that any of this material should be merged into higher RuneScape articles per WP:FICT. WP:NOT a guide to endless internal details of games. Barno 18:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not wanted on RuneScape Series. J.J.Sagnella 18:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ouch. I'd say I just got told...Reading this, I think that the article should be deleted (even though I wrote it =\).Freddie 02:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Credit card industry

Suggested a merge with Credit card some time ago, but received no feedback. I think this article as I stand is quite impossible to fix, and, indeed pointless, given the discussion in credit card. Favour deleting and redirecting Hornplease 08:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and redirect to credit card. Capitalistroadster 10:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect and possibly merge into Credit card. --Jadriaen 11:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Be bold. -- GWO
  • Redirect to Credit Card. No salvagable content that's not in the longer article. Peripitus 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - can't see any point in merging would add nothing to CC article. - Glen TC (Stollery) 14:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article has nothing to add to Credit card.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect, nothing worth merging to Credit Card. GRBerry 16:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Credit Card does the job fine, and this article has POV problems as well. DannyM 19:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto on the POV problems. beekman 19:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of bands and musicians by name

Isn't this exactly what categories are for? (Also, Wikipedia is not a directory) Aleph4 09:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of bands and musicians by letter. Aleph4 19:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. The current category software is incapable of displaying all bands and musicians. But this list would be unmaintainable by its length and the frequency of necessary updates. One of the external links estimates there are 80,000 recording artists. That's unacceptable. Melchoir 10:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utterly unmaintainable, basically useless through inherent incompleteness. -- GWO
  • Delete, see reasons above. --Jadriaen 11:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, potentially unmanageably large. Colonel Tom 13:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Also note that the entire Copyright Info section is a direct copy from a BBC Radio article [7]. ScottW 14:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Any thoughts on the articles linked from this one (Bands starting with A NUMBER (0-9), Bands starting with A, Bands starting with B, etc)? ScottW 14:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: My thought is delete all such lists. Unmaintainable (whereas the category is nearly self-maintaining), no value in grouping by initial, no added value by including non-notable bands/performers, no added value by including note text in list entries. Barno 18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: To follow up on my earlier comment, I've removed the information from the ironically named Copyright Info section which had been copied from other sites. ScottW 01:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "This is a comprehensive list of all band names, irregardless of their genre, in alphabetical order." How on Earth is it possible to maintain such a list and who would use it when categories are available?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete... per GWO.--Isotope23 17:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - if it was done well, I might have been swayed - Frank Zappa is under "F". The Fall aren't in it at all. Pffft. Ac@osr 18:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What is to be done with all the individual pages that are summed up on this page? --Jadriaen 20:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
delete them as well. --Walter Görlitz 20:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • SPEEDY Delete There's just so much wrong with the idea. --Walter Görlitz 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all of them. --Tone 21:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Nintendude list. Danny Lilithborne 01:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Danny. Just a terrible idea. · rodii · 22:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kontinuum

Seems not to be notable according to WP:SOFTWARE. Alexa ranking of the company is 883,966; a Google search for "Kontinuum" and "Web and Flo" returns 179 hits. The talk page contains some claims to the contrary and a {{prod}} by user:Weregerbil was removed by user:The13thMan. S.K. 10:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm that is Odd. I dont get the same google hits as you do. If I type in Kontinuum Workflow I get 9000 hits. Google or Alexa is a bit hard to measure a size of a company's breadth or significance. Probably a better measure is to see what kinds of site are talking about the subject and if those sites are important or just link farms. I would probably vote to keep it but maybe remove the external links as these can be abused. The neural workflow aspect I am pretty sure is unique but I am not sure that directly implies noteworthy. Happyfish 12:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. By contrast, Googling "Kontinuum Workflow Software Suite" gets exactly two hits; their website and this article. Googling "Kontinuum Workflow" (with Advanced Search/Phrase, not as two separate words) gets six unique hits. RGTraynor 14:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Notability implied in article but not referenced, stated in talk page but not referenced. I currently have other things to do than this research, but if I was an editor who wanted to retain the article, verifying notability in the article is where I'd start, methinks. Colonel Tom 13:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: nothing more than a spamvertisement for a non-notable piece of software. --Hetar 17:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup: In Australia it seems to be relevant. There are 3 major search engine sites google.com.au, ninemsn.com.au and yahoo7.com.au which are driven by the google, MSN, and Yahoo search engines. If I type in "Workflow Software" into each of them searching for australian sites then there are the following natural listing results:

Google (Position 4: Site about Web and Flo, Position 7: webandflo.com) MSN (Position 4, 9 & 10: Sites about Web and Flo, Position 7: webandflo.com) Yahoo (Position 1: webandflo.com). I do not think the number of sites is as good an indicator of relevancy as opposed to site ranking. Since the engines are much better at detecting over-zealous SEO and they do blacklist sites. (note I personally have contributed to this page so you may feel my vote is biased.) PsychoSafari 23:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I get the same 29 ghits with both google.com[8] and google.com.au [9], for a computer product that's just plain awful. --Eivindt@c 00:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

google: [10]yahoo: [11]ninemsn: [12] Whether or not someone thinks the great or horrible does not make it any less notable. PsychoSafari 01:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • NeutralHi I actually work for web and flo so you make take everything I have to say as fully biased. I personally think it is relavant athought I think my opinion should not carry any weight. However one thing I would like to point out is that Kontinuum Workflow Software Suite as a name is only one month old. Before that it was just called Kontinuum (for about 6 months I think) and before that it was called "Web and Flo". That is why there are so few hits for Kontinuum as a name. I dont really mind if this gets deleted as we have no control over it and it can be used to say very negative things about the product by competitors.
  • Clean Up' 218.214.40.51 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Importance not established. Runcorn 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, quite clearly an ad. Try searching on Google Groups, somebody would be talking about it if it were software that people actually buy and use... LjL 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Horizon

Non-notable company, makes no claim passing WP:CORP. Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 10:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Royboycrashfan 13:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Dawson

Apparent hoax, unsourced, and nn anyway. I db'd it, as did a prior editor, both dbs removed with no explanation NawlinWiki 11:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Sources needed. --Jadriaen 11:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the prior editor. Can't find anything on google, article author has a very dodgy edit history. Weregerbil 11:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax and/or attack article. Metros232 11:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pygmy sand bat

unverifyable and apparently nonsense article. Species name "Myotis lucifugus" is properly covered in little brown bat and pygmy sand bat returns no google hits [13]. Reads as a made up article Peripitus 11:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete, discounting socks, meats, etc. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plank cricket

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

A game that google doesn't know. Cites three web references; one page doesn't respond, another mentions neither "plank" nor "cricket" (and is autogenerated bollocks anyway), and the third contains a random juxtaposition of "plank" and "cricket". WP:NFT. Weregerbil 11:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • KEEP the games plank cricket is a creation for playing cricket in schools. it is also a way in which to build foundations for a well nit community. plank cricket is so popular because it does not require any type of sparts equipment.
  • Delete - this type of cricket is adequately covered by Beach cricket and the article adds no further elucidation. Peripitus 11:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a game that is played informally so it does exist. Its only the discussion thats made up but it is a game that is played in schools at lunchtime etc so only the discussion appears to be incorrect from what i have read—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.217.131 (talk • contribs) 13:04, May 10, 2006
    So in other words, it's a) not notable, and b) not verifiable. Kill it. Kill it stone dead. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not something made up in school, this is something played in schools. It seems to me that a game of this nature is going to have a hard time asserting notability by the google criteria because the practitioners are <gross assumption> 10 year olds busy playing sport, not writing blogs </gross assumption>. This article seems worthy of inclusion to me, and seems quite different from beach cricket and French cricket. Perhaps an all-round 'cricket variants' article would suffice, but I discern sufficient points of difference to suggest that the different articles should be retained. IMO, of course. Colonel Tom 13:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This is something said to be played in schools. Notability isn't an issue; the question is verifiability, which is far more important. — Haeleth Talk 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Marge and Redirect to Street cricket of which this is a variant. Marge the small amount of useful information into a paragraph in the "Variants/derivatives" section there. Gwernol 13:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: I have attempted to check the URLs given for references: one was non-functional, one was simply a page filled with garbage, and one was a totally irrelevant news story, thus confirming nominator's point, so I have removed them all, leaving the article without any supporting references. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep it sounds like Stickball but for cricket instead of baseball. I'm going to also go out on a limb and assume that people really do play this. Tag it {{unreferenced}} and wait 2 weeks is my medicine. Kotepho 13:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • m/r to Beach cricket seems decent too. Kotepho 13:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If it ain't verifiable, it ain't Wikipediable. Fails WP:V, WP:NFT. RGTraynor 14:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep What a game! I didnt realise it actually had rules it is basically played as the article says but we use stumps drawn on walls. You can't delete it not a lot of people have access to cricket pitches because they are sealed off so this is the next best thing. We play in at luchtime everyone joins in mostly as fieldersc because there is only one batter and bowler at a time! Plank Cricket Forever yeah.!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.96.166 (talk • contribs) .
Comment Oh, goody. Meatsocks. Colonel Tom 14:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of WP:V sourcing. Willing to reconsider if someone can source this.--Isotope23 14:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - there is unlikely going to be any source as this is a school yard game, not something that is likely to be written about. at the max I would say merge it with street cricket. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.44.21.186 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, if there aren't any sources then we don't write about it, period. — Haeleth Talk 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - And ignore all of these anons saying that verifiable sourcing doesn't matter, because it most certainly does. --Cyde Weys 16:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't think Tag (game) or Bullshit (game) would have a source, but they did. Unsourced is not a reason for deletion, but being unverifiable is. You cannot know if something is unverifiable unless you try (hint, google isn't a good idea). Kotepho 16:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC) (Apparently, after the AN thread people didn't actually put the sources in the articles, groan.)
  • Keep - This is a genuine article. Poor kids in cities don't have access to proper cricket, and this is the only way they learn - therefore the content of the article is important. Plank cricket is not written about on the internet because deprived 10-year-olds don't 'blog' about it, and probably don't even have the internet. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist - it matters hugely to a lot of people, and plays an important part in the development of cricketing skills. If the general feeling is that a separate article is too much, then it should be merged with street cricket, but certainly not deleted, as the information is 100% correct, and it is a well-written piece. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.11.121 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete - in rush of meat puppets tell you all you need to know. -- GWO
  • Keep - I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but the article is 100% genuine. Perhaps it could be merged with Street Cricket, but I feel the nature of the game warrants an article of its own. User:Hard2Explain
  • Delete: no sources mean it has to go. If we start including unsourced content, we should change our name to Jimbos Big Bucket of Trivia. Oh, and please ignore the sock puppets. --Hetar 17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Sources have been been added to the article which verify the existence of plank cricket. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.4 (talk • contribs) .
  • It looks like it was only one source, and unfortunately, it fails WP:RS - so it won't be of any use for saving the article. --Hetar 21:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it were verifiable, it could be merged with beach cricket which apparently covers backyard cricket and gully cricket as informal types of cricket. This is unverifiable via Google see [14] and seems not to have spread much past the school mentioned in the article. Wikipedia should only publish information that has been verified by other sources. Capitalistroadster 23:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can find a reputable source. --Eivindt@c 00:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fork/unverifiable. ReeseM 03:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Just zis Guy you know? 12:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article now has a reference - therefore it should be kept, or pehaps merged.
  • Someone sticking a mention in his personal blog is a "reference?" Could we see something from a reputable source, please? RGTraynor 16:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes - as mentioned earlier, the very nature of the game means that it's hard to see a 'reputable source' writing about the game. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.11.121 (talk • contribs) 18:06, May 11, 2006

KEEP This game is played by citizens, normal children in the street or the playground so please explain why everybody is expecting a source from a professional website. If it is played by school children then how is a website written by a school child not a reputable source. Older generations do not play plank cricket so why would their be referneces on a professional website. A personal website is sufficient! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.162.143 (talk • contribs) 19:14, May 11, 2006

  • Delete - Neologism, not notable. Whack it. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect Can I do the honors? Xaxafrad 05:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable. Runcorn 20:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 University of Moratuwa. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moratuwa University

Moratuwa University already has a page in the name "University of Moratuwa", which provides much better information than this page. Smgunasekara 11:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bread Store


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, but I strongly recommend that someone rename this article to some other name. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan

Was PROD'd, but seems like an encyclopedic topic so have brought it to AfD JackyR 12:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment This is a daughter article of United States invasion of Afghanistan. JackyR 12:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Could do with individual citations for each incident, and should possibly be moved to Civilian casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. But although it may be uncomfortable reading, this is the sort of article which will be useful to historians in ten years' time. We certainly have articles about the Baedeker raids, the bombing of Cologne, etc. Original PROD cites includes ongoing event and incomplete list as reasons, but WP has templates and caveats to cope with these. JackyR 12:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable and unmaintainable list (and even if it could be verifiably maintained, Wikipedia is not a memorial). There have been thousands of casualties during the invasion, most of them utterly unverifiable from any reliable source (as nobody but the coalition forces had regularly issued dog tags). If any of the incidents mentioned are notable in their own right, create articles for them. Kirill Lokshin 12:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kirill. We do indeed have articles about those incidents and battles, but I note that neither have lists of casualties by name. Any utility to future historians of the same is questionable at best; most historians manage just fine to recap battles without listing the fallen by name. Bleh, make that a Keep; serves me right for breaking my rule and answering before I read the article. Plainly this is not a memorial list, but a well-written and comprehensive incident list. My remaining quibble is that the name is misleading. RGTraynor 13:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with the above - while I won't modify my keep vote below, perhaps a rename to something like List of fatal incidents stemming from the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan would work. Perhaps not. Geez, that's clumsy. I await a better 'rename' suggestion, but agree that the name does confuse. Colonel Tom 14:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a memorial. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 @ 13:04 UTC
  • Keep. WP:NOT doesn't seem relevant here. I'll quote:
    "Memorials. It may be sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives."
    No Hardly any names are mentioned in this article, so individuals are not being honoured/remembered per se. Being a casualty of this conflict is encyclopedic, in my view. I'll need a more compelling argument than WP:NOT to change my suggestion to a delete. Colonel Tom 13:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Kirill Lokshin does give a more compelling argument above; my apologies for not addressing it. I'll try here. Unverifiability - a plague of modern (and historic) conflict. An external source for each incident (as most involve more than one fatality) is desireable, if not essential, I agree. Pasting {{citation needed}} tags would address this; deletion is not required. Unlistify - IMO, better to retain many would-be stubs under the one heading. Colonel Tom 13:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is not a memorial article, but a lst of incidents, and is both noteworthy and durable. True, it needs references (and has already been appropriately tagged), and it may need renaming, but those are points for another discussion. --BrownHairedGirl 14:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per BHG Guinnog 15:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:V. If references are not provided, this should be deleted. We cannot have this hanging around forever unreferenced, which is what tends to happen all too often when people vote to keep an article who have no intention of actually fixing it themselves. — Haeleth Talk 15:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as completely unsourced. If anyone wants to create the article anew, suggest that a) it is remade as List of casualty-producing incidents in Afghanistan conflicts since 2001 or somesuch, and b) sources are provided for every claim. Note: this doesn't have to mean coalition-approved sources: Pakistani news organisations, Taliban-sympathising web pages, etc, all would probably count. Vizjim 15:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment the source for the whole article appears to be this, listed at the bottom, which in turn lists sources. It should be possible (tho time-consuming) to tag the incidents from here. JackyR 16:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Keep. I've changed my vote, as people are now adding sources for article claims. I have asked for citations at specific points in the article, and hope that these continue to be added in. The article is clearly not a memorial, BTW. Vizjim 14:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, add {{fact}} tags as appropriate, or take the prior suggestion and go track the citations backwards. 16:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Haeleth, I take your point, but this article was tagged {{sources}} only five days before it was nominated for deletion, and I can see no attempt to notify the relevant editors about problems (CJK or Harro5) until User:JackyR gave a timely headsup on the AFD. I started to write that if we don't see changes (or at least a response from the editors) before the vote closes, I may be tempted to change my vote … but now I see JackyR's latest comment which seems to suggest possible copyvio. Jacky, where do you think it stands on copyright? --BrownHairedGirl 16:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Sorry, my comment was misleading: it doesn't seem to be copy vio. The article apperas to be heavily based on information (but not text) in the Marc Herold website, with the exception of the military deaths at the end which should anyway be moved to Coalition Casualties in Afghanistan. So it could be tidied up until Herold's website is the sole secondary source (which I guess is why the individual incidents were not originally tagged). However, his website is itself a synthesis of news reports, with footnotes each incident. So tho tedious, if should be poss to slog through and tie each incident (sometimes each part of an incident) to a source. Then leave an overall link to Herold: the news reports are "as the story emerged", while Herold ties things together afterwards. I'm only sounding so confident because I've just had a brief go at exactly this, and have so far found Herold's stuff checks out. But I'm not a position to do the lot, if only because some newspapers may need subscriptions. JackyR 16:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — I'm concerned that this article may be of too tactical a nature to be encyclopedic. Imagine having a page covering every casualty that occured during World War II or the Iran-Iraq War. This type of content is only feasible for a small-scale conflict. — RJH 16:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kirill. Pavel Vozenilek 19:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It sucks that a bunch of people are dead, but as many have stated already, Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- stubblyhead | T/c 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per BrownHairedGirl. 1652186 19:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a veteran myself, I deeply mourn these deaths. But Wikipedia is not a memorial nor is it WikiNews. We should not attempt to chronicle every firefight or bombing in the campaign. The only really encyclopedic content I see is the "Total casualties" section at the bottom but that's already in the parent article. Rossami (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As aforementioned, Wikipedia isn't a memorial, and there is no way this article can be completed anyway (lack of evidence, sources...)
  • Delete, not a memorial, plus this article is highly biased, where is the list of all of the dead Americans? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not sure I follow - US casualties are included in the article. Colonel Tom 02:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • (after edit conflict)Comment And in a sister article at Coalition Casualties in Afghanistan. JackyR 03:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment as I understand the history, this article is a badly named spin-off from United States invasion of Afghanistan, covering civilian deaths (ie not military forces from any side). Because of the lousy naming, some military names have been added here, tho the coalition article is actually their natural home. Hence the proposed renaming. JackyR 03:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (Khanada 04:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep But change article name Myciconia 05:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it doesn't display the name of every casuality, so it is not a memorial.  Grue  09:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I find that strange logic - 'it is not (and likely can't be) complete, therefore it should stay' - sounds like you meant to say 'delete'...Bridesmill 17:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. POV magnet. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I would sincerely appreciate it if an editor could explain exactly why this meets WP:NOT a memorial. I've tried to show above why I think it does not fall under this stricture, and no doubt I could do so more effectively, but I would really appreciate a more detailed response than 'fails WP:NOT' or 'Wikipedia is not a memorial'. I realise that it can be difficult to deduce intentions from plaintext in a page like this, so I assure all; this is not a snarky dig, this is a genuine request for explanation. Thanks. Colonel Tom 13:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I'm curious myself; this is an incident list, not a list of victims by name, something the most casual glance of the article readily reveals. RGTraynor 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. per JackyR. Needs proper citations, but shouldn't be all that difficult to go through newspaper archives and find them. This is definitely not a "memorial". --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Create new aritlce for NPOV balance against this one, call it List of casualties under the soviet union, the taliban, and sadam housaein, 'course that list would be too long and would be in violate of page size requirements--Burg Hambler 22:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. What an excellent offer! Soviet war in Afghanistan could certainly do with such a daughter article. Currently it just states: "International condemnation arose due to the alleged killings of civilians". I look forward to seeing the article! JackyR 15:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Stifle. Impossible to maintain accurately (several canadians missing already) what is the point? POV magnet. What about List of casualties of DDay List of casualties of Battle of Vimy.....Bridesmill 22:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - if this is a list of incidents, rather than Casualties, beside the name problem, all it is then is an absolutely classical POV Fork from the US Invasion article. No vote change Bridesmill
  • Comment: After thinking about this quite a bit more, I still think that it is not appropriate for Wikipedia, but it may be appropriate for Wikibooks. I could support a transwiki if someone wanted to move it over. Rossami (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That works for me. Transwiki per above. — RJH 19:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, first, wikipedia is not a memorial, second I have very serious concerns on accuracy.--Aldux 21:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete besides anything else, I suspect the POV. Runcorn 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_jewelry_stores

Listcruft; list can never be completed, & blatant invitation to linkspam Bridesmill 12:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete; just a list of links, overbroad, not readily verifiable -- what, are the editors seriously contemplating listing every jewelry store in the entire world? RGTraynor 13:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and RGTraynor. --BrownHairedGirl 14:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - this list already exists. In Australia, it is found in the Yellow Pages]. Delete per all above, and (I'm guessing here) some of the arguments which will eventually be presented below as well. Colonel Tom 14:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Robin Johnson 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages A list of all jewellery stores in the whole world? Unencyclopædic in scope, tone and content.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft of no conceivable value. Just zis Guy you know? 15:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleteॐ Priyanath 17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no use in it. --Tone 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encylopaedic. DarthVader 22:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete "Nintendude list". Danny Lilithborne 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ion Global Ltd

As far as I can tell it's not terribly notable. The Google test gives about 176 hits. The only thing I can say is that because their clients win Webby Awards, it may be notable. Anyway, putting this to AFD for the community to decide. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Roundabouts 200 Google hits seems very poor for a "web development and online marketing company". Haukur 14:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Simply because business associates and/or clients of a firm are notable does not mean that the company itself is guaranteed inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am the creator of this article. Please reconsider this entry as it is currently under construction. Ewc21 09:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem like an organization that's notable enough for an encyclopaedia. Zaxem 11:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP unless verifiable sources added to establish notability. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 24.226.26.222 14:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC) this is me Mike (T C) 14:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • To address the first two comments about the low number of Google hits, searches should not necessarily include the "Ltd" at the end since Ion Global is not known as an "Ltd" company all of the world. It markets itself most of the time just as Ion Global to ensure it covers all international entities. The search with "Ion Global" alone, which is more accurate, produces 16,500 Google hits.
    • Actually, that's a good point. It does appear that without the Ltd that the Google test shows more hits. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It is a good point and it suggests that, if kept, the article should be moved.

Haukur 08:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I can create another article without "Ltd" and move all contents there. Please advise. Ewc21 00:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Why not just use the move button? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We need to be careful with articles like this, which could be construed as adverts. Runcorn 21:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I respect your thought but I am making this article an information page about the company rather than advertising it. More details about history than about services and no contact information is provided in the page. Ewc21 00:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Pisani

Delete per Vanity, not notable. --mtz206 13:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep As having a vested interest in this article, specifically, the writer, I do not agree. Notablity is first of all subject to opinion, and there are also two media sources listed for the article, which would seem to contradict the not notable claim. Vegalo 13:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

artist is listed on first page, listing number 6 of google [15] and he will soon be recognized by the US Embassy consular office in Zurich - council woman, Mrs. Bruckmann will soon give a speech on his behalf at an upcoming exhibtion this fall. Vegalo 14:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is was Vegalo's second keep vote on this article. until Vegalo moved it to here. Metros232 14:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
comment sorry about voting twice, I was just addressing comments that had followed afterwards, have now moved all into the same vote. Vegalo 14:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment:"will soon be recognised" is merely a promise of a degree of notability. It's not notability until it has happened. --BrownHairedGirl 14:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
comment have taken into account the arguments presented and have tried to edit the article accordingly. Thanks for your help in instructing a newbie here.Vegalo 15:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as there is some sourced notability and this seems to be a relatively established artist. However this article needs a complete rewrite - as it stands it is advertising and highly WP:POV. I'm adding some tags in case it passes AfD. Gwernol 13:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Seems to fit the aspiring artist pattern, who has gotten the occasional article but not much acclaim yet. Not that many Google hits for the name, and most seem to be for other people of the same name ([16]). Fan1967 14:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Fan1967. Website offers 3 press articles, all in German. No notability expressed by article, just talks about his style/influences, nothing concrete. Metros232 14:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - Glen TC (Stollery) 14:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep despite my comment above, and despite the article's author doing his case no favours. I think that WP:BITE applies here: Vegalo has only been a user for a day or two, and the article falls a bit short of WP's quality standards, but I think that the artist is notable, and that the author needs assistance in bringing it up to standard. For example http://www.123soho.com/artgroup/jesus_2000/jesus26.htm offers enough information to allow an easy and clear assertion of notability in the first para.
    Anyway, there are gazillions of fancruft articles here on minor characters from obscure video games, so surely we van find room for a prolific artist and businessman who may not be the next Picasso, but appears to have had a very successful career? --BrownHairedGirl 14:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Now that the article has been rewritten, and specifically now that the text copied-and-pasted from the artist's homepage has been replaced by what I assume is original writing, I see no reason to delete it; three press articles are three press articles, regardless of their language. — Haeleth Talk 15:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without meaning to bite. Reads like a short glossy mag article, verging on an advert, and not an encyclopedia entry. If you removed unencyclopedic/POV material from this article there would be almost nothing left. Robin Johnson 15:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article doesn't mention significant exhibitions where the Pisani is the focus or a notable contributor; there are no press reviews or critical appraisals of Pisani's work quoted in order to guage his notability amongst his peers or in his tradition of artistic expression. cleanup the purple prose and add some of the above content to make this article useful for a researcher.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment did lots to update and increase the value of this article in according to aeropagitica's comments.62.202.65.206 16:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There is still not much in the article to warrant retention - Pisani has visited lots of US states, visited and painted in Prague, married a Swiss woman and discovered SCUBA diving - any critical appraisals available to be quoted?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I don't really follow the art world, but it seems that he is a notable, if minor, artist. With a little cleanup and some beefing up, I'd strengthen my opinion. -- stubblyhead | T/c 19:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment found some more places where some of Pisani exhibtions are listed from additional sources (other than his own website): [17] [18] [19] [20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.186.200 (talk • contribs)
  • comment the babelfish translation from an online newspaper article about Pisani German article found here gives some more insight to the artist and possibly arguments for notabilty as well (in response to aeropagita's comments):
(According to babelfish:)If the sun becomes the carpet if concerning a layman modern art momentarily by the window of the gallery Steinegger in Ruedlingen looks, it becomes perhaps in the pictures issued there first only circles, lines, strips or squares in strong colors to recognize. In it hidden are however everyday impressions and memories of journeys. The pictures, which from New Yorker artist comes the Joseph Pisani, are issued under the title "The Trials and Misdemeanors OF Life on the Road". The Vernissage took place on Friday. Pisani was born in New York and took after some travel in Switzerland domicile. Its work - abstract expressionistische painting - is to energize the viewer for thinking and to the closer Hinsehen. A picture, in which among other things a broad red strip and a teppichfoermiges object are to be seen, is called "The View from My Bungalow". "I lived a time long in Egypt. The red strip stands for the Red Sea, and the sun has here the form of an eastern carpet ", explains Pisani. Everyone sees something else as proceeds it when painting - does it have a conception of its next work already before painting? "if I to paint begin, mix I first colors, like it me straight please - to know without, what from it" Pisani becomes, says. "short before the picture is finished, comes the brainstorm: Well clearly, those are the colored seas of the Indonesian island Flores!" How can the untrained viewer open the meaning of the forms and colors? "the titles are to help thereby", mean Pisani, "and the longer one a picture regarded, the more recognize one - however everyone sees something else in the pictures." Author: Vera Huotelin, Schaffhauser Nachrichten Newspaper, Switzerland --Vegalo 10:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment, question- is this guy in the us air force art museum? seems maybe so, but would have to be older work since the styles are much differnt. [21] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.186.200 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Restore it when he becomes notable. Runcorn 21:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 under A8. The JPS talk to me 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baruch Sterman, Ph.D.

Non-notable bio about a company CEO. Company in question has already had article deleted, however user has recreated the article and placed a note that we should bring it up to encyclopedic quality. Both articles should have been speedied. VoteL Delete - Glen TC (Stollery) 14:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment tagged article for cleanup/context. Subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO. No opinion though because this was brought to deletion 25 minutes after article creation with no attempt to contact originator with concerns about the article.--Isotope23 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Article was tagged for speedy (db-bio) and contributor removed tag so therefore was well aware of the need to ascertain notability. As such there I felt there was no need to tell him again. FYI company article has been speedied (for second time) - Glen TC (Stollery) 14:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Good point by Isotope23 above, but lack of notification does not prevent this bio on a NN 'technichal visionary' being nominated for deletion. (BTW, 25 minutes seems positively polite given the timeframes for some nominations!) Colonel Tom 14:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - naming convention would suggest that the Ph.D. be removed from the title if this was to be kept, I assume? It does smack of vanity, apart from anything else. Colonel Tom 14:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment, it doesn't prevent it from being nominated as there is no hard amount of time that needs to be waited before bringing something to AfD... but it goes against the spirit of the Articles for Deletion section Before nominating an AfD, goes against common courtesy, and contributes to the view that AfD's are biting newcomers. I wholly agree that the subject falls well short of WP:BIO, and I'm really not trying to pick on Stollery, but there is no harm in tagging the article, sending the originator a note on their userpage to read WP:BIO and update the article with information that meets the criteria, or this will be nominated for deletion in a few days. If the originators answer is that they can't source it (or they ignore the message), then speedy/AfD. I know I'm going off on a tangent here, but AfD is discouraging new editors from participating in Wikipedia when their first encounter with the community is an AfD notice on their page, no explanation, and an AfD reason like "subject not-notable". To be fair, I've been guilty of doing this in the past as well... I'd just like to see some of this behavior change.--Isotope23 15:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 15:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • CSD A8 one more tag for this bugger: article created in the last 48 hours and all of its revisions are a blatant copyright infringement. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beverly Hills Chinese Baptist Church

Not notable enough to warrant an encycolpaedia entry; little useful comment I have nothing against the church in question! It just doesn't seem to warrant a wikipedia entry. Note that there are no wiki links in or out, and only non-wiki link is to the church's home page. Paddles 14:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Doesn't appear to be a notable church or to have a notable member(s) of the congregation. Problems connecting to their website, too.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopaedically trivial. Just zis Guy you know? 15:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above, definitely not encyclopedic - Glen TC (Stollery) 18:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TheProject 20:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleteper nom


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, this was very close to borderline for delete. As a no consensus, this would default to a redirect (to Chappelle's Show_, and redirects are cheap. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Murphy's True Hollywood Stories: Rick James

I am re-nominating this article, which was originally nominated for deletion a week ago ([discussion here]). The original nomination was withdrawn, though the consensus seemed to be leaning towards delete or merge. The article itself contains no content that does not properly belong on Chappelle's Show, is non-notable and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and one sketch on one show by one performer shown in one country should only very rarely meet the notability criteria. Moreover, the article contains unverified, and probably unverifiable statements to suggest notability, such as this being one of "the most popular sketches to come out of" the show. For all those reasons, and for being comedycruft, I ask for people to once again vote Delete. Vizjim 14:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete single sketch from a single comedy show. Sure we have articles on sketches - the Parrot Sketch, for example. Is this the Parrot Sketch? Not as such. If there is a case for independent notability it is not made in the article. Just zis Guy you know? 15:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I was going to suggest a merge, but the Chappelle's Show article sufficiently covers this sketch. A redirect is also unnecessary because is anyone REALLY going to type that entire thing in to find this article? Metros232 15:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated. I probably wouldn't nominate it again, because Wikipedians love their TV and TV articles, but I still think it needs to go. Brian G. Crawford 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge would be okay (the current content is almost, but not quite all covered at Chapelle's Show and Rick James). Honestly, if this were a vote, I'd vote to keep it - this sketch spawned what was probably the biggest catch phrase of 2004, used quite a bit outside the context of the show. It's far more notable than any individual internet meme. I say this all speaking as not a fan... the fact that I've heard it and seen the sketch even though I never watch the show says something, to me. If someone could produce sources verifying the use of the catch phrase, and work those into the article, I'd definitely say Keep. — AKADriver ☎ 19:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Metros232. It's the most well-known sketch from this show, but it's already summarized twice in the Chappelle's Show article. --Metropolitan90 02:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Chappelle's Show. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • How? The content's pretty much already there. Vizjim 13:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - is the purpose of these repeated AfDs to simply keep nominating until it disappears? - Richardcavell 04:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No. Please read the explanation at the start of this nomination (the second sentence explains the answer to your question). Vizjim 08:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep "and one sketch on one show by one performer shown in one country should only very rarely meet the notability criteria." What do you mean by this? I'm so sorry you do not consider Australia a country. This sketch is notable and should be kept. Cvene64 10:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I've deleted the offending clause, as it makes absolutely no difference to the case. I was not aware that the sketch was later re-shown in Australia. My humble apologies. Why is the sketch notable, by the way? Vizjim 10:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It is notable because it is a popular part of western culture in some peoples eyes. Just because you personally do not think so, that doesnt make it non-notable. If it is merged, the content will be restricted in terms of size and use of images, thus, it should be kept. Cvene64 01:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • "I'm Rick James, bitch!" was 2004-2005's "Where's the beef?". — AKADriver ☎ 13:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        • The notability of "Where's the beef" lies in its use in a Presidential debate. Any equivalents here? Vizjim 16:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't believe that this sketch has a wide enough recognition to make it encyclopedic, as a sketch in a comedy show would not normally be notable enough for an article. I'd say "where's the beef" is borderline and this sketch is not as famous. -- Kjkolb 23:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DeletePer above. Steveo2 23:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it was an enormous fad at the time and Wikipedia covers damn near every fad. A Clown in the Dark 03:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. Cocaine is a helluva drug. Eusebeus 03:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Per Metros232, no need to merge. ScottW 14:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. And I'm someone who thinks that this may be the funniest thing I've ever seen on television. Be that as it may, however, this does not yet have the cultural significance to warrant its own article. As others said above, it was a big fad in its day, but I'm not convinced it'll ever be more than a fad. --Deville (Talk) 23:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright then, if it's going to get deleted, at least redirect it to Chappelle's Show to avoid the redlink syndrome. - Richardcavell 04:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; seems nn. Runcorn 21:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This was not just any sketch, and it caught on with the people.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OVER(story)

Delete. Fan fiction. Not even finished, at that. Was prod-ed by Bikeable ("Non-notable fanfic") and notice was removed. discospinster 15:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is non-notable, and merely asserts a possible future story. Danaman5 15:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete An article describing the gestation of a fan-fiction story is non-notable by definition.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Deletey. Nn even by the standards of fanfic. Vizjim 15:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A1 and 7. Danny Lilithborne 01:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per all votes above. --Metropolitan90 02:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refractive Relativity Theory

One person's theory. No secondary sources. --Pjacobi 15:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete possibly WP:OR, certainly WP:NN — less than ten hits on Google. --BrownHairedGirl 15:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable from reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable from reliable sources. Vizjim 15:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Refractive Delete :) c - Glen TC (Stollery) 18:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and it seems it was copied from somewhere. --Tone 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. OR and NN. DarthVader 22:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No-Delete. I am Eckart E.Colsman the author of this contribution. I, Eckart Colsman, found out that the Wikidea Organization thinks of deleting my articles about the "Refractive Relativity Theory" (RRT). These ideas of the RRT I presented in some American Physics Society (APS) meetings - the first one in Fall 1991 at the Bates College in the USA. In my website www.colsman.us.tc/ . I explain the consequences of the idea of replacing the “warping of time” with the variable velocity of light. I got over the years some enthusiastic response to this new approach to the General Relativity Theory. – I plan to write more articles which fit better the Wikipedia discussion/source platform . - I can’t imagine that some one likes to delete my articles from the Wikipedia system, just because there are no abundant sources or links. Please, approach new ideas with an open mind! -How else can we make progress of understanding the physics of the universe! --
  • Do Not Delete __David Cohen. This theory presents an lternative to relativistic time warp and replaces it with c warp. The dimension of space-time, ct remains the same as does the Lorentz transform. This is another way of looking at the bending of light in a g field. c would be near zero at the instant of the big bang and time would be allowed to preceed the big bang.
  • Delete. OR and NN. @ Eckart: Publish in some well reputed journal, then rewrite the WP-article citing your paper as a source; not the other way round. Cf. WP:OR. You might also care to know about this. Cheers, --DerHerrMigo 13:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per DerHerrMigo Zero sharp 00:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons already stated. DVD+ R/W 00:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete . All these arguments stated above have nothing to do with the Refractive Relativity Theory. Writers, who believe to have to publish a negative commentary, should read the work previously, should understand it and should, if necessary, inquire with the author. The commentaries should be competent and pertinent. Emotional remarks are inappropriate, because they don't serve the matter. I hope for a factual and scientifically sound discussion of the work. --BvB 15:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're missing the point. This is not to discuss whether RRT is sound physics or not. What we do discuss is whether RRT is considered sound physics in the generally accepted literature available. RRT isn't mentioned at all in the generally accepted literature available, so it shouldn't be mentioned in WP either. You don't even have to be a physicist to discuss this (I happen to be one, anyway). But then we've already discussed this on de:... --DerHerrMigo 13:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Do not delete I am Eckart Colsman the author of the RRT idea. These ideas are not “one person’s idea”. They were discussed in private correspondence and the result are the papers presented in my home page ( www.colsman.us.tc/) . I explain how the time warp is replaced by the c warp, and what consequences are resulting. If there are some non-sequitur situation, I like to know about it and discuss it! -- As a person who never was associated with an academic research institution, I am a layman for the established close knitted physicist community. Maybe some of the Wikipedia community can find a reputable physicist who studies the ideas of the RRT and recommends to be published. I am in a catch 22 situation! But this happened to lot of now well-known physicists like Hubble and even Einstein! - Replacing t with c as a variable is a plausible and logic step and worthwhile to find out where it is leading to. I found astonishing results! But our thinking is so used to the contra-intuitive thinking that we have a hard time making a paradigm shift to get out of this rut of thinking. -- We all should try to understand Einstein’s Relativity Theory instead just admiring him, and try to find a theory of unification between the GRT and Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, Einstein was looking for. Finding a unified field theory would be the best monument we can build for Einstein –he deserves a big one. Let’s all work together on this big monument! Eckart Colsman Eckardo 19:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. This is almost literally on the border of a delete, so I have no qualms about this being re-AfDed in the near future if there is no improvement to the article. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Legend of Zelda (song)

A song based on The Legend of Zelda. I think I can find about a thousand Googles for the song itself, Allmusic does not list it. Another of User:Nintendude's priceless contributions to the project. Just zis Guy you know? 15:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC/SONG--Jadriaen 16:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Oy vey with the Nintendude and the lists and the notability and the hoivenglaven! </frink> -- Kicking222 16:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable internet memes. Another excellent example of why we need a meme-specific guideline. The misattribution alone makes this rather worthwhile. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as random minor internet meme, no context either. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totalise

This really isn't the place for SPAM or press releases Rklawton 15:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, press release... WP:NOT a free webspace provider.--Isotope23 15:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Er, not exactly a press release, but a cut & paste from [22] (paragraph 1) &[23] (the rest of it).--Isotope23 16:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Jadriaen 16:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete ॐ Priyanath 17:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam/press releases don't belong on wikipedia. DarthVader 22:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The vineyards

I had a brief conversation with the contributing parties, but ultimately, I can't find any establishment of notability or verfiability, so I'm reluctantly placing it here. --Bachrach44 16:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - absolutely gorgeous building, absolutely no encyclopedic merit. - Glen TC (Stollery) 18:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice; if anyone can write an article that is verifiable and actually says something interesting, they should. Mangojuicetalk 18:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The page has been tagged for merging with The Matrix. Joyous 06:39, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matrixism

A religion based on The Matrix? I seems rather like a hoax, or like people listing themselves as Jedi on a national census. I could be wrong, though. -- Curps 19:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: claims to have 400 adherents [24], probably not notable. -- Curps 19:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, let's wait for 5,000 victims, shall we? Wyss 19:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • merge&redirect to The Matrix. Not enough content and notability to warrant a full article. Mikkalai 19:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to The Matrix#Impact. The Matrix article currently mentions Matrixism. Zzyzx11 19:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sure the Agents will not approve of the spreading enlightenment. Delete so that Wikipedia can avoid their wrath. Lacrimosus 20:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as above. HyperZonk 20:58, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as per Zzyzx11's vote. Luis Dantas 12:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to The Matrix, and add redirect. Megan1967 06:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Chamaeleon 19:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


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


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. TheProject 20:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matrixism, take 2

Since it's been recreated, but seems somewhat different, and because it won't stay dead, I'm listing this for deletion once again. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Matrixism is now mentioned in widely published books both scholarly and popular. It is therefore what one normally considers notable. - D166ER 16:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. Not sufficiently different; {{db-repost}}.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per Fuhghettaboutit. -- stubblyhead | T/c 18:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. TheProject 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiclick

A one week-old game hardly has sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia (even if it is a Wikipedia-related game Rklawton 16:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a time limit for how long something should exist before its put on Wikipedia? User:macm is 17:59 (GMT)

Yes. It should first exist long enough to become notable. Rklawton 17:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 334 club

Delete article about a term for 334 fans who showed up to a NJ Devils' game in a snowstorm in 1987. Useless as a redirect. Deprodded by anon w/o explanation. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neologisms describing unverified usage for specialized, local, unremarkable phenomena, are not encyclopedic.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not very encyclopedic, although it's an interesting story Metros232 18:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fuhghettaboutit. Only localized and minor relevance, no wider influence. Google shows this exists but doesn't return any notable coverage (as far as I dug - there might be a little in later search pages); Google also shows an unrelated Cleveland Indians club. Barno 18:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moral Anarchy

Delete non-notable ॐ Priyanath 17:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not for a "soon-to-be popular musical made by...a sophomore at Hamburg Area School".--Fuhghettaboutit 17:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --BaronLarf 18:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete entirely NN, wiki is not a crystal ball, etc. --Bachrach44 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT for stuff made up in school one day (or over several days, probably) and WP:NOT a crystall ball. M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. DarthVader 22:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 01:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Who is this hurting? Why do any of you guys have anything against this article? What makes this any worse then the RENT article? It's not that I'm saying 'Hey! Buy this!' What I'm trying to do is inform, not advertize. I mean how many people are going to say, 'Hey, just because it is a musical made by a random, unimportant person, it is BAD.' No one. That's who. And If I take out the 'Soon-to-be popular' will that make you happy? Blaze The Zombie 16:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you opened up a paper encyclopedia would you think it was proper to find an article about a high school student's unknown musical production? Although Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and this leads to some differences, it is just as improper to have an article on an unknown, not-notable work as it would be for Britannica. The problem arises when people associate Wikipedia with other online forms of data storage such as blogs and webhosting services. Just because this is an online media does not make it similar to such services--Fuhghettaboutit 17:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Response If it is really an encyclopedia, what is RENT doing in here? 205.235.56.2 17:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment and Response Blaze, nobody here is saying, or even implying, that Moral Anarchy is BAD, or that the author is a 'random, unimportant person'. I wish it the best of success, and hope to see it performed on Broadway or off, or appearing at the Sundance film festival. When it does, it will definitely be Notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. That's why Rent has an article - it's a notable Tony and Pulitzer award winning play. Even a play just written by a famous author, but not yet published or in production, is not notable enough to have an article here. I suggest that its own website (moralanarchy.com URL is available!), message boards, myspace, etc.,. are a good way to get exposure for Moral Anarchy. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for Notable events, movies, famous people, etc. Best of luck to Moral Anarchy. And I wish your friend has a notable career in theater and film. ॐ Priyanath 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danger Zone, Detroit

Article violates WP:NEO. There is no evidence the area referenced in the article is ever referred to by this name.--Isotope23 16:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per my nom.--Isotope23 16:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rklawton 17:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom ॐ Priyanath 17:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and the article doesn't provide information to non-Detroit people to know where exactly this is. Would've been helpful to have "south side" or "north side" or "west" etc. etc., because reading the article didn't help me at all. M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TON 4 MUSIC / TON 4 Records

Non-notable. Minimal (self-generated) Google hits Rklawton 17:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete originally read like an advertisement and now is one line. - Glen TC (Stollery) 17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete i listen to classical music all the time, and i've NEVER heard of these people. randomcrapcruft, perhaps. M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American German

I believe this page to be original research. Google turns up nothing noticable, and no references have been provided. aliceinlampyland 17:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, original research at best, total ballocks at worst. Angr (t • c) 17:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angr. Kusma (討論) 18:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete
    • Not mentioned on Ethnologue
    • Not mentioned in Language Contact and Grammatical Change even though there is a specific section on P41 about German dialects in the USA.
    • It is not a pidgin. A pidgin is when people in a community who speak languages A and B and can't talk together with those two languages use a simplified form of language C (out of necessity) to communicate. It is not when learners of language C make mistakes when speaking to native speakers of language C.
    • Quote by the author Antman "I am working on a semi-constructed, semi-natural language that I personally called Amerikanischdeutsch. " [25]
    • The article was surely written as a joke...? Or do we now need to invent "pidgin languages" for French people learning Russian (Francorusse), German people learning Spanish (Españodeutsch), etc etc?
Saint|swithin 19:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kusma. Pavel Vozenilek 19:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Olessi 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. This original research, and also non-notable, per Saintswithin. If the term "American German" was unique and commonly used, it might pass notability (similar to Spanglish) but I see no need for an article on the "language" itself. Lee Bailey 20:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be verified. M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RescuePad Padded Spineboards

Advertisement. Jyril 17:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as above. Mrjeff 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Blatant advertizing.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Help - I created this page. I didn't intend to break the rules. I found other pages that are written specifically about one product in particular, so thought this page was legal. Can you tell me how to make the page follow the rules? Thank you!


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZFTR

non-notable, minimal Google (mostly directories), on Hiatus, feeble claims of notability Rklawton 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable. Mrjeff 17:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm a big fan of Zipperfish's YAAFM series, and perhaps zipperfish.com warrants an article, but the podcast certainly doesn't - Glen TC (Stollery) 18:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Leaders of Pakistan

Non-notable student organization; both founders have current AfD discussions -- stubblyhead | T/c 18:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per precedent against individual student clubs. See also the members' AFDs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The article certainly strikes a creepy note in claiming that the President of the FLP has "been working extensively with the Founder," Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a man who's been dead for nearly sixty years. RGTraynor 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That the two dudes are up on AfD means nothing for the organization. What have they actually done? I can't vote until I understand that, and I don't understand it. Does anyone have a clue, or are we voting Delete just because? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - They have very few actual Google hits (once you weed out op ed pieces on this politician or that being a potential "future leader of Pakistan"). The lead hit is their own website; almost every other one is this Wikipedia article and numerous Wiki mirrors. RGTraynor 14:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as nonsense produced out of vanity.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caffers

Contested {{nonsense}}. Speedy delete. Weregerbil 18:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per nom. Mangojuicetalk 18:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Nothing to contest. It's nonsense all right. Fan1967 18:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge content into creator's user page instead, if possible. Otherwise, delete since it's a non-notable vanity page. --Slgrandson 18:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Super Speedy Delete - absolute rubbish, complete and utter nonsense. - Glen TC (Stollery) 18:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete The very definition of CSD7 Gwernol 19:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy and delete- Reyk YO! 20:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. From the line "I believe i now meet the criteria!" as well as the "dead, famous, etc, etc" remark, it appears the author needed to prove they are notable for some reason or another to someone who said they'd accept "having an article on Wikipedia" as acceptable proof of notability. Still violates WP:VANITY, among others. Lee Bailey 20:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Zvi Magen (absolutely nothing to merge). Deathphoenix ʕ 15:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magen Zvi

This article describes Zvi Magen, and is written backwards. Joshdboz 18:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • merge and redirect --Bachrach44 18:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not even worth merging - Glen TC (Stollery) 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, completely dupes existing article. RGTraynor 19:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Clearly a duplicate of Zvi Magen. --Slgrandson 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect- redirects are cheap and useful. Reyk YO! 20:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect definitely - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect rather than delete. Runcorn 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giulio

I can't find proof that this is real, or that the Latin Union even has a currency. Unless someone can find something I'm missing, delete as unverifiable. --Bachrach44 18:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:V. The only reference I see is in an article about currency history on a Vatican encyclopedia website that's imperfectly translated and makes reference to the 19th century. RGTraynor 19:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per RGTraynor. The Vatican encyclopedia page he references is [26] which has nothing to do with the article. I couldn't find anything else even vaguely related. Gwernol 19:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, WP:V. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Smallest People in the World (video game)

Hoax article. Article's creator has a history of inserting false information and creating hoax articles with sockpuppets. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. tregoweth 19:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. --Tone 21:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it before Uwe Boll makes a movie based on it. But seriously this is nonsense. --Eivindt@c 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Oakster (Talk) 15:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.83.121.194 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. If it were at E3, I would have heard about it. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partitions of Palestine

Nominated for speedy with reason "This article is here obviously only to spread propaganda on the internet rather than information" - not a speedy criteria. Technical nom -- no vote from me. The JPS talk to me 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete inherently POV article that does nothing to improve coverage of a very difficult subject. Gwernol 18:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gwernol. I don't see anything in here that isn't in the main Israel-Palestine articles. RGTraynor 19:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV. --Tone 21:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gwernol. POV. DarthVader 22:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV. Original editor no longer updating. Ashmoo 23:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There were never any "Partitions of Palestine" spoken of by historians, unlike the Partitions of Poland. Useless, misleading POV stub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thesocialistesq (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children's arts program

Advertisement for a non-notable organization. SCHZMO ✍ 19:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Eivindt@c 00:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 11:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisement. Colonel Tom 23:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE —Whouk (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse charging (battery)

I am deleting the nominated article. However, as Reverse charging has been reverted to a version prior to the disambig page that was co-nominated, and subsequent to which there was only one delete vote, I'm going to leave that in place as having not had any really discussion. It can be brought to AfD on its own merits if desired. —Whouk (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The article contributes nothing that is not already in the battery article, or should be. The disambiguation makes no sense, as the phrase for reversing the charges on a phone call is "reversing the charges", not "reverse charging", and there is no chance of an eventual Wikipedia article there, as it is a simple dicdef (as is "reverse charging (battery). This article is nothing.Fnarf999 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the related article Reverse charging which contains the disambiguation to Reverse charging (phone call) which article does not exist, cannot exist.Fnarf999 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete both for reasons stated above. Most of the first article is a list of information on the proper use, recharging and storage of batteries, which belongs in the battery article. The phone call information is wrong -- it's called "reversing the charges" not "reverse charging" Fnarf999 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete both These are not encyclopedic articles and can never be. Frankly I think they both should be speedied --DV8 2XL 20:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Before someone turned reverse charging into a disambiguation page there was an article on chargine batteries with the wrong polarity that barely passes the bar. Reverse charging (battery) does not. Delete Reverse charging (battery) as a poor duplicate. Dr Zak 00:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the older form of the article was (barely) tolerable. Trying to sort out all the subsequent edits is a nightmare, though. But I would support deleting the one, and reverting the other. Fnarf999 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both Waste of time. Runcorn 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, as the nomination was withdrawn by Chaser. -Hit bull, win steak 20:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brenda Frese

Though the basketball team itself might be notable, the coach is not. If it's not deleted, it needs to be wikified, and cleaned up to get rid of non-notable content. Chaser 19:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. Subject was 2002 NCAA Coach of the Year, which speaks well for her notability. -Hit bull, win steak 19:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep needs some serious cleanup, but college coaches at that level (especially ones who have won championships) are notable. --Bachrach44 20:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite This is a copy-vio [27] taken from her UMD biography. Metros232 20:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right. In which case, this is speedyable as a recently-created and un-edited copyvio, though I'd obviously rather see someone knowledgable fix it up. -Hit bull, win steak 20:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Yeah, she's clearly deserving of an article about her especially since the Terps just won the Women's NCAA Basketball Tournament at the beginning of April. Interestingly, no one seems to have nominated the article on the men's basketball coach for deletion. Hmm... Metros232 20:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Point well taken. Clean-up and wikify tags would have been more appropriate. Rewrite to avoid copy-vio and Keep. --Chaser 00:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have started a rewrite, but the article still needs to be expanded by someone who is more of a sports fan. I suggest closure of the AfD discussion. --Chaser 01:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the nominator would have to withdraw for that to happen. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Chaser is the nominator... -Hit bull, win steak 13:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdrawal by nominator though I've been told an Admin needs to officially close the AfD discussion.--Chaser 19:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jakob Spafford

A prod was placed on the article for being unverifiable. One other user endorsed the proposal. An unknown first time user removed the prod without comment...so I bring it here. IrishGuy 19:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless someone comes up with verifiable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as profoundly unverifiable, see the article's talk page for discussion. Gwernol 19:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom & above, perhaps the person who wrote the article wants to be listed as oldest human on the planet ('he was a father to me'??). Bridesmill 21:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above (from original prod nominator). Rundquist 05:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per prodnom. Also, somebody is repeatedly removing AfD tag. M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Greer

Probably a hoax. No Google results for Joshua Greer "Utilitarian Party". SCHZMO ✍ 20:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as a hoax, joke, or something else entirely unencyclopedic. Check out my Google search results: [28] --Hetar 20:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not a platform to push your political agenda. --Bachrach44 20:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 close as misfiled request. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hero (Mortal Kombat)

Article was created before Hero's name was known (see Taven (Mortal Kombat), and it's unlikely anyone will be searching for this term anymore. Virogtheconq 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete, discounting socks. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Donahue

James Donahue's main claim to fame appears to be as the father of Aaron Donahue, whose article was recently deleted despite the - ahem - enthusiastic support of one User:Cro..Scream, who is the author of this article. Two other claims to notability are incliuded: as webmaster of a website (which, assuming it's the link in the article, as seems likely with no other link provided) is hosted on Tripod; and publishing some books. Which he has: "over five" books, of which four are listed, all of which are local history books about the Great Lakes. They sound quite colourful, but they don't seem to have set Amazon's sales rank on fire yet. At least two of the publishers appear to be defunct, one of them replaced by at least two other companies of the same name, so I can't see if they are self-published. There's n o reason to believe they are, but neither is there any reason to believe that they have more than a minor local market. Just zis Guy you know? 20:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. --Tone 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; my standards for published authors are pretty low, and he's over the bar. -Hit bull, win steak 21:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that he supposedly had a long career as a journalist that isn't discussed at all suggests that this is just here to prop up the deleted Aaron Donahue article, and not a real bio of an independently notable person. That said, he does have those books, albeit published by a small publisher specializing in Michigania... it adds up to the weakest of weak keeps. But what the hell is a newsangor? · rodii · 23:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • PS: Guy, they're not self-published--Northmont Publishing, at least, is or was real, publishing works by John D. Voelker, among others. · rodii · 00:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • According to this page, one of his books is probably self-published, in that he established the publisher that published it. Of course, the page also lists another book he co-wrote that's not in the article (published by the Historical Society of Michigan), so the net effect on his claim is pretty minimal. The page also claims that his newspaper work was for the Port Huron Times-Herald, a Gannett paper with a daily circulation of 27,000+. This would qualify him under the guidelines for published authors, if it can be verified that he did in fact write for them. He doesn't have any articles in their online archive, but it only goes back to 1999, so that's not necessarily illustrative. -Hit bull, win steak 14:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: User's account was less than an hour old at the time of this recommendation. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Pardon me? · rodii · 11:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I think he's talking about me, not you. As for the implication, I was here because I noticed a newly created page (Brenda Frese) on AFD, and after voicing my opinion there, I gave a quick look to some others that were nearby. I'm not a sock/meat of Cro..Scream or anything like that; I've never heard of the gentleman until this AFD. -Hit bull, win steak 13:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • WHAT??? Don't you know that only Cro..Scream and his socks are allowed to vote keep in the Donahue walled garden? Heavens above , man, get with the programme![1] Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He has written 5 books, has been a respected journalist, and has wel visited news website. do we need to unearth the many newspapers he worked for? Cro..Scream
    • I need some time to contact James and ask him if there are any websites or online newspaper articles that support his claims of being a journalist.
  • Delete per WP:BIO.  RasputinAXP  c 14:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Fascinating cutting edge news! Flowingjawa 14:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Another brand new account. Edit history (contribs) shows one typo correction and two contributions to the Donahue deletion saga. Fan1967 15:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Flowingjawa is indef-blocked as a sockpuppet. Just zis Guy you know? 21:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not noteworthy. Dr Zak 15:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Just as a further clarification, the LOC catalog lists two of his books (Schooners in Peril and Steamboats in Ice) as published by Anchor Publications, which would leave him with two-and-a-half published by an outside body. WorldCat lists 86 library copies of "Terrifying Steamboat Stories" [29], a pretty good count, but only one for "Fiery Trial". On the balance, I still lean toward keep. -Hit bull, win steak 15:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I do apologize that i caused a lot of the Ed Dames suporters to come here and try to delete this article because James Donahue is the father of Aaron. His books are sold on Barnes and Noble, ShopIreland and AbeBooks and i keep seeing some German and Japanese sites pop up, but those are import websites. Cro..Scream
  • I've never heard of Ed Dames or the Donahues before this controversy, and I'm tired of your accusations of bias, prejudice and censorship. For me the only issue was notability. I would guess most of the "delete" voters above, who are names I recognize, feel the same. Although your sacred cow is being gored here, for most of us this is just one in a long, long string of discussions about notability. There's nothing personal or ideological in it, or there wasn't before you and your sockpuppet pals started disrupting things. Either respect the process and assume good faith, and stop whining or go away. · rodii · 16:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's nice. · rodii · 17:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It is trivially easy to get a book on those sites. Vanity presses specialise in it, in fact. Being listed on Amazon signifies nothing, I'm afraid. Just zis Guy you know? 17:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn author, his books rank well over 1,000,000 on amazon, which makes it unlikely he's sold 5000 copies, thus failing WP:BIO. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know that your assumption is a fair one. His 2.5 non-vanity books were all published before Amazon was even founded in 1995, so it's not surprising that they'd score poorly on the current sales ranks. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I love you all, goes around wiki giving everyone a hug. Cro..Scream
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Below the bar. Runcorn 21:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ^ Comment may contain traces of irony.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 My Brother and Me. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mumbo-jumbo gumbo

Unnotable, is about an obscure reference to an obscure TV show. Burgwerworldz 21:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Bradley Nowell (nothing to merge, and redirects are cheap). Deathphoenix ʕ 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louie Dog

I came across this page while clicking random button. I don't think this dog is significant enough to have its own article, a mere mentioning in the band's article would do. So I vote for Delete. --Tone 21:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment If the article is deleted, need to either kill the redirect at Lou dog, or change it to redirect to Lou Dog (which may have notability issues of its own). Fan1967 14:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial to the dead, even nice old-age dogs.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn canine. Fan1967 22:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Merge and Redirect per below. At first I thought the mention of "dog" in the nomination text was a metaphor of some sort. Cute dog but...--Fuhghettaboutit 23:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry if this objection isn't formatted correctly. I would say that this article is definitely eligible for inclusion in wikipedia. It would obviously seem obscure to someone unfamiliar with Sublime, but to followers of the band, he is EXTREMELY well known. He was featured on the cover of one major release, inside the liners of all others, and on the cover of a number of bootlegs. Furthermore, he was prominently featured in the lyrics of numerous prominent songs - including the famous singles "What I Got" and "Garden Grove". Considering that there is a place for "Yankees Sucks" articles on wiki - basically on pop culture references pertinent only to a certain demographic - I think we can fit in a Lou Dog entry. I would strongly encourage the Wiki Gods to leave this article intact. If putting in pictures of Lou Dog or references, please let me know. I strongly vote to keep.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.15.56.224 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete I think the dog is somewhat notable, but all relevant info is in the Bradley Nowell article already. No need for main article. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 03:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Bradley Nowell, which features similar content in the section Bradley_Nowell#Bradley_Nowell.27s_Dalmatian.2C_.22Lou_Dog.22. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a little bit of extra content that could be merged as well (the stuff about the contract and the ashes). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Bradley Nowell. Runcorn 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete as hoax. I am neutral on the notability of schools in general, but please do some research before automatically citing WP:SCHOOL on every school-related AfD you come across. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crowlington Grammer School

Originally listed as a {{prod}} on 10 May 2006. Original reason in prod was "No assertion of notability, essentially empty article, unable to verify, and uncertain if "Grammer" is typo or not (or why old South African flag is used by an Australian school)". Tag was removed by original editor without explanation, only change was to correct misspelling of word “Grammer” throughout the article. Fluit 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Correction: There was the following comment on the "talk" page:
Hi all Wikipedia users, Tony Romano here, Assistant Principal of Crowlington Grammar School. Just letting anyone interested to know that the Crowlington Wikipedia page is an assignment that has been set for out media students and was intended as an ongoing project, thus the reason it is far from completed. I'd also like to point out that 'Grammer' is infact a typo, but that we have been unable to change the title of the page, if anyone could help with that, it would be much appreciated. As for the flag, that was used until we get our own logo up on it. Thanks very much for your help and consideration.

This doesn't convince me to withdraw, but I'll leave it to others to discuss and decide. Fluit 21:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep / Comment: The page has been moved to Crowlington Grammar School at Mr. Romano's request. As for my vote on the AFD, there are other schools with pages and I think the jury is still out on notability for schools lower than the college level. (BTW, in case anyone else is uncertain as I was, according to the article, they go K-12, so they aren't an elementary school. I had always assumed "grammar school" = "elementary school", but I guess not.) If they are committed to making this page sourced and verifiable, that's fine. As one word of caution to the class, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day BigDT 21:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons described at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Not that anyone has, but please try not to WP:BITE the new users during this discussion. Silensor 21:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are notable. DarthVader 22:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it needs a lot of work on it and quickly. Note that the term "Grammer School" was used for a long time in UK to designate a High School, going up to university entry. This use also moved to Australia and other parts of the Commonwealth. Melbourne Grammar School, for example, is one of the most well known schools in Australia. --Bduke 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It is clearly a hoax. I should have checked more. --Bduke 03:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I feel that Wikipedia is not a free web host or a sandbox for your designs, but on the other hand they've shown good faith and are in the process of creating a good page, so keep. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. As hoaxy as hoaxy as hoaxy can possibly be, and with a South African flavour to boot. Not one single G-hit - this for an Australian school which has apparently been around since 1847? A private school with 3,500 pupils? Whose "Assistant Principal" is happy to use an apartheid-era South African flag instead of a school badge? Whose school newspaper is called Howzitchina (a South African English phrase meaning, roughly, What's up, dude?) Oh, pur-lease. My suspicion falls on someone Ben Crowley from Camberwell High School. Humansdorpie 19:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 19:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete please this looks like a hoax to me too so the assistance principal needs verification Yuckfoo 22:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. --Rob 05:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- never heard of it, neither has Google. - Longhair 06:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Classic hoax. Brisvegas 23:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Even if it really is an assignment, there is no reason that it should grace Wikipedia's pages in this state. Lankiveil 02:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete per Rob. Ardenn 03:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or BJAODN, wow, what a great hoax! -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 10:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Maxamegalon2000 03:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wow. Really nice hoax, though. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 04:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE —Whouk (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Luciferian Order

{{prod}}ed by User:RasputinAXP as "a small offshoot consisting of three people", prod tags removed by User:Cro..Scream, a fan of the named Aaron C. Donahue, whose article was recently deleted. This looks a lot like a walled garden, along with James Donahue and Cro..Scream's uncited addition of attacks into Ed Dames (I'm quite happy to believe that any psychic is a fraud, but allegations from a competitor of the same ilk are to be treated with caution, I think). This article is uncited, apparently unverifiable from neutral sources (none of the five unique Googles qualifies), obviously written from an insider's perspective and in my view fails to establish the encyclopaedic notability of the group. Just zis Guy you know? 21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete At the very least, unverifiable. Is Cro Aaron, or just a big fan? Don't know, don't care, doesn't matter. Fan1967 22:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Guy, and probably have to protect from recreation. Yeesh. · rodii · 23:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete •Jim62sch• 23:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow. That's all I can say. Wow. Delete as unverifiable and, in any case, nn. Joe 05:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not only does that article consist out of two different orders, the existence of both can not be disputed seeing the writers have profided links. it needs a cleanup i suggest making a list of all the incorrect statements. Cro..Scream
  • Delete, per nom. --JerryOrr 12:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the prodder. *prods further*  RasputinAXP  c 13:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (and HAIL SATAN!) Zero sharp 00:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman{L} 10:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prototechnology

Prototechnology is a real word. It's probably not technically a neologism since it was used in this 1979 NASA document - http://history.nasa.gov/CP-2156/ch4.4.htm - though it is very rarely used, having only 77 google hits, mostly garbage.

At any rate, the real word "prototechnology" refers to use of tools prior to technology. For example, a caveman banging two rocks together to start a fire would be prototechnology. This article gives some nonsensical definition of prototechnology, claiming that it has something to do with technology used for marketing communications.

So while "prototechnology" is a real word, this article isn't really about that real word. If you look at the article's history, the contributor originally credited two individuals with coining the term in 2006 (a patently false statement) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prototechnology&oldid=52494536. BigDT 21:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Google scholar and google books come up with a handful of hits, but no usages that are clearly what the article is claiming the term is about. (I'm not about to go buy the limited books to see how it is used there.) I can't see this article ever rising to be more than a dicdef - and the current content is not the appropriate dicdef. Current version doesn't meet WP:V, probably can't meet WP:V using WP:RS. GRBerry 22:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but iff (if and only if) the article is transformed into something that actually talks about the title subject and not how it got its name. M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per BigDT unless the article is rewritten to be about cavemen learning to use sticks and stones as tools. Fan1967 22:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if the article was about the correct usage that would probably be a candidate for wiktionary. If the article first defined the word correctly and then the meat of the article described instances of prototechnology, those would likely be original research or summaries of information from multiplle articles containing more depth.--Fuhghettaboutit
  • Delete. The term is real, and probably notable, but the article itself is talking about something else entirely. -Sean Curtin 03:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this article was originally vanity spam. It is now about the term as coined by the guy at the NASA conference, but is either non-notable or a dictdef. Just zis Guy you know? 10:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 hoax/author request. Royboycrashfan 18:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jacqueline du Peulesou

Jacqueline du Pelesou: zero ghits. Alternate name, Jaque du Pelseoi: zero ghits. Father, Henry of Gaul: zero ghits. Mother, Marlion of Heter-Gartinge: zero ghits. Grew up in Putimund: zero ghits. Married to Marinius the Bold: zero ghits. Affair with Michual the Pale: zero ghits. Second and sole surviving legitimate son, Colini the stout: zero ghits. Died in Castle Nieuberg: zero ghits. Systemic bias or no, I call hoax. Just zis Guy you know? 21:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete randomcrapcruft with semi-legit links to random places. M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per non-notability. Just as with Micha van den Berg, I don't think this is a hoax, but a fine example of n.n.. --Jadriaen 22:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment on the other hand, it might just be a hoax. Anyway, get rid of it. --Jadriaen 23:00, 10

May 2006 (UTC)

      • Comment This is very much a hoax, i wrote that one for my girlfriend. her laugh justivied the article. Cro..Scream
  • Delete This is clearly a hoax. If this woman really lived during the days of dagobert the names wouldn´t be so latinized. Cro..Scream
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman{L} 10:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differing groups among Christadelphians

content lifted from main Christadelphians article and subsequently reincorporated there RJB 22:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete apparent residual fork. Just zis Guy you know? 07:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, there's been no material edits on the article so no need to redirect. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 hoax/author request. Royboycrashfan 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micha van den Berg

Subject does not Google. Neither does te supposedly well-known book. Or the influential society which inspired it. Or the supposed teacher (well, there is an artist of that name, but not a communist teacher as far as I can tell). Article does not cite sources. Unverifiable, probable hoax. Just zis Guy you know? 22:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not to be found in the Dutch wikipedia either. --Jadriaen 22:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I too tried a number of google searches without luck. The text makes me suspect that this is not a hoax. Rather, this is likely a real person with the article exaggerating his fame. In either case, without further verification, which also shows notability, deletion is warranted.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh no its completely fake, i used my own life as a basis then added things. Cro..Scream
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. SCHZMO ✍ 23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm amazed he did not disappear to the Alps with Jan Schoen. --LambiamTalk 23:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete •Jim62sch• 23:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article can not be verivied. Cro..Scream
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman{L} 06:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism/Exclusive

Delete. Essentially a duplicate of Socialism. Doesn't define what "exclusive socialism" may be. -AED 22:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete wth? i'd say randomcrapcruft, but it looks like they just copied the socialism article and might expand it later, or maybe the author just didn't know how to use wikipedia M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per subpage policy. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman{L} 06:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism/Inclusive

Delete. Essentially a duplicate of Socialism. Doesn't define what "inclusive socialism" may be. -AED 22:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete hope this vote isn't duplicated, but see my AfD for Socialism/Exclusive M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per subpage policy. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Coalbrookdale and Blast furnace. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Furnace, Ironbridge

This article descibes one blast furnace and not very well.

The correct title would be 'Old Blast Furnace, Coalbrookdale'. Ironbridge is a separate village. The word 'blast is necessary as Coalbrookdale also had 'air furnaces' that were used for remelting iron. There is already a good general article on Coalbrookdale (which I have expanded) dealing with the history of the Coalbrookdale Company. There is a good general article on blast furnaces. There might be a case for a detailed description of the surviving stack, but that is not what appears here at present. The section on the local uses of iron is possibly of local interest, but I doubt that it is sufficient to warrant its appearance in Wikipedia. In summary there is little merit in retaining this article. Peterkingiron 22:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge any useful information into the ones on Coalbrookdale and Blast furnace. It doesn't need its own article, but - given the vital role the furnaces of Coalbrookdale had in the Industrial Revolution - some of this really does need preserving. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Grutness. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply (from deletion-suggester): I agree the site is an extremely important one, but I doubt there is anything in this article that is significant enough to warrant its appearance in either of the other articles. The Coalbrookdale article was a weak one until I expanded it; I was not aware of the existence of this one when I did, but doubt that it would have made any difference if I did. Peterkingiron 18:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Neo-Luciferian Church

97 ghits for this group, no evidence of numbers of adherents, significance etc. Seems to be Lucifrcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 22:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and link to the two individual articles - Liberatore(T) 16:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plusle and Minun

Redundant with Plusle and Minun. Unlikely to be searched for on its own. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Or we could take every fiction article describing multiple characters and create separate sub articles for all combinations of characters that have interacted together and have their own articles. For instance, for Seinfeld for the five main characters (including Newman), lets see, we would only need 120 separate article to cover all character permutations.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Plusle. It's not that unlikely as a search term, they're often mentioned together. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and disambiguate. Just saying "These characters each have their own article:..." should be enough. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, as per both consensus and the relavancy of the arguments. Proto||type 09:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of proper nouns containing an exclamation mark was List of proper nouns containing a bang

List of proper nouns containing anything is a poor start. In this case it's a loooong and still incomplete list of names containing an exclamation point. As far as I can tell there is no especial reason for choosing an explamation point over any other punctuation mark. A jumble of names, book titles, TV shows etc., which takes no account of the recent vogue for stuffing a shriek on the end of TV programme names. I call listcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I think, first and foremost, the criteria for keeping a list like this should be based on its utility. What useful purpose can this list serve? Pondered and rejected. If someone can state reasonable bases of usefulness, I'm open to changing my vote.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, following Fuhghettaboutit. --Jadriaen 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This list provides a unique insight into an aspect of pop culture that has been present since the invention of film. Using an exclamation point is nothing new, as evidenced by Oklahoma! and many others. It is an exciting look into the history of entertainment, which is not possible to find using Wikipedia's search engine. GilliamJF 23:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Are you trying to sell something? Danny Lilithborne 02:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not meaningful or useful. SCHZMO ✍ 23:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as totally useless. Brian G. Crawford 23:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete •Jim62sch• 23:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but at least this one isn't as bad as List of songs whose title constitutes words cosequencing the first letters with the words. BigDT 00:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete!. Not the worst article ever.... but close. Who is going to search for this? · rodii · 00:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Nintendude list". Danny Lilithborne 02:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete First write an encyclopediac article on the use of exclamation marks in proper names, of course adhering to WP:V, WP:RS, and most importantly WP:N. Then create the list and link to that article at the header. GRBerry 02:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nintendudecruft. (Totally useless list.) Grandmasterka 05:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seems useful to me.  Grue  09:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks like Nintendudecruft but isn't, it was Alphonze this time. See WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete first of all, it's called an exclamation point, not a bang. Secondly, it made me want to bang my head againstmy computer monitor. --Bachrach44 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Until wikipedia has a decent search engine to look for this cultural phenomenon in other articles, then this list is a useful reference point. Buttle 03:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Until it is possible to search by regular expression in Wikipedia this list will be useful for researchers of onomastics and typography. There could also be similar lists of proper nouns containing asterisks, question marks, etc., or proper nouns beginning with a lowercase letter - an interesting type of word in English Grammar, since proper nouns in English usually begin with an uppercase letter. Alphonze 06:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Alphonze is the original author of the article. -- Kicking222 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Tawker 02:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete!--blue520 02:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't even think I have to explain the rationale for voting for deletion. It's self-evident. -- Kicking222 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless listcruft. Also, I think the previous AfD had a pretty clear consensus, does it really need to sit for another 5 days? --Hetar 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--Renegade-tr 02:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Usrnme h8er 02:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless. We don't need lists for everything, do we? WarpstarRider 02:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No good reasons for deletion have been advanced. While terribly dull, this is a perfectly encyclopedic list article. --Tony Sidaway 03:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per everbody above. As for Tony's observation that no good reason for deletion has been advanced, how about significance? It's used as a criteria for Speedy Deletes, I think it's applicable here.--WilliamThweatt 03:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete! - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cedars 03:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't expect to find many "list of X with attribute Y" articles when I thumb through an encyclopedia, and yet this is an exotic example of one. Sorry that we don't have a less offensive term than listcruft, but that's precisely what this article is. Vslashg (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I doubt even a dictionary would want this. --Carnildo 03:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not an indiscriminate collection of info. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 04:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the good reasons above. To Vslashg, maybe "listshit" might fulfill your wish? Copysan 05:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Who on Earth is going to look for a list like this, and what would it tell them if they found it?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is actually a bit funny, but belongs in a dictionary. The general phenomenon of using an exclamation mark in a proper noun could could be the object of an interesting Wikipedia article (along with a few noteworthy examples), and I wouldn't be surprised if some linguist has studied it somewhere. u p p l a n d 07:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless. The exclamation mark on 'Allo 'Allo! isn't part of any 'phenomenon', it's part of "'Allo" being a greeting. And please don't Transwiki, Wiktionary is not our dustbin. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • De!ete. The vast majority of these are actually incorrect, at least insofar as I understand what makes a proper noun, and what the word "containing" means. And pointless. And listcruft. And silly. And an indiscriminate collection of information. And this isn't a new phenomenon, or part of pop culture - just think of Westward Ho!. Vizjim 09:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 09:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Living in the Street (song)

Shouldn't the artist have a page before his song does? •Jim62sch• 22:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best of Freddy J. Brown - 1999-Today

No article on the performer •Jim62sch• 23:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. --Jadriaen 23:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, seeing as there does not appear to be an article on the performer. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Artist doesn't seem to merit an article, either...Google for "Freddy J. Brown" gives 228 hits, mostly wiki mirrors & a few free mp3 sites. -- Scientizzle 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 real consensus, default to keep - I was going to transwiki it, but after looking at List of cocktails, it seems loads of them have articles. So I'll go along with Col Tom and Jeff. Proto||type 09:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cocksucking Cowboy

Contested PROD. This isn't really notable as cocktails go. Personally, I don't mind including cocktails, even though they're technically recipes, as long as they've shown some kind of lasting popularity. Articles on classic cocktails are a good thing. I don't like to see articles on faddish drinks like this, though. Brian G. Crawford 23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Verifiability may be a bit beyond ne - I don't have a swag of cocktail books from 15, 20 years ago to xreference in - but I do know that this drink has been around for at least 20 years by that name, as I've drunk it in bars that long ago, and served it in bars about 15 years ago. 20 years seems to exclude this from 'fad' status, IMO. Colonel Tom 01:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I think that people would be more likely to look for it under Buttery Nipple, which redirects here. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook with the reset of the recipes and delete. GRBerry 02:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Bartending/Cocktails/Cocksucking Cowboy. List and link to recipe in list of cocktails. Then redirect Cocksucking Cowboy to list of cocktails. Cedars 02:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename to cowboy cocksucker which is quite a popular drink in leather bars. GilliamJF 05:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I knew there was something strange about that bar I went to... Cedars 10:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (for the record the drink also popular in average Australian bars)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Martian Sculptures

It's not even original research; more like musings - and there's no obvious way to turn it into a real article - DavidWBrooks 23:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not least because it is easy to dismiss them as pareidolia. But WP:NOR comes into it somewhere, I expect. — Haeleth Talk 23:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This credulous bunk again, Phew. This site is hysterical: [30].--Fuhghettaboutit 23:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think presence of "weird" rocks on Mars might be worth a mention on a Trivia section in Mars or Life on Mars, but not as an article of its own. LjL 23:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep expand and reference - def. notable --Biggfishny 03:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, or merge with Life on Mars - by the way, there is practically no such thing as 3D pareidolia -- azeltsman2 02:10, 11 May 2006 (EST)
  • Delete Hogwash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as original research. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Possible Complete Bollocks. Just zis Guy you know? 13:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To Biggfishny: excuse me, what do you mean with "def. notable"? Definitely? Anyway, the problem is that I'm afraid there is little to reference, besides the article author's own website, which isn't even remotely peer-reviewed. If I'm wrong then of course it's another matter, but the very author said that, to his knowledge, that rock was never discussed by anyone but him! LjL 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete it's all POV and OR. -- Scientizzle 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that Wikipedia send an official request to NASA for comment on the article in its original form, because if they mostly agree with the article - that amounts to article being in agreement with 'scientific community' opinion.

The appropriate e-mail address for such a request is: marsoutreach@jpl.nasa.gov

azeltsman2 6:40, 12 May 2006 (EST)

Comment: I would suggest that that would be akin to sending an official request to the American Psychiatric Association to comment on whether they think exorcism is the best way to treat schizophrenia to check on 'scientific community' opinion --Fuhghettaboutit 12:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Original research. I'd rather not waste NASA's time on this unsubstantiated supposition. — RJH 19:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is the email that I have sent to NASA, along with a copy to wikipedia board of directors:
Hi marsoutreach!
Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
A discussion is currenly going on about an article Possible Martian Sculptures
The discussion can be seen at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Possible_Martian_Sculptures
Is, in your opinion, the article Possible Martian Sculptures representing the material in a neutral, balanced way, appropriate for an encyclopedia?
Thanks for your attention.

We surely do not want the article to be deleted while the issue is considered by NASA. Let us take a deep breath, and see what they have to say.azeltsman2 20:55, 12 May 2006 (EST)

No, let's take a deep breath and assume that NASA will treat your request as I suggested above, like a planetologist would treat a debate on whether the moon is really made of green cheese, or like a doctor would the proposition that cancer is cured by the laying on of hands and tumors are removed from your abdomen via a false finger filled with chicken guts.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Then...chicken guts don't work??? Crushed! - Nunh-huh 01:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I think postponing deletion for a few days isn't really going to hurt anyone - and after all, AFAIK, the 5 days is just a minimum time before deletion. LjL 14:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Stuff like the Face on Mars at least had real research efforts and community discussions; this is some WP:CRANK effort. NOR and all that. Just get rid of it. Georgewilliamherbert 21:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by MONGO as patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Schoen

Non-notable Wikihoax. --LambiamTalk 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Possible recreation by same author with new name with the novel twist of using its prior deletion as a basis for notability?--Fuhghettaboutit 23:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Most of the article is just a repost, and the rest is a reference to the previous AfD and more hoaxes. I'ved tagged it as a repost. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Thursday, 11 May 2006 @ 02:49 UTC
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AndyZ 23:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zishman360

ridiculous linking to gaming advice. nn. the author continually removes deletion tags. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of gaming links or gaming information. Chaser 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as nonsense, multiple repost of speedied article, and abuse of Wikipedia as free webhosting. Content has been copied to Zishman360 (talk · contribs)'s userpage, but I'm not even sure that is appropriate given that it's nothing more than an advert for the user's site. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete recreation of a page I just deleted; fails WP:NOT. I just read WP:USER and it looks like it isn't even appropriate there... AndyZ t 23:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It was recreated from Bandhan, deleted twice (once by me and once by Obli), and according to Obli it was recreated from another deleted article. I am closing this discussion and speedy deleting it under CSD G4. AndyZ t


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Lopez

Speedy delete was vigorously contested by Slopez1389, the author of the article. Submitting it here, even though no {hangon} tag was applied. I still maintain that this article is a WP:BIO violation--it's a vanity article about a non-notable lead singer of a non-notable band. Delete. -- Scientizzle 23:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Argument for keep, by Slopez1389: Seth Lopez is the lead guitarist and vocalist from the band Nethers P.O. How do you know he is not important? You have apparently never seen him in concert. He one of the best musicians in the southern Ohio area. He has set up the indie scene in the Dayton area and has accomplished many things in just a short time. Our country is built on freedom for the people and by the people. For an organization to label someone unimportant is un-American. It is especially horrible for an group that calls itself the "free" encyclopedia. The people have a right to decide whether or not Seth Lopez is important not a group of admin.
      • Comment - many, if not most, of the people who post in the AFD area, myself included, are not administrators. An AFD isn't a judgment of someone's importance or self-worth. Rather, it's a judgment of their NOTABILITY to be included in an encyclopedia. BigDT 23:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Furthermore, many of us are indeed "unAmerican", albeit due to the fact a good number of us are not American (although I personally think they have a pretty good country). Oh, and Delete. Fluit 00:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No listing for Nethers P.O. on allmusic. Regarding the comment above: Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech nor is it a democracy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above - local band and no evidence that it meets criteria of WP:BAND BigDT 23:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Six strings at high noon, me and Seth...Please, if you hit the big time, an article might be in order (but, you can't write it). •Jim62sch• 23:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hmm.. Self-promotion by a 17 year-old kid? Try again when you get a record contract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)

Save this page! i've seen him in concert and he was amazing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.234.208.177 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Six strings at high noon, me and Seth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.234.208.177 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC.--blue520 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Proto||type 08:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1 Corinthians 13

  • Delete. WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a place for "mere collections of public domain or other source material". Lovelac7 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the article is expanded. There are plenty of articles on chapters, books, and stories of the Bible, including two other stubs from the book of 1 Corinthians - 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Corinthians 11. However, this article has nothing useful. A sourced article on the chapter would be nice, but this article isn't much more than a cut/paste of the chapter. BigDT 00:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Strong Keep. Could be the basis for a proper article, in keeping with the many other articles on specific chapters. A better start would have been to tag the article with {{cleanup}} rather than jumping to AfD. Fluit 00:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
(Now that it's been "cleaned up" a tiny bit, I see the notability more clearly - it has indeed been used at so many weddings that my natural bias against hearing it one more time must have blinded me.) Fluit 23:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but with no prejudice against a well-written and well-referenced article on the same topic. (change this to a recommendation to keep if the article is properly rewritten before the AfD runs out.) u p p l a n d 06:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak keep with the current rewrite, but it needs work by someone familiar with academic New Testament scholarship. u p p l a n d 05:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep without the source, which I removed (link to various translations at Wikisource by all means). This is one of the most common readings in church weddings, there is scope for an encyclopaedic article on this subject. Just zis Guy you know? 07:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The notability of the passage, I think, makes it of special note. With expansion it could become a worthwhile article, so I think going straight to 'delete' is inappropriate. --Davril2020 10:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, without prejudice against creating a better article. At the moment it's a substub and previously it was little more than a copy of source material. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep a significant phrase in this chapter is "through a glass darkly", used in film and sci-fi. Ziggurat 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DELTE Christian-cruft 132.205.45.148 02:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The article needs attention - but should remain as this passage from the bible is probably one of the best-known in the whole of the New Testament. It contains several resonant phrases. Not just "through a glass darkly", but also "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things" and "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity". It is often used at weddings and funerals (notably Princess Diana's where it was read by Tony Blair).Mattmm 21:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is the chapter that contains the passage "Love is patient, love is kind ..." which is commonly heard at weddings. --Metropolitan90 03:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the article stands now. If someone were to create a more in depth, encyclopedic article, I'd support a keep, but until that day come, I do not feel that this is an adequate placeholder.--Andrew c 00:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily userfied to User:EmilySavesTheDay. Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emily Harvey

User:EmilySavesTheDay, whom I strongly believe is Emily Harvey herself, appears to have created and significantly contributed to this article. As I understand it, this is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines regarding autobiography as indicated at Wikipedia:Autobiography. I have attempted to contact both User:EmilySavesTheDay and Emily Harvey via MySpace, but neither had responded to my requests to verify Emily Harvey's involvement with this article. If anyone can dispute that Emily Harvey isn't the primary author of Emily Harvey, speak now or forever hold your peace. --Dwiki 00:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. This is a poorly-written article to be sure, and needs cleanup. The autobiographical aspect of it, if true, is bad form, but not grounds for deletion as far as I'm concerned. If Harvey passes the notability test, the article should be kept but rendered in intelligible English. I'm not sure if she does, though. · rodii · 00:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I copyedited a bit, but still... she's a college student. Leaning toward Delete. · rodii · 01:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article appears to be autobigraphical, and Google does not support notability. I am skeptical of the idea that the subject's endorsing John Kerry in an op-ed on election day in 2004 "caused a great stir" on campus. --Metropolitan90 02:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Political wannabe's don't deserve a wikipedia entry, especially when they're autobiographical.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 11 May 2006
  • Delete. Not notable. Man, who would have thought someone breaking into show biz would be prone to vanity? --Calton | Talk 07:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy, seeing as User:EmilySavesTheDay doesn't have a user page. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.