Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 10 May 12 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] May 11

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive Democrats of America

There are only 289 unique Google hits, and most of them come from the left-wing blogosphere.
This entry seems like self promotion from a non-notable organization. RWR8189 16:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep. "Progressive Democrats for America" only gets 200-some-odd hits. "Progressive Democrats of America gets about 330,000. The organization's official site has links to articles from the Village Voice, the Nation, MSC-NBC and others, plus links for chapters in all 50 states and abroad. They're supported by Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and Jesse Jackson. Totally notable. --Lee Bailey 19:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The page and the organization are legit, and the tone of the article could easily become neutral with some minor editing.--Marysunshine 22:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per previous. DanielZimmerman 22:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This page is not 100% neutral, but it is about a notable subject. --Heltec 23:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Lee Raichu 23:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep although it could use some more WP:NPOV --Deville (Talk) 02:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It looks sufficiently notable.--Jusjih 08:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but work on the NPOV problem. Beno1000 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep this please it is about a notable subject Yuckfoo 23:05, 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 06:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed drinks in BattleTech

Most real cocktails are excluded on the basis that Wikipedia isn't a cookbook. I don't see why fictional cocktails should be treated any differently. Brian G. Crawford 23:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. The cited books are the only thing making me suggest that some small mention (not the recipes themselves) of the topic should appear in a higher-level BattleTech article. The "What links here" page shows no BT articles link there, but I haven't checked whether some BT article already has such a sentence. If not, merge to preserve the edit history of the book links. Barno 00:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of fictional mixed drinks. And by the way, yuck. Straight grain alcohol? A drink made of almost half lemon juice? I don't think these were really intended to be made in real life. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Well, there is a list of fictional ones. Tyrenius 01:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: They're listed in List of fictional mixed drinks, which is currently up for deletion. I don't really think that they're notable enough, fictional or non-fictional, to have articles. It's not like it's a Bloody Mary. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 05:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeew, I hope nobody actually makes these. Concerns of good taste aside, this is pretty much random BT trivia, and while I love me some giant robots, I can live without random snippets from novels of any sort. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete.Fictional drink and a sour one at that. nn notable.--John Lakonias 06:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm all for inclusion of popular games like BattleTech, but this is simply non-notable fancruft. JIP | Talk 08:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Eva db 09:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft. Just zis Guy you know? 13:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, cruft. --Terence Ong 14:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fancruft.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft; also already listed at List of fictional mixed drinks. - Pureblade | Θ 18:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominaton DannyM 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Navou talk 22:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.--Marysunshine 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fancruft and nn.--Heltec 23:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Seems wrong to throw out content that is useful when there is an article that exists and where it would fit in nicely. Brokenfrog 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft to the extreme. Besides, these drinks only go well with soylent green. Fagstein 19:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and transwiki to barwiki. If there's no barwiki, consider making one. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:25, 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 06:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incredible Hulk (cocktail)

Another non-notable cocktail. Wikipedia isn't a recipe book. Please don't redirect or merge to list of cocktails, as I'm trying to clean that up. Brian G. Crawford 00:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn self-styled drink.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a bar? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 05:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I concur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Absolutely per all of above.--John Lakonias 06:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 08:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, article asserts no notability whatsoever (lots of other drinks are popular in dance clubs too), unlikely to ever significantly expand. JIP | Talk 08:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete drunkcruft. Mine's a pint. Just zis Guy you know? 13:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, drinkcruft. --Terence Ong 14:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete drinkcruft. - Pureblade | Θ 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Drinkcruft. And NN.  Heltec  talk  23:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge This isn't self-styled, just [[1]] google it. It doesn't have nearly enough content to deserve its own page though.Brokenfrog 00:42, 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 Computerjoe's talk 20:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weingarten, Schurgin, Gagnebin & Lebovici

322 hits on Yahoo -- not really very notable, I'd think •Jim62sch• 00:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep 9,300 hits on Google and they clearly have a significant patent portfolio. Whatever side you are on in the Intellectual Property debate, patent law firms like these are significant players and this one seems notable. Article needs an {{expand}} tag, though. Gwernol 00:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. I've added expand tag. Tyrenius 01:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We've got junk like Wolfram and Hart, so we might as well have real law firms. The question is, are they as notable as Eaton, Dixon, Butts, and Lovinette or Winer, Diner, and Sixtyniner? Brian G. Crawford 03:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. They do seem notable enough. But is it & Lebovici or & Hayes? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 05:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There's no need to give every law firm a wikipedia article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep apparently notable firm of sharks lawyers. Just zis Guy you know? 13:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 13,500 hits on Google. It is now "& Lebovici", formerly " & Hayes." Willing to expand, but didn't find specifics in expansion request. Suggestions? User:Jlancaster (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, notable firm. --Terence Ong 14:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no assertion of notability other than high Google hits. "xxx was the firm that defended such and such celebrity in high profile case" might be different. The JPS talk to me 16:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep--they're no Dewey, Cheetham, and Howe, but I think they meet notability standards. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough. Wikipedia is not paper. - Pureblade | Θ 18:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep NOTABLE: Won $55 M infringement case for the little guy, GTA, versus industrial giant Conoco in May, 2000. User:Jlancaster (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I personally think its not a good idea to begin adding tons of law firms into Wikipedia, as we can have tens of thousands of pages if having a law degree is a sole qualification for entry into an encyclopedia. As for this article, it does not demonstrate any form of notability which I think deserves inclusion. --Ataricodfish 03:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete law firm of no particular significance. Robin Johnson 11:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lawyercruft. KleenupKrew 22:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (yes, from me) While I'm not fond of lawyers, they have the abovementioned Conoco case, plus a portfolio of patents. There are certainly less notable groups that are listed. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:29, 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 deleted per G1 and A7 (nonsense or advertising)

[edit] Poughkeepsie Tapes

Possible hoax. Only returns 28 Google hits about an independent film. Ironically the author of this article is named Dubiousone. Metros232 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not verified. Tyrenius 01:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn notable, probable hoax.--John Lakonias 06:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's written as if it's real, but the few google hits for it make it obvious that it's fictional. Definately nn. --Tango 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 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 speedy deleted (G7). TheProject 05:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Sonnie

Nominated for deletion by an IP, who can't complete the nomination. Listing now. No vote. Stifle (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it should be deleted--it's remained a stub for a substantial amount of time and more info is available on Sonnie's work in other entries anyhow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.198.136 (talk • contribs)
  • I'd say keep. According to the CSD tag which Stifle rightly removed, the subject of the article has requested its removal... but I don't see a real reason for that, nor is AfD/CSD the place to decide that. She is the editor of a well known and presumably well-sold anthology, a cursory glance at Google suggests she's been written about by reliable sources, which is essential to a biographical article. No compelling reason to delete pops out. --W.marsh 00:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
To ammend that a little bit, I wouldn't object to a merge/redirect to the anthology's article. --W.marsh 00:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete One and only published book is an anthology she edited with an Amazon rank of #609,233. Other than that, no sources or claims of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Tyrenius 01:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not particularly notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Er How come the article has vanished? Tyrenius 04:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The author requested deletion, according to the deletion logs. TheProject 05:08, 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 Deleted as A6 attack page and recreation of previously deleted page. Capitalistroadster 10:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banny

PROD removed with no explanation. Neologism, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, also the reasoning of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day comes to mind... like I said in the PROD, gives no evidence of verifiable use or definition of this term. W.marsh 00:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Neologism, WP:NFT, probably a not-too-subtle attack on someone with that name or nickname. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. I could support a Speedy Delete per CSD A6 too. Gwernol 00:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not verified. Tyrenius 01:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. neologism and non notable at that. I would support a speedy too.--John Lakonias 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as borderline patent nonsense. Kimchi.sg 07:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see the point. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me edit) 08:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable neologism, made up in school one day. JIP | Talk 08:58, 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 both articles. Mailer Diablo 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerrard crime family

Looks like a hoax. Most hits off google from "Gerrard family" with Florida are genealogy sites. Francs2000 00:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Add Vittorio Gerrard to this discussion, since it's merely an off-shoot of the "family" article. --Calton | Talk 04:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment: I hope you get this message. I am writing a book about the subject. Because it is such a 'small' family and outside of New York and Chicago, it has not got the attention that perhaps it should. I found the subject rather interesting and so I created a page about it. The problem with uncovering information on this subject is that it is not 'notorious'. I have had a great struggle finding information on this, and other 'smaller scale' crime organizations. I hope you find the subject as interesting as I do! If you have any questions or any further information on this subject please send it my way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Sarnatino (talk • contribs) 00:42, 11 May 2006, article's creator
  • Delete as per WP:NOR. Bill (who is cool!) 00:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Complete bollocks. The creator is asking me to believe an entire "crime family", which he calls one of the most influential crime families involved in organized crime in Florida has somehow managed to avoid any attention whatsoever from gangland writers and websites -- including Crime Library? And how did they manage to become one of the most influential crime families involved in organized crime in Florida and not "notorious"? Pull the other one. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: You would, indeed, be correct on my overstatement in the first sentence. As I have just made the page I have yet to edit it thoroughly and I thank you for pointing that out to me. I guess they are not as influential as they are interesting. I would, of course, be obliged to change the wording of the introduction. Did you read the whole page or just the first bit? I get the impression you just assumed it was a hoax without coming into it with an open mind, as you state: 'pull the other one'. If you would like to improve the page or discuss the topic then that’s great! If you only care to make comments you find ‘clever’ to insult... why I am lost for words. I find that very unprofessional.
Thanks
Greg Sarnatino —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Sarnatino (talk • contribs) 01:01, 11 May 2006, article's creator
I find that very unprofessional So is making claims which you admit to be overblown (I guess they are not as influential as they are interesting) -- which assumes, of course, that the rest isn't complete nonsense. Now that would be "very unprofessional". --Calton | Talk 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • seems like a mangling of plot elements from The Godfather, The Sopranos, Goodfellas and who knows what else, along with some direct real world stuff (like the Purple Gang). Perhaps an amusing plot for a gangster B-movie but unless a reliable source can be produced confirming this stuff is more than just someone's imagination, delete as a hoax. With outrageous claims, we can't really be expected to just take your word for it. We assume good faith, but it only goes so far. --W.marsh 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the "northern New Jersey" reference just screamed Sopranos. --Calton | Talk 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a hoax. Not one name from the article turned up a relevant Google hit. Kevin 01:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not one verifiable reference. Pull the other one. Tyrenius 02:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete until Mr. Sarnatino publishes his book, when we can give it another look. Until then it is unverified original research. Bucketsofg✐ 02:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. And if the source is as reliable as Michael Pelligrino, it may end up as an article about a hoax - Skysmith 09:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If the book gets published, the article can be recreated. --Tango 14:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 15:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Do I have to go on a witness relocation programme now? Robin Johnson 11:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Google searches: "organized crime families" florida Gerrard (zero hits), "organized crime family" florida Gerrard (three irrelevant hits), "organized crime" florida "Gerrard family" (zero hits). ergot 14:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Take into a dark alley and shoot in the back of the head.... err... delete as unverifiable. Fagstein 19:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable original research. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:35, 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 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MouseTunes Disney Podcast

PROD removed by article creator, who runs the website/podcast and is the only content contributer to the article. Article gives no evidence that the site meets WP:WEB, and it is currently obviously promotional/advertising (see WP:NOT). W.marsh 00:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rklawton 01:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified and as advertising. Kevin 01:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as violation of Wikipedia's autobiography guidelines (see WP:AUTO); entire article reads like a gushing ad; article creator repeatedly has been adding a link to his website to many Disney World articles; seems like deliberate intent to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising. 67.8.251.167 01:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Tyrenius 02:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SpikeJones 02:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB, WP:VAIN and WP:NOT (an ego-stroking machine). It is possible that I paraphrased that last one slightly. Just zis Guy you know? 13:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, only had to skim it to see blatent advertising, maybe also consider informing creator that this isn't needed on WP DannyM 19:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As aforementioned, advert --Pilot|guy 21:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertising for a website created by the author. NN. --Ataricodfish 03:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--blue520 13:31, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Tsou

The article is about a non-notable person, and is likely vanity (the article's subject is the creator's cousin) Stack 00:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Detecting racism on the part of Stack.
  • Keep Looking at the returns from Google and Google Scholar, I think he would be notable in the astronomy community. The article needs a cleanup and some references though. Kevin 01:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep NASA seems to think he's notable. Tyrenius 02:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Would be great if the Stardust mission link weren't red. Ooo, I'll go fix that. Shenme 02:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While this person is somewhat notable right now, Peter Tsou will likely never become "part of the enduring historical record of the field of astronomy" (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). However, I do not feel strongly about this. I strongly agree that if the article is going to remain it requires serious work to bring it up to standards. Stack 04:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like a reasonable article, and the business about being a cousin

appears to be a joke. Gene Ward Smith 04:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep I'm in a giving mood, Keep per not paper. Teke 04:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone fleshes this article out quite a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep. He is notable enough but the article needs a good cleaning and expansion.--John Lakonias 06:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Per the comments of Stack. I could go either way, but definitely needs cleanup.--Eva db 09:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup and discourage editing by involved parties. Just zis Guy you know? 13:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable. The article isn't great but it's of (barely) better than stub quality, so that's not a reason to delete. --Tango 14:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. His work has been featured in Discover, National Geographic, New York Times, and on NPR. Also, has been an author on two papers in Science. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, asserts notability. --Terence Ong 15:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Scientists are hideously underrepresented here, and this man is clearly a published expert who is recognized by NASA. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 16:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be notable according to NASA, and as been involved in some NASA projects, again as people have been saying Wikipedia is not paper DannyM 19:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Another example of why Notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for keeping or deleting articles. As it has been said before, this person is an expert and is obviously notable within the NASA community. DanielZimmerman 22:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I disagree with you on notability for the same reasons. Notability and context are subjective, which provide consensus. Different users have different opinions; seeing how they stack up are what decide these votes. Votes themselves are irrelevant, it's the conversation that decides the outcome. Teke 05:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response - How exactly does a discussion provide consensus without taking into consideration the votes? I guess that is one of the wikipedia issues that doesn't make much sense to me. We are not an experamentation in democracy but if enough people say "keep" we "keep" and if enough people say "delete" we "delete". So the votes do matter. The only difference is that people can change their votes if they are open to hearing other peoples point of view. I am open to hearing points of view on the issue of notability but as of yet have not seen a way we can enforce such a guideline or policy consistantly to all articles. DanielZimmerman 18:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Like most statistics, I think the overall curve is nice and bell-shaped for most actions on Wikipedia. It's the nitty gritty examination of details that get ugly. Many votes are drive-by Keeps and Deletes, and often times the voter doesn't take the time to research. But if the nomination is good enough, I know I don't feel a need to explain myself in detail. I'm not an admin, so I cannot speak for their actions, but I would hope that closing admins read the votes instead of tallying. Um...I lost my point. I hope y'all find it. Teke 02:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the comments above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, he appears to be a reasonably important NASA scientist. Joyous | Talk 23:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — Parts of text are copied verbatim from the NASA site. I suspect it's bordering on a copyvio. Otherwise I'd favor keeping. — RJH 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep this please it is about a important scientist Yuckfoo 23:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Primary Investigators of NASA science instruments are far more notable in their field than the average professor. I can see WP:PROF not having field by field special notability criteria, but if there were to be such things, a space mission instrument PI would surely qualify. Georgewilliamherbert 21:07, 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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brass Monkey (cocktail)

This was redirected to list of cocktails after having been transwikied to wikibooks. I don't think that's such a good solution, since there's no description of this cocktail in the list. Merging would be a bad idea, since the list is just a list. I think it should be either kept or deleted. Brian G. Crawford 00:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep in some form. Merge with Beastie Boys and use as a redirect would be one solution. Tyrenius 02:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd honestly rather see it kept as is than redirected to Beastie Boys. They didn't invent the drink, despite what the article suggests. Brian G. Crawford 02:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Brian G. Crawford. -- Kjkolb 03:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There's more to say about this subject than just the recipe. ike9898 05:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 07:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, if it's only notable for being mentioned in a Beastie Boys song, then I don't think it deserves its own article. JIP | Talk 08:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete more drunkcruft. Up your bottom! Just zis Guy you know? 13:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; already goes well beyond a simple recipe, and there is more to be said about this cocktail as well. Smerdis of Tlön 20:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep if valid sources can be provided, unsure what the best merge target for this would be otherwise. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepNeeds sources, but if it can be cleaned up, keep it. Brokenfrog 00:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It owes its notability to the Beastie Boys, but has gained significance beyond that. It could and probably will be expanded in the future.--ragesoss 23:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep this please it has significance we are not a paper encyclopedia Yuckfoo 18:26, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape items

  • Delete - Ok guys, I see how the runescape main article explains to someone with no previous knowledge of Runescape what it is etc, and how eg the Wilderness article has a small description for the wilderness. But is an article on ITEMS necessary? Having a list of runescape items is really jumping off the fence in WP:NOT. And besides this, due to the large amounts of errors, bad consistency, etc in this article, I do not thoroughly believe many people even read it (copied from previous message on Talk:RuneScape_items) =-=- RZ heretic 00:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, this particular page isn't game-guide material. Game guide is more strategies, advice, tips, etc. Nonetheless, all information except for the bottom list is repeated other pages. These sections discounted, the bottom list wouldn't be particularly coherent. But that's on WP:NOT too! So, delete. Hyenaste [citation needed] 01:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this guide really isn't all that useful. Sorta like the one I wrote, "RuneScape Music." It was useless. Freddie 02:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is only useful as a tool to learn how to play RS. Hence, it is a game guide, and doesn't belong here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since anybody who needs to know this can get it from the game itself, and probably knows anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 13:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikibooks as that's a better place for it DannyM 19:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks, as this is like a how-to guide. --soUmyaSch 19:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I thoroughly believe this page is THE most vague, THE most confusing, THE least helpful, and THE messiest (layout, grammar, spelling etc) page regarding to runescape features. It is not a "how-to" guide but more of a "explain as vaguely as possible what each item in runescape does, including things that you get shown how to use in the tutorial etc" RZ heretic 00:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even a how-to guide - more like an overview of RS items. The subsidiary articles, such as RuneScape weaponry, are questionable as well. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zetawoof, possibly transwiki. But it comprehensively fails WP:WWIN. Stifle (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd personally be against a transwiki, simply because the transwiki process is heavily overloaded, and Wikibooks already has a lot of really mediocre gaming-related content. (Take a look at the "Computer And Video Games Bookshelf" for some examples.) "Transwiki to Wikibooks" should really be limited to material which is of high quality, but is simply on the wrong site. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all other articles on Runescape items. Theoretically, a single article providing an overview of RS items might be useful, but this is not. -Sean Curtin 05:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this article is horrid, but I try to keep the other items pages in some order. Of course, those pages do have their share of supercrufty additions by excited IPs. But, if you have a specific issue with any of the other pages in the series that can be remedied, simply say so on the page's talk. I strive to keep them in some order. Hyenaste [citation needed] 05:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Covered else-where, inconsistent, many grammatical problems. Xela 15:37, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Canyon High School

It is pretty much just a breeding ground for vandalism and does not establish any kind of notability. Although I am usually for school articles the name of the school's district doesn't even have a page. mboverload 01:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Sorry for removing the AfD, I was making an edit vs vandalism and I guess the AfD got caught accidently :{. Anyway, just as a friendly note, most schools are considered notable by existance, so you may be in for a bit of a struggle justifying nn here. --Lakhim 01:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Response ah ok =). Yes I realize that most school articles are noteable but there is really nothing in there that makes it stand out. Of course, that's what an AfD is for. If everyone could delete articles as they saw fit Wikipedia wouldn't exist! =) --mboverload 02:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, high schools are notable and this article looks like good expandable (or should that be expendable? :-) ) material. Kimchi.sg 07:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Precedence on real and verifiable high schools are clear, and this is at least an article and not a directory type listing. (Some trouble with the neutrality however: "...features outstanding programs in academics and theater" looks a bit promotional to me.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per general precedent for schools. --Rob 08:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and kill the advertising per Sjakkalle. Protect the page if the school persistes in using its page for advertising. JeffBurdges 10:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per convention, but tidy up. Markb 12:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per precedent for schools. Carioca 13:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep non-notable school, crap article, spammy as hell, but it's against some people's religion to suggest that any school is not encycloaedic. Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per JzG. All Pokémon schools are inherently notable. Metros232 13:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, all schools are notable, needs to be cleanup though. --Terence Ong 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the above comments. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, schools are generally not notable unless they are the location of a significant event. Cedars 01:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. By precedent, schools (especially High Schools and above) are inherently notable. Apply {{cleanup}} and rewrite. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sjakkalle. -- DS1953 talk 16:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - high schools are inherently notable. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 04:38, 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 Keep. Computerjoe's talk 20:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oak Hill Elementary School (St. Cloud, Minnesota)

  • Nothing but a school homepage...except that it already has one on the real WWW. Nothing noteable, nothing that belongs on an encyclopedia mboverload 01:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this is kept, it should probably be moved to Oak Hill Elementary (St. Cloud, Minnesota) and Oak Hill Elementary be turned into a disambig per [2]. -- JLaTondre 02:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If kept, it needs serious {{cleanup}}. Fluit 03:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as all schools are notable, but remove the Staff section, and the Administrative deaths section. Carioca 03:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Just my opinion, but I fail to see why all schools are notable (especially elementary schools). There is no determinative guideline or policy on that point. Fluit 03:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment that I believe general precedent is that highschools are notable, not all schools, but I may be wrong on this matter. TheProject 05:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I beleive the precident for 2005 and 2006 is to keep almost all verifiable real K-12 schools, inlcuding elementaries (only deleting non-verified, non-accredited/non-licensed, attacks, no-contexts, and copyvios). This has been an almost unbroken precedent since September. --Rob 07:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per mboverload. If it were up to me, I would delete essentially all high schools and the smallest colleges (under 200 students), but drawing the line between what is kept and what is deleted under high schools and above elementary schools and middle schools seems like a reasonable compromise. -- Kjkolb 04:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I concur with Rebelguys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep since we have been keeping just about all elementary schools in the past, and there is no need to remain inconsistent. Strongly agree with Carioca that the sections on staff (Wikipedia is not a directory) and recent deaths (Wikipedia is not a memorial) need to go. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per precedent for schools. Also, I toasted the staff list, and recent deaths. --Rob 07:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Metros232 11:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Carioca Markb 12:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is a non-article. We have: the name of the principal, the name of the administrative assistant, and the fact that it's currently in X term, which will be out of date in a couple of weeks. Nonsensical. This is an elementary school, every village has one! I am a governor of a school just like this, and I do not think they are notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "I am a governor of a school just like this" is a non arguement. Pretty much everything that warrants an article has somebody who is associated with it, and any of those people might be a Wikipedian. On you're comment "every village has one". Well, every U.S. village also has an article on the village itself, and eventually almost all villages will (even when the population is microscopic). Once upon a time, a few Wikipedians insisted those were non-articles, that must be deleted. They're still here. --Rob 15:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --cholmes75 13:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per precedent. It's not a "non-article" (excuse the double negative), it's just a stub. We don't delete articles just for being stubs. --Tango 14:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no inherent notability for schools... no applicable accepted guidelines for schools, so this is just a basic judgement call.--Isotope23 14:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's notable. Jimpartame 15:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thivierr and others have done a great job cleaning the article and what remains is notable. - sYndicate talk 15:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep schools are notable.  ALKIVAR™ 18:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
An elementary school is notable? --mboverload 18:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Allow me to play devil's advocate here. How come all schools are notable? Because they serve lots of people? So if that's true, how come I can't create an article for a Wal-Mart store down the road from me? That serves hundreds of people a day. Metros232 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The elementary school I went to has been a much larger effect on my life than the local Wal-Mart. Jimpartame 19:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
"Effect on your life" is a pretty poor argument for Wikipedia inclusion. By that argument I could say that a specific building I once worked in that is located in a specific town should have it's own Wikipedia article because events that transpired there had a profound effect on my life; more so than any school I've ever attended.--Isotope23 13:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
If that building had profound effects on hundreds of people, like an elementary school, then yes, it should have a Wikipedia article. Jimpartame 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete It's not really that bad of an article, but then, if in fact there is such an official policy that states elementary schools are non-notable, then there are grounds for deletion..... --Pilot|guy 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No one has actually explained how individual elementary schools are notable. Duckdid 23:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Let's put this debate behind us. CalJW 03:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.  Grue  15:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. as non-notable. No media reports, no Presidential Medals of Freedom, nothing written about this school that differentiates it from the thousands of elementary schools in the world. Schools do not get a free pass merely for existing. Fagstein 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please this is a notable school we should cover and verifiable Yuckfoo 23:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If it's verifiable, you should be able to find reliable sources. List some and I'll change my vote. Fagstein 23:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Here's one, which you could have found with Google or by looking at the article itself: http://stcloud.k12.mn.us/~oakhill/. Jimpartame 00:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Just because something has a web page doesn't make it notable. I'm sure there is a page somewhere dedicated to banannas injected with lemon juice, yet we don't have that article here. What about a forums? We delete non-notable forums all the time. Please re-read the notability requirements. Thanks! --mboverload 00:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm aware that the existence of a Web page is not the reason that this school is notable. I was replying to Fagstein, who wanted to know if there were reliable sources. Jimpartame 01:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I was referring to third-party sources. Fagstein 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Here you go. Information about the history of the school's construction. If you're still not sure the place exists after that, here's one of the news stories that mentions it. You can find more such mentions using Google. Jimpartame 23:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
                • I don't doubt the school's existence. But mere existence alone is not sufficient to base an article from. There must be something interesting about the school itself that third-party reliable sources have picked up on. Fagstein 00:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • You said that if I listed a reliable source, you would change your vote. I did that, and then you said what you really wanted were third-party sources. I pointed some of those out to you as well. Now you're saying you want some interesting facts about the school that have been picked up in reliable sources. If I provide that, I have no doubt that you'll change your requirements a third time. (Or possibly just say it's not very interesting to you.) Your claim that the article is not verifiable has been thoroughly dealt with; I'm not going to spend any more time on your shifting requests. Jimpartame 00:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                    • No personal attacks please. If you don't want to defend the article, that's your problem, it'll likely just get deleted. What I'm looking for is reliable third-party sources about the school. Merely mentioning it in passing in an article hardly qualifies. There has to be a reason for the article's existence other than the fact that this school exists. The street corner outside my apartment exists, and I can write many things about it, or even find a newspaper article that makes reference to it, but it's not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Fagstein 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What do you think makes it a notable school Yuckfoo? Metros232 23:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly not notable. Cedars 01:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sjakkalle, though I would personally prefer to see elementary schools and middle schools covered in a singel well written article covering the local school district rather than individual schools. -- DS1953 talk 16:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep schools are notable BMurray 05:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. LazyDaisy 06:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reasons established at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 07:18, 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 Speedy. Tawker 02:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Youngdrummers

Delete obvious ad that makes not attempt to be an encyclopedic article. No assertion of notability. Prod was removed without comment.

ATTENTION: Creator requests delete [3]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zinc economy

This appears to be a neologism. There are a very few links in Google, but most are not relevant. No hits in Google News or Google Scholar. This doesn't appear to be a term in use, so it may be original research. eaolson 02:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep sounds like it is notable enough.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated. It looks like original research. Brian G. Crawford 03:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, it appears to be used, but very rarely. Also, we have articles on methanol and other economies. A redirect to zinc-air battery might be good. -- Kjkolb 04:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Because of The Simpsons. I hope upon hopes that someone gets the joke. Teke 04:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I expected more keeps, but my vote is legitamite so I'll clarify as to say that the article is not original research, as the creator did not do the OR for the article. So even if the article is based on original research, those grounds don't stand. The next point is that the subject is just as acceptable as the hydrogen economy and other alternative resources. Teke 05:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There's nothing in the article that verifies that "zinc economy" is a notable and published theory. Kevin 06:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR. Kimchi.sg 07:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if this is a Simpsons reference, coinsider BJAODN since if it is it's a well executed hoax. Just zis Guy you know? 13:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The Simpsons reference was solely my own. "Imagine, Timmy, a world without zinc..." Teke 16:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to zinc-air battery. Merge if there is anything worth moving over, probably not. Redirects don't take up much space, and there is a chance this might be useful - it's plausible that people might guess this name, as "hydrogen economy" is a common term. --Tango 14:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 16:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge anything of use to Zinc-air battery. Ziggurat 22:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, unless someone provides a good reason/source otherwise. Fagstein 19:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is a small but legitimate area of renewable energy research. The article needs references to it (and I just tagged it with a references tag). But it's legit, not original research, and should be kept. Georgewilliamherbert 21:14, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mario Party Wii

pure speculation, no sources at all to confirm game even exists The Kids Aren't Alright 02:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I am 97% sure that they will be releasing a Mario Party game for the Wii but until they announce it, it does not belong here. --mboverload 02:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Nintendo is extremely likely to release a Maio Party for the Wii, and it has the Templates, so I would reccomend going to Ign.com or Nintendo.com to confirm it. --Corporal Punishment 03:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete verifiability is not optional... the burden is on people wanting to keep this to provide a source confirming it, not to ask us to go find one. --W.marsh 03:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait: Let's wait until E³ is over before we make a decision. Either way it will be resolved then. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If it can't be verified now, then it shouldn't be here. It can be re-written once released using real information. Kevin 06:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and re-create only when the game is really released and has been reviewed elsewhere. Kimchi.sg 07:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- nothing prevents an article being written when and if the game eventuates. Reyk YO! 07:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pure speculation and no verification. Templates aren't hard to recreate either. Jgamekeeper 08:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, WP:NOT a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 09:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Although it wouldn't kill anyone to wait until the end of E3, just to be sure. User:proath01 10:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete About 20 non-wikipedia google hits and all look like random speculation. --Tango 14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 16:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm all for articles about upcoming products, but not if nothing official on the subject exists. Steveo2 19:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per other comments here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Confusing Manifestation 01:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Although the game's likely to exist, nothing official has been announced, and it might not even be called Mario Party Wii. --Ataricodfish 03:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (without prejudice) as crystal ball. Nothing here that can't be easily recreated after a reliable source has written about the game. Fagstein 19:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. BackInBlack 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clear case of crystal ball. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: E3 is over and nothing came of it. Deathawk 22:39, 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 Merge to Bullycide. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curtis Taylor

I know this story was true, and he was a real man. Passes Google test, but I don't know if his story is big enough for its own article on Wikipedia. References in the articles Bullycide and Bully should be good enough for him. --NicAgent 02:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge I'd put this into the bullycide article and redirect.
  • Delete I don't see evidence the story is particularly notable, as no specific citations of stories in the media are given. Also, this a classic case of lously sourcing. Stuff like this needs proper citations, not weasel wording like "His death has been cited by researchers". Which researchers? Where did they write about him and when? --Rob 08:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect I think most of the critical info is already in Bullycide. --Tango 14:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Rob. 69.138.229.246 21:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Bullycide, as it already has a section for this. Fagstein 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge kthejoker


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World's Great Leaders

Listcruft. WP:NOT lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. Also, highly subjective; I don't think this could ever be truly WP:NPOV. TorriTorri 02:20, 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 speedy deleted. TheProject 05:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cilisis

No assertion of notability. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. I originally speedy deleted it under A7 group, but the author requested community review, so I have restored it and put it up for AfD.

  • Delete, of course. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete again. A random list of people, and on one of people it say, "he doesn't really do anything", so appears to be a joke.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, notability not asserted. I googled to see if notability could be shown, but found nothing more than the article suggests. Colonel Tom 02:47, 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. TheProject 05:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Macklin

This article is about a person and does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7) (Biography of insignificant person) - Matthew 22:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete and have tagged it so.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as well as these two pages related (just redirects to the main page) pages. The original poster had placed their links on the main AFD page, but they were red links, so I moved them here: BigDT 03:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Chester Macklin
    • Chester macklin


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 redirect. Rx StrangeLove 03:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag station

Although relevant, it should be part of another article. Can it not be part of another broader rail-related article? It is also a definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Arch26 02:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete, there may be something that can be made of this. Better yet, merge what little is here into Train station. Fluit 03:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect into Train station. I've already copied the text over, and added a citation. Later on it could be expanded beyond a stub. Kevin 06:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to train station per nom. Kimchi.sg 07:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Kevin. Just zis Guy you know? 13:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - a much more complete article about the same topic is already found at Request stop. Redirect there. LjL 00:19, 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 10:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of third party theme songs

Yet another useless list. deprodded so bringing to Afd. Hirudo 02:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Indeed, it is a useless list. Brian G. Crawford 03:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The title of this article is misleading as to its content, too. --Metropolitan90 05:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Brian. Kevin 06:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft. Kimchi.sg 07:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mister Crawford. This is indeed a useless list, hmm hmm. JIP | Talk 09:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't imagine anyone ever searching for this. --Bachrach44 12:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - one of the most useless lists yet. 23skidoo 13:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and if those songs have their own pages, mention there that the song was the theme song for a show. And hey, what about the theme song for Bosom Buddies, "My Life" by Billy Joel? Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 16:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. BigE1977 16:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Oh, what a surprise, creator is User:Nintendude. Barno 18:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to any music-related Wiki. --Nintendude 20:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The "transwiki" option only applies to other Wikimedia projects such as Wiktionary and Wikicommons. All music-related websites with a "wiki" format and name are outside Wikimedia, so we can't just go and push content there. Barno 20:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Nintendude list (a real one this time). Danny Lilithborne 21:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. And here I thought I'd learn what the Libertarians and Prohibitionists rock out to... Шизомби 21:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not even sure what this list is about. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--blue520 14:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Nintendudecruft. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 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 10:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corner Penthouse

I prodded this article, but the its authors contested it on its talk page, so I'm moving this here. The only evidence I can find this comic exists is this article, so fails WP:V. It appears to have been written by one of the comic's authors as well, so also has WP:VANITY problems. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Honestly, I agree with all the arguements for deletion on the talk page. Googling "Corner Penthouse comic" gives nothing and "Corner Penthouse" comic gives this article. It may have a "small cult following" in one tiny secluded section of the world (or in one tiny section of Toronto), but that's a far cry from notability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing significant about yet another webcomic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete If it's not published, then it's neither notable nor verifiable. Kevin 06:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 07:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity, cruft, non-notable, unverifiable and probably several other things too. Just zis Guy you know? 13:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per allof the above. -- Dragonfiend 17:09, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long Vodka

Not exactly an iconic cocktail. Brian G. Crawford 03:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 07:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable cocktail. JIP | Talk 09:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone expands it soon, then it's a dicdef if that. - Richardcavell 01:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Vodka. It is too short for an article now.--Jusjih 08:32, 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 11:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romulan Ale (cocktail)

Disgusting, already transwikied. No assertion of notability aside from having the same name as a fictional drink. Anyone using this much blue curacao in one drink should have his drinking privileges revoked. Brian G. Crawford 03:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Obvious reasons (recipe). What is with the sudden burst of these? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I've been working on mixed drink articles. Brian G. Crawford 03:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal variant on a fictional beverage. Not notable under another name, not relevant under this one. Possibly toxic. Lord Bob 03:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Recipe for a nn drink, and incidentally totally disgusting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Recipe, and totally dishonorable for the Empire. Hornplease 06:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 07:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Romulan Ale (no merge). Wikipedia is not a cookbook, and this cocktail doesn't taste like real Romulan Ale anyway. JIP | Talk 09:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment By looking at the article's edit history, User:Brian G. Crawford seems to have reverted the article from an innocuous redirect to a previous version of the article over a month old just so he could AFD it. I'm sure this isn't meant to be a WP:POINT, but .... what is meant to be the point? AnonEMouse 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What exactly is the point there? The only possible reason I can see for reverting the redirect to its previous content and nominating it for AFD is to purge the edit history of this objectionable article, which seems a bit draconian. --Saforrest 02:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Uhh... reverting does not purge edit histories. Fagstein 20:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn drink. --Terence Ong 16:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While i definitely disagree with the "nn drink" comments (anyone who watched Star Trek knows of romulan ale), this page is redundant. A section could be added to Romulan Ale for a recepie if there happens to be a verifiable version. DanielZimmerman 22:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fagstein 20:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Pretty common at parties around here. The more lethal everclear/blue food coloring version is also popular. I think it's notable. Looks likely to get deleted anyway, but I disagree. Have a nice day! Georgewilliamherbert 21:18, 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 Speedied. Tawker 05:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relative Happiness, Theory of

Seems to be original research, and author seems to admit this. IN any case can't verify it. DJ Clayworth 03:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete ... could almost be Speedy Deleted as patent nonsense. Maybe there needs to be a third category ... Mercifully Quick Delete. BigDT 03:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    See WP:PROD. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Relatively happy delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 07:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOR -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, {{db-author}}. --Rory096 04:56, 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 11:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breakbeat Ninja Radio

Google has 12 hits. The website says that it has only been around since 2005. Shoutcast statistics from the site say that their listener peak was 17 listeners. That's pretty non-notable. BigDT 03:35, 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 11:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelliworks

Advertisement for a non-notable company.

This article is a copy of a press release - http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=125231 ... it isn't a copyright violation, though. The terms of use on the site say specifically that you can distribute the release.

Also, note that the article Intelliworks, Inc., which should be speedy deleted anyway because it has been copyvio'd for a long time, is about the same company. BigDT 03:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete I was in the process of nominating this for AfD as well, so mark me down as Strong Delete as well. Fails WP:CORP and is nothing more than advertising. Fluit 03:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Guys no need to delete this its a harmless article and provides info about a software company in higher education —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ac@intelliworks.com (talk • contribs) .
    • Delete Last time I checked, "harmless" was not a good reason to keep an article. Neither was "provides info", although that is what we do. "Notable", on the other hand, has always been a very good reason to keep an article -- something this is not. . TheProject 05:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both, advertising. Kimchi.sg 07:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both as advertising. JIP | Talk 09:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ugh. There can be no legitimate use of the term "relationship capital" in an article. Spam for non-notable company. Just zis Guy you know? 13:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

hang on, why is then there are are other CRM software companies listed in Wikipedia as CRM vendors? Why be partial...I don't get it. This is just a list of real company that makes and sells CRM and CRM analytics software of Higher Education —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.151.170.15 (talk • contribs) 15:51, May 11, 2006.

If you can't immediately see the difference between SAP and Intelliworks then I probably can't help you. Just zis Guy you know? 16:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, spam. --Terence Ong 16:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep after major re-write. Its written like an advertisement. Steveo2 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: no independent and reliable sources, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. --Hetar 20:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hetar. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A7/Advertising, plus lack of WP:CORP as per Hetar. I've never been fond of "Hey, let's put our company in Wikipedia" ideas anyway. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:45, 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 11:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The book Warriors

No idea what this is about, but it is either nonsense or non-notable. Jcbarr 03:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm wrong. It is real stuff already covered at Warriors (book series). This should still be deleted. -Jcbarr 03:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not good for a redirect. Kimchi.sg 07:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as complete gibberish. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable.--Jusjih 08:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant, not NN. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:46, 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 merge to list of fictional beverages. BD2412 T 13:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional mixed drinks

These wouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia if they were real. They should be deleted, unless there is, as I suspect, a systemic bias against reality. Brian G. Crawford 03:57, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster

A recipe, and a fictional one at that, with nonexistent ingredients. It has been transwikied to wikibooks. Brian G. Crawford 04:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - major reference from The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Definitely notable. MikeWazowski 04:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral- but I'm leaning very heavily towards keep. Would change vote if references to the PGGB OUTSIDE of THHGTG could be located and included. Badgerpatrol 04:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Ironically some of the references are internal, such as the Wikipedia:2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia: "Zaphod Beeblebrox is Minister of Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters." There are a couple other references listed under The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references#Other references. --JohnDBuell 11:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- On reading this, my first thought was "oh come on! I'm as much an Adams fan as any geek, but this is too much: next we'll have an entry on Romulan Ale!" Ah, but we do. --Saforrest 05:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per MikeWazowski, significant part of a significant book. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, absurd nomination.--Sean Black (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You're an admin? Well, that surprises the hell out of me. Let me explain something to you. Either Wikipedia isn't a cookbook, or WP:NOT should be amended for us masses. Even if it were, it wouldn't be obliged to include fictional recipes. Sure, I read the Hitchhiker's Guide in junior high, as did a lot of other people. That's why the Hitchhiker's Guide is notable, but every little detail from it is not. I'm trying to clean up the cocktail articles, and having this fictional bullshit around doesn't help. Pretty please, delete this crap, or I may have to take it to deletion review on the basis that recipes shouldn't be included. Brian G. Crawford 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Do not patronise me. If you had actually read the article and done the proper research, you would find that this is clearly an encyclopedic topic and that an excellent article can be written about it. However, you resorted your typical tactics of forcing your personal dislike of topics from fiction and popular culture in a misguided attempt to "cleanse" the encyclopedia of so-called "cruft". Given the fact that you seem to have little to no interest in actually contributing content to Wikipedia, and instead only wish to remove things based on your personal biases, I refuse to be spoken to in this manner.--Sean Black (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • WP:NPA. and WP:No pissing contests either. Fagstein 20:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not every gag from one's favorite books deserves its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, term used repeatedly in a very notable book series. Catamorphism 07:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and keep the recipe in it too. This is an important part of a very notable book series. And the recipe should stay, because it's the one actually used in the book, not some fanboy's own idea of a "real" version of the drink. JIP | Talk 09:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've never even read the book and I've heard about it! --mboverload 09:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Single jokes don't need articles ... Two long quotes linked by bland sentences. That's not research, it's plagiarism. -- GWO
  • Keep - maybe add a tag that the article (even without recipes that have been moved to Wikibooks) can still be expanded. --JohnDBuell 11:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per GWO. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable and not just within the SF genre. However including the recipe might be copyvio so I'd double check that if I were you. 23skidoo 13:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to somewhere, or keep. You should try one, it's like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick. I read that in a book somewhere. Oh, wait... Just zis Guy you know? 13:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JIP. youngamerican (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy and I concur with GWO. One-off jokes from a book, even one as good as the Hitch-hiker's series don't need an article unless the term has entered into the general lexicon of language (i.e. Babelfish). If this gets kept though, wouldn't the recipe be a copyvio? Not 100% sure how fair use relates to text passages from a copyrighted work... but I suspect they are not covered. I'm no lawyer though.--Isotope23 14:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a viable cultural reference. When a friend asked me recently "what is a PGGB," I told him, "look it up in Wikipedia."--Subwoofer 15:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because it's fictional doesn't mean we can't have an article about it. Jimpartame 15:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable concept from a very notable series of books. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 16:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hugely popular series, pop culture reference, mentioned across several popular literary works. Ridiculous nomination. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 17:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notaable fictional cocktail Tim! 18:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; one of the most famous HHGTTG jokes after 42. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as one of the more famous and oft-referenced gags elsewhere from HHGTTG. TheRealFennShysa 23:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the above comments. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - pile on to make sure this discussion ends. The books, films, musical, radio series were very popular. - Richardcavell 01:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Fancruft. KleenupKrew 23:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Adding this to the H2G2 article would just be adding to an already long article. If such an action IS taken, I'd suggest that a new subpage, something like "List of memes originating with The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" be created - The PGGB, Towels, 42, Babel Fish, etc COULD be all put there at that point. --JohnDBuell 02:43, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marlborough, Auckland

Whilst going through a process of requesting the moves of a number of articles in Category:Auckland urban districts I concluded that many of these suburbs are not notable enough to even deserve a stub. Any information that is relevant can be included in articles relating to nearby suburbs that are large enough to be notable.

I note that a search for "Marlborough, Auckland" turned up nothing in Wises Maps , New Zealand's most comprehensive online map, and that in fact I, who live in Auckland, had never heard of the suburb of "Marlborough" (although of course there is a notable region of the same name in the South Island).

There are others that should also be deleted but as a first-time afd nominator I'm just going to see how this goes and take it from there. PageantUpdater 04:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination Although I disagree with the principal behind the argument "all real, documented places are notable" I will respect the arguments put forward here, stop complaining, and start expanding. After some digging I have found Marlborough in the electoral profile and (eventually) on a map. PageantUpdater 01:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A Google search comes up with some hits but nothing which verifies Marlborough as a suburb of Auckland see [4]. Keep per Grutness. If it is in maps and recognised by automotive bodies.Capitalistroadster 06:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's listed by the New Zealand Automobile Association as a suburb, and also listed on street maps of Auckland as a suburb. It lies to the west of the Northern Motorway between Hillcrest and Glenfield. The article needs a bit more info, though - to say the least. Grutness...wha? 06:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment What exactly is the notability standard for suburbs/locations? I had a hunt but couldn't find anything on WP. Surely it has to be that the name is widely recognised? Otherwise WP would be riddled with suburb stubs... Anyway, a question to Grutness... you say that the AA lists Marlborough as a suburb? Was this in print and online. And if online, where? I've had a look around their website and can't find anything. PageantUpdater 06:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Offline - the AA Auckland street directory shows it as a suburb. Grutness...wha? 08:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Fair enough, but I guess it begs the question, should every single little suburb have an article? Respectfully disagreeing with Kimchi.sg, I think that some suburbs (whether on a map or not) are so small that they would be best merged into the larger area they are within. Which, in this case seems to be Glenfield. As a possibility, you could even include the information in Glenfield (which I have, by the way, suggested it be moved to Glenfield, North Shore City or similar - see Category talk:Auckland urban districts) and then use a redirect. I guess what I'm basing this on is that I lived in Auckland for twenty years and have driven around the north shore but have not heard of this suburb (which isn't to say it doesn't exist, just that it probably isn't notable). PageantUpdater 09:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per Grutness. To PageantUpdater: I'd consider official recognition in a street directory, map or similar listing for a suburb to be notable enough. Kimchi.sg 07:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm an Aucklander, and a couple of decades ago I was a truck driver doing deliveries throughout the area, so I think I know the city fairly well, but I'd never heard of this suburb before. That just means that it's after my time, but it seems non-notable. Weak delete.-gadfium 08:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A diligent soul started articles for pretty much every suburb on the North Shore. I did a little minor clean-up after a few of them, but I'm a bit mixed about their value. I can only surmise the location of Marlborough in relation to the suburbs its apparently between. Further, my brief interactions suggest that Hillcrest isn't much to "write home about", although I confess to only having dropped off a friend of a friend there a couple of times. On the other hand, I see these articles as almost totally harmless. There is much much worse cruft out there. Weak keep. --Limegreen 10:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: I'm an Aucklander, and the original creator of the page(the page was created by a semi-automatic process with manual review, with a batch of other Auckland suburbs, using data generated from LINZ data to compute the compass directions between suburbs, and with automatic collation with census data. Marlborough has no census data, but it is in the LINZ maps. I do not personally know much about Marlborough except that it exists, but I think if it is on the LINZ map data, it is a recognised land name, and should be kept. A1kmm 11:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I honestly don't know why I'm still arguing to delete this because I don't really care one way or the other (based on your arguments), but here's another test. I did a google search of the North Shore City website for "Marlborough [5] and came up with fifty-one results. The majority of these talk about "Marlborough Park" (/Reserve) (most of the results), "Marlborough School", "Marlborough Avenue". Not once can I find it referred to as a suburb. In comparison, a search of the site for Hillcrest (as an example given above) came back with thirty-six results [6], but most of these referred to Hillcrest as a suburb. Not sure if this proves anything, but its just something to note. -- PageantUpdater 11:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment BTW for the LINZ place names data record, see [7] A1kmm 11:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The suburb isn't a new invention; I recall a bus route from the city called "Marlborough/Takapuna" over 20 years ago. Not the most notable suburb IMO though. -- Avenue 13:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as real places like cities, towns, neighborhoods, suburbs, etc are always notable. Carioca 13:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, all real places are notable. --Terence Ong 16:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I'm close to withdrawing my nom as this obviously isn't going anywhere, and this probably isn't the place to talk about it, but I strongly disagree with the argument "all real places are notable". I'm not basing this on any relevant policy, but if you ask me that's too broad an assumption. I can hardly see how a place can be notable if someone who has lived in the city where that place is their entire life has never heard of it. Furthermore, your argument could easily be extended to: my street (which is a real place) is notable, which it clearly isn't. Just because it can be found on a map or in Linz doesn't exactly confer notability in my opinion, because there are many mini- mini- suburbs out there that are generally considered part of the larger area (Glenfield, in this case) but that are given specific mention in Surveying reports because those reports need to be specific to the most miniscule detail. I also feel that the assumption that "all real places are notable" is as ridiculous as "all real people are notable". Can someone please direct me to the appropriate WP policy page so I can continue this argument there and save you guys the steam? -- PageantUpdater 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    You're comparing apples and oranges - in mathematician speak, the set of real place names is much smaller than the set of real people. Kimchi.sg 01:56, 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 11:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wheaton Village Playground

Non-notable. Reference in Haddonfield Friends School if you must Jcbarr 04:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Deltabeignet 05:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This just looks like a generic playground without any real significance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no special difference from the 23,545 playgrounds elsewhere. Kimchi.sg 08:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • But ... the swings are neat and high! Fagstein 20:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. BTW, I don't see a citation for the 23545 playgrounds statistic. Kevin 11:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think the world needs Wikipedia to tell it that Wheaton Village playground is a playground in the Village of Wheaton. The more astute reader will also readily surmise that it includes play equipment, since that is pretty much standard for playgrounds. Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (redirect to Wil Wheaton? :) Fagstein 20:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and not written in a style fitting for an encyclopedia entry. Cedars 01:35, 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 11:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Masque

Not notable, unverifiable. Top GHit is Wikipedia. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 05:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified, per nom. Kevin 11:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 216 Google hits do not make notability.--Jusjih 08:36, 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 11:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CMan

Not enough notability. Adcruft, primarily. GHits for company name founder name are less than 500. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 05:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not exactly notable, even for someone from Concord. Hornplease 06:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 09:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't pass WP:CORP for any criteria. Kevin 11:25, 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 (added a mention to ebay page). Rx StrangeLove 03:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EBay drop off

This is nothing more than a list of advertising links. There is no substance to this article. The nominal subject matter could easily be merged into the eBay article. IrishGuy 04:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom, merge what can be salvaged. Deltabeignet 05:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Deltabeignet. Kim van der Linde at venus 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete covert spam. Kimchi.sg 08:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Deltabeignet. JIP | Talk 09:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam, spam magnet, and more spam. Oh and spam. Just zis Guy you know? 13:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under A3. The purpose of this article is a "contact attempt". The JPS talk to me 16:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with EBay. I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume they were trying to cover the legitimate phenomenon of eBay consignment. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 18:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with EBay per Aguerriero. Notable subject, but not necessary to keep the article in its present linkfarm state. --Allen 01:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
comment I agree that the subject could theoretically be merged, but if you look through the history, it is a series of IP addresses that made exactly one edit...to this article. All of which put in an URL for a site which does business. As it is, this is nothing more than a linkfarm. As it is written, it has no encyclopedic value. It could be rewritten...but as it stands it is spam. IrishGuy 08:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with EBay after shortening it a bit. Steveo2 11:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge to eBay. Stifle (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. Do not merge to EBay, just delete it. KleenupKrew 23:05, 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 REDIRECT to Lightstick. —Whouk (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glow rod

As is, the page verges on original research (even the name is unsourced), has little content, and lacks notability. User:Kappa appears to be opposed to redirection to Lightstick, which was my preference over an AfD. Deltabeignet 04:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Lightstick. This article is dubious and unsourced, and glow rod is a common term for lightstick (at least where I am.) Grandmasterka 05:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Grandmasterka. Kimchi.sg 08:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirectper above. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect into Lightstick. Any extra info can be merged. Kevin 11:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Grandmasterka. BigE1977 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong redirect to Lightstick. No need for WP to keep this bit of fiction trivia nor to merge/redirect it to a Star Wars article. Lightstick, however, is well-documented. Barno 18:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to lightstick as proposed. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:31, 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. Looking at the article, I noticed that it has been edited to address the concerns of even some of the delete voters. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay friendly

This is a somewhat controversial issue, so here goes: two prominent OR tags on it, and, aside from that, has serious POV issues (and I have no doubt, will continue to as long as the article continues to list "gay-friendly" celebrities and organizations the way it does). Also, according to another opinion I got, which I very much agree with, the article shouldn't exist, since it implies that most people are not -- hence it is an unmaintainable list. We don't have an article on "black friendly", for example. The article originally had a transwiki tag on it, but it is not fit for transwikification in the state it's currently in. Recommend either delete or eliminate the last two sections (leaving a dicdef that can be transwikied). TheProject 04:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep but delete the lists of people and organizations. The idea of "gay friendliness" is a recognized concept which is sufficiently complex that IMO it deserves an encyclopaedia entry (and not just a dictionary one).
However, though such an article should mention a few really prominent people to illustrate the concept, it is POV to assert unequivocally that an individual is or isn't "gay friendly". The most that we could have is List of people identified as gay friendly, but that would be pointless and unmaintainable. Homophobes can still do gay-friendly PR stunts, and celebrities who haven't yet done gay-friendly PR stunts shouldn't automatically be considered "gay-unfriendly."--Saforrest 05:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as nominated. Brian G. Crawford 05:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm a rabid supporter of gay rights, but even I think this is pointless. Props to TheProject for wording the AfD so nicely. --mboverload 05:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently gay friendly means "things or people that are friendly to gays." Wikipedia is not the place for tautologies. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR, and WP:NOT a collection of lists. Catamorphism 07:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated. First section duplicates gay and the rest is OR. Kimchi.sg 08:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as Kimchi. -- GWO
  • Delete as inherently POV. And not a single reference to back any of it up. Kevin 11:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete uncited POV original research. And those are the good points. Just zis Guy you know? 13:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Too nebulous, unreferenced, unmaintainable. For example, look at the Alanis Morrissette entry, who is included because one of her songs has the lyric "meeting the man of my dreams, and meeting his beautiful husband". Since "gay-friendly" is something that can't really be defined, it also can't be verified. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV/OR. --Eivindt@c 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Straight ally. --Allen 01:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Strong Keep Before you delete this article I think you consider the possibility that this article may simply have a poorly thought-out focus. I completely agree with all of you when you say that the content of this article should be deleted. However… the term itself is very real. This seems to be a case of small but fundamental error in the definition leading to the awful situation right now.
Gay-Friendly is a real term, and refers to the policies and practices that institutions and companies implement in order to create a welcoming environment to LGBT people. It is very North American late 20th century term that largely arose due to 1) the gradual recognition of gay rights and acceptance of gay-friendly policies in the workplace and in schools 2) the recognition of a potentially lucrative gay market by businesses and communities. I can think of three big areas where “gay friendly” is typically be used:
1) Travel/Leisure/Places to live: There are a lot of travel guides and organizations that create Gay Friendliness indexes for vacations spots, countries and cities. Businesses and tourist centers actually do pay attention to this.
2) Gay Friendly workplaces & gay friendly companies: Basically, creating Gay friendly environments and would include policies or practices that protect gay rights. These would include policies to discrimination policy, maternity leave, health coverage, etc.
3) Schools/Universities: A mix of the above two, for example, rankings of Gay Friendly universities, gay friendly student policies, etc.
I have absolutely no idea how this article has remained so mixed up over the last few years, but hope that it will change in the future. I propose that the article instead be gutted of the pop trivia and listing, and be replaced with instead, a real article on this definition.--P-Chan 20:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or possible Merge. Yes, the term "gay friendly" is certainly a real term. There is no real parallel between the concept of "black friendly" and "gay friendly." To my understanding, it is illegal on all basis (at least within the United States) to discriminate against blacks. Therefore, all institutions in this country must be by law "black friendly." This is not the case where gays are concerned. I believe there are many pockets of society where you can still fire a person, deny them housing, deny them child custody, adoption rights, etc., simply because they are gay. I recently read that Clay Aiken was dropped by Christian organizers of a Christian concert -- because they heard he is gay. Could you imagine the reaction had they dropped a black artist because they are black? What I'm trying to say here is that, for more than a decade, the term "gay friendly" has indeed been used within the gay community as a means of identifying businesses, organizations, and people who openly accept gays and will not discriminate against them. -- Andrew Parodi 14:37, 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 11:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HOX9

There is no HOX9, only HOXA9, HOXB9, HOXC9, and HOXD9 (in humans, differs in other species) (see for example: PubMed on HOXA9). Some genes of the HOXA and HOXD seem to be involved in the penis and digit size, but that would be 13 [8] An article on a single HOX gene is not going to be easy to write as the hox gene evolution is quite complex. I suggest deletion of this stub for that reason above trying to improve it. Kim van der Linde at venus 05:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominated. Also, smells like a hoax with no references. Brian G. Crawford 06:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'll go with Kim's knowledge in this area. Kevin 11:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kim, since she knows of which she speaks here. HOAX9 it is. Just zis Guy you know? 13:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-verifiable WP:V. I may have this wrong (genetics is not my strong point) but Hox9 would describe the activation region / gene cluster where as HOXA9, HOXB9, HOXC9, and HOXD9 would be the genes. --blue520 15:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. Well, you would need one for each cluster (and would be HOXA, HOXB, HOXC HOXD, nine indicates the order of the gene in the cluster), as the clusters are located at different chromosomes. Regulation in hox genes works actually quite different from other genes, with number of start codons (instead of a single one) as an important aspect for which hox genes in a cluster are activated and which are not. Kim van der Linde at venus
    Comment Pending the outcome of this AfD the reference to HOX9 in Human penis size (Micropenis sub section) may need to be modified, and thank you Kim van der Linde for the explanation.--blue520 16:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks and done, is misleading. (Stricktly speaking, this should only happen after the AfD is closed, but this is just incorrect information by itself.) Kim van der Linde at venus 16:36, 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 Speedily userfied to User:Tfmgames. Just zis Guy you know? 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tfmgames

Unnotable website. Fails WP:WEB/advertising. —Xezbeth 05:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't even have a domain name, and is hosted on Geocities. Kevin 11:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete is this site anything to do with Troy Martin, do you know? vanispamcruftisement it is, then. Just zis Guy you know? 13:54, 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 11:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiery Avenger

One of many, many, many items in EverQuest. There's really nowhere to merge this, this stub is unexpandable, and the item is no longer even particularly noteworthy in the context of EQ. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unsalvageable article about an esoteric item Dr. Ke
  • Delete per nom, even the article admits it's not so coveted anymore. Kimchi.sg 08:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft! Only possibly of interest to a small percentage of people. - Richardcavell 05:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Fiery Defender is even bagcruft at this point, but this weapon was a decently large part of the history of the game (along with that whole sour grapes thing). It doesn't really make sense merged anywhere and it isn't notable enough for its own article. Kotepho 00:26, 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 Speedily deleted A1 and A3 in WP:CSD. Oh, and breastcruft. There, I said it. Just zis Guy you know? 14:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of celebrities with natural breasts implants

Surprisingly, NOT by User:Nintendude, but still a useless, unverifiable (resisting the obvious joke) list. Calton | Talk 05:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL --mboverload 05:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I fail to see how any type of breast implant could be natural. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 05:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it can, using ones own fat from another place. But we do not need a list in pretty much anything someone can think of that might of interest for some people.Kim van der Linde at venus 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Natural breast implants"? Delete solely on the obvious oxymoronic quality of the phrase. TheProject 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not exactly clear what a natural breast implant would be. Brian G. Crawford 06:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WTF? Is it a list about natural breasts or implants? Make up your mind! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What are "natural" breast implants anyhow? This is a near-BJAODN, but no cigar. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: they're real, and they're spectacular. -- GWO
  • Delete as a useless list. Kevin 11:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - incomprehnsible title, useless topic. 23skidoo 13:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD A1; the article makes no attempt to explain its self-contradictory title. --Metropolitan90 13:34, 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. – Alphax τεχ 03:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arm Cannon

"An arm cannon is an arm that is a cannon. Several characters with arm cannons are foo, bar, and foobar." An essentially content-free tautology, with a list of random, more-or-less unrelated fictional characters with gun arms. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to abstain, considering the rewrite. I'm not sure if this is an encyclopedic topic, but it's no longer in dire need of deletion. (If someone is counting votes, this is an abstention.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Although worthy of an article if it was well researched and had good info, this is certainly not it. Delete until someone comes along and actually puts effort into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mboverload (talk • contribs) 22:25, May 10, 2006
  • Keep: Yeah it needs work, but it's not something that should be deleted. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Why shouldn't it be deleted? I'm willing to be convinced, but I don't see any reasoning, just an assertion of disagreement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete- technically not a tautology (it must be clarified whether this is a cannon that is an arm, or a cannon that fires arms) but it's stupid nonetheless. Reyk YO! 07:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Keep after rewrite. It explains well what the gadget is to the uninitiated. And with *4* inline refs to boot. o_O Kimchi.sg 16:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "What in the hell did you trade Jay Buhner for? He had 30 home runs, over 100 RBI's last year. He's got a rocket for an arm. You don't know what the hell you're doin'!" -- GWO
  • Delete although I'm not sure what the article is. For sure collecting all that info and lumping it together is OR at best. Kevin 11:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete uncited nonsense Just zis Guy you know? 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep rewritten version. Still too lose a topic for a proper article, IMO, but not a crap one any more. Just zis Guy you know? 19:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of characters with arm cannons. Jimpartame 15:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Smurrayinchester's great rewriting job has changed my mind. Keep. Jimpartame 20:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- I've rewritten the article to be less of a list and more of an explanation of the arm cannon (incidently, after this AFD ends, if it is not deleted, it should be moved to Arm cannon). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep following an excellent rewrite. It might also be worth talking about the use of Wii as a real 'arm cannon' ([9]). Ziggurat 22:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the post-rewrite version. Well done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep post-revision. And comment - the second section of List of characters with arm cannons has to be one of the best things I've seen today. Confusing Manifestation 01:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment can we have some sources for this info? Otherwise it smacks of a cross between original research and dicdef. Fagstein 20:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What claims in the article do you think need to be sourced? Jimpartame 22:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • All of them. Verifiability is not optional. Fagstein 22:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        • It doesn't make sense to say that all of the claims in the article need to have sources added, since many of them already have sources. For instance, the claim that some arm cannons in fiction are portrayed as firing bullets or shells is supported by the example of Barret Wallace from Final Fantasy VII. If you have any specific concerns about verifiability, feel free to share them. Jimpartame 22:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Agreed, This would seem to just be a grandstanding abuse of the reference policy. There are no direct assertations made. If you are going to tell me we need a reference to an independent work stating that such and such had an arm cannon in it and it fired x type of ammunition, its a little bit neurotic and quite a leap. Unless you can mark a specific claim that needs citation, I see no reason to even consider this.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 03:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
          • There are a lot of weasel words like "tend to", "often", "can also" etc., simply because the article doesn't have a single reference (so it doesn't really say anything about arm cannons, except that they're cannons around the arm area). I can edit if you like, but that would drop the article down to dicdef level. Fagstein 03:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
            • The article references numerous works of fiction involving arm cannons. I explained to you the reference to Final Fantasy VII, for example. Instead of cutting out the parts you feel are under-referenced, why not tell us what those parts are? Which claims do you want references added for? Jimpartame 04:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Like I said, everything needs a source. The problem here is that we're writing an article about a fictional weapon in general, however we only have wildly different specific examples to go on. All we can say for certain about "arm cannon" is that it's a cannon around the arm area. Everything else, from what they shoot to what they're made of to how they function differs depending on the particular fictional case. We would probably have to model this after the raygun article, which has some history and a listing of fictions it appears in, but has nothing technical. Fagstein 05:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
                • I'll try to explain this once more: The article has sources. Metroid, Teen Titans, Mega Man, etc. If there is a claim made in the article that you think needs to be better supported with references, tell us what that particular claim is. Please be specific. Just saying "everything" is nonsensical, since not everything in the article is unsourced. Jimpartame 05:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Foolishness. When writing about a videogame, do you need a source to prove that it happened? No, thats what the game is there fore the same goes for a movie and the same in this case. Why don't you spend time sourcing articles that REALLY need it, such as ones that actually cite claims made without providing evidence. Lords knows there are more Citation Needed tags around than one could shake a stick at, and plenty of nonsense without these tags that need them. In any case this discussion belongs on the article talk page, as its getting rather long (or at least continue it on the project talk page.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 06:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It's now referenced externally, as well as internally. There's a surprising amount about Metroid & Mega Man physics on the web, buried among the fanfics. Incidently, the use of "some" and "most" aren't weasel words in this context. It is indeed true that "some" arm cannons shoot bullets, but "most" shoot energy beams, and "can also" interface with computers, and the references added back this up. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 08:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I think it's kind of silly saying that "Many times X is Y, but X can be also by not Y" since that tells me nothing about X. That said, I've gotten references as asked. Keep. Fagstein 19:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keeep per the rewrite. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 03:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep after rewrite. Robert 03:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename. I don't think that "arm cannon" is really the best name here; for instance, Google gives about as many hits for "gun arm" as it does for "arm cannon". -Sean Curtin 05:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but the more notable references to it (Megaman and metroid most likely) along with the majority of other works that refer to it call it an ARM cannon or something along those lines. Using google search results to gague notability and accuracy is at best an extremely flawed concept. You really have to look at individual uses.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable aspect of video game character community, competent summary after rewrite, includes sources and nice presentation. -ZeroTalk 22:11, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mikoyan MiG-42 (fictional)

Nearly contentless stub about a fictional fighter in a minor game that doesn't have its own article. It's an nn fictional object in an nn game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. And the game's probably out of production, it was released in 1998. Kimchi.sg 08:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's so NN I'm surprised it hasn't imploded under it's own weight. Kevin 11:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fictional aeroplane in redlinked game. Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delet per nom. DarthVader 22:37, 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 Merge to Wizarding world. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Butterbeer

A fictional beverage. I doubt this would be notable were it real. This shouldn't inherit notability because it is from Harry Potter. Brian G. Crawford 06:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. After pumpkin juice, this is probably the most mentioned beverage in the extremely major Harry Potter series and comes back in a number of books. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • And you'll notice we don't have an article about that either. Delete. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The fact that there isn't an article on something (unless there was one that was deleted, which doesn't seem to be the case here) should never, ever be used to argue for the deletion of another article. --Cheapestcostavoider 02:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, where it was introduced. Kimchi.sg 08:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, an important part of a very notable book series. Articles shouldn't be nominated for deletion just because they're about fiction. JIP | Talk 09:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I love the idea that "the second most mentioned beverage in a book" makes something notable. It'd be funny if it wasn't so stupid. I wonder what the second most mentioned beverage in "Les Miserables" is... -- GWO
    • There is no need to resort to an insult to drive your point across. Be civil, please. Kimchi.sg 13:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't insult anyone. I said that an idea was stupid. Which it is. -- GWO
      • Come on, that was hilarious. Fagstein 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The first paragraph isn't really notable, and the last 2 are only barely related to the subject, and look like OR. Kevin 11:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Harry Potter related article. I do find it amusing that the *second-most mentioned* beverage has a page but the first-most doesn't.~~ Brother William 13:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That is because pumpkin juice is non-alcoholic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Azkaban per Kimchi. That's where it came from, that's where it should stay.  RasputinAXP  c 13:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Kimchi or transwiki to WikiPotteria. ScottW 13:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep though if it is to be merged it should not be the Azkaban article since the beverage is not exclusive to that book. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 17:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of fictional beverages. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 18:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Azkaban merge doesn't make too much sense since it's been in most (every?) book since then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and keep as a redirect (perhaps to Harry Potter which is supposed to be about the series as a whole). Шизомби 21:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of fictional beverages. Normally I would say keep due to the size of the article, but two-thirds of the article is original research (speculation on alcohol content and origins of name). --Joelmills 01:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of fictional beverages. Grandmasterka 04:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to an appropriate page. I can see this page getting re-created in the future with real information. At present it's a list of unconnected facts about brewing with not enough information to justify its own page. -- cmh 15:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yadda yadda merge. Fagstein 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to fictional beverages.--ragesoss 23:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please a important part of notable book series Yuckfoo 18:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think I understand the "merge" votes. Why can't it be on the list and have its own article? Several entries on that page already do. And that's really not "merging" anything but the name, anyway. --Cheapestcostavoider 01:55, 17 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 listing appears to be a violation of WP:POINT by a troll, as such with strong consensus to keep, closed keep.  ALKIVAR™ 09:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YTMND

The main reasons for deleting this article are outlined on the talk page; basically a particular section was called into question and upon further inspection with the Mediation Cabal the entire article was found to be in violation. The opposing users have said they support a deletion in a private chat. I am also nominating the following related page because it is essentially an extension of the above page:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ke (talk • contribs)

  • KEEP YTMND is cool! What's so bad about it? We just need to remove some of the bad things on the article, that's all! --Galathos aka Flashn00b
  • Keep YTMND is a large community just like Something Awful or B3ta, both of which have Wikipedia entries. In fact, back when I had no idea what people meant by YTMND, Wikipedia's entry explained itto me. The entry just needs some editing - there's no reason to delete the topic.
  • Keep Um...honestly, is this a joke? The nomination sure sounds like it. YTMND is a huge phenom and how you could think to delete it...--mboverload 06:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Max himself has said he doesn't care and would actually prefer the site to be deleted. An article for YTMND could be argued as being necessary, but the article in its current form is an absolute mess. Dr. Ke 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Arguments must be weighed on the merits of the argument itself, not on who makes the argument. The fact that Max takes a particular side on this issue carries no more weight than anyone else's opinion, regardless of what side he takes. Wikipedia debates are probably not the place for appeal to authority arguments.DavidGC 00:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And no, Max did not say he didn't care. Plus, he used it instead of an official About for the site. -Mysekurity [m!] 13:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I support this action Vexidus 06:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep From a glance the question brought up at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-10 YTMND was one of notability, which has already been discussed at AfD- even if the entire article needs reworking as suggested there, that wouldn't require deletion first. It could take a revert to an earlier version. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although I agree that the YTMND article (as well as the "List of YTMND Fads" article) may have grown a little too large, I do not agree with deleting the article entirely. Apparently the root of the current problem can be traced to one or two trolls/vandals. Some concerned YTMND users are currently going through the proper channels to get the issue resolved. InfinityDUCK 07:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been resolved, and the parties involved agreed that an AFD submission for the article was acceptable. Max himself personally does not care if the article is deleted. This is personally the best conclusion we could come to considering the quality of the article. Base your votes on the merit of the article in its current form. Dr. Ke 07:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is completely unsourced for facts. I suggest that the article be re-done more than deleted, but if the article can't be backed up with sources for facts then under Wikipedia criteria the article is not valid. -Refault 07:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know where else one would go for facts about a site like YTMND other than the site itself. Unlike corporate sites like Google or AOL, there is very little "legitimate" news and research on private yet popular sites like YTMND. I believe most would agree that YTMND is popular and significant enough to merit its own article, but I think many are not sure what would have to be done to make it compliant with Wiki rules. My knowledge of Wiki guidelines is admittedly not great, but I'm trying to learn as much as I can. InfinityDUCK 07:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The current article, in all its glory, is tragic. It is akin to a disaster zone, like MySpace. To sum up all the inane fads that have come and gone through the history of YTMND is monumental. Would anyone really take the time to groom this mess; to properly categorize, be it alphabetically or chronologically, or even link to specific YTMNDs that adhere to the alleged fad at hand? Does anyone really care for esoteric fads that have fallen into deeper obscurity? The list is as asinine as a good majority of the fads themselves. LaLutteAvecCecil 07:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree... sort of. What I would like to see is a YTMND article that covers what the site is, the site's history, etc. and completely avoids going into detail about fads or particular sites. This would require cutting the "List of YTMND Fads" article entirely, then making major cuts to the main article. From there it would simply require rigorous moderating to prevent further "contamination." InfinityDUCK 07:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Max, the owner of YTMND himself, researched the troll by IP search, confirmed that the Stukas of YTMND.com and YTMND.com/wiki were the same, and removed him from the ytmnd.com user list, deleting his YTMND sites. An email was sent to Max from Stukas, saying he was unjustly banned. Soon after, Refault posted a new section called "Admin Abuse" in response to the actions taken by Max (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YTMND&diff=52207419&oldid=52205860), further adding false information to the article. In an attempt to revert this vandalism, Dr. Ke continously restored me deletion, proclaiming that it was a valid section of the article, when it fact, it has been completely orchestrated by both Dr. Ke (Stukas) and Refault, in an attempt to delete this article. I hope an administrator sees that I have researched this thoroughly, and I believe that the owner of YTMND, Max, would be happy to assist any Wikipedia administrator in order to revert this act of trolling. Fyrestorm 08:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Changed vote to speedy keep. Fyrestorm 22:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with that + I am done discussing that because we got nowhere. I have nominated the AFD because I feel there are large problems with the article. If the AFD fails the article will likely have to undergo massive changes. The nomination for deletion has nothing to do with that section submission. Dr. Ke 16:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per mboverload. Kimchi.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kimchi.sg&action=edit&section=new sg 08:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep YTMND. I personally don't see any point in YTMND fads, but the site is very famous, and that counts as notability. Delete list of YTMND fads. Although the concept is notable, no individual fads are. JIP | Talk 11:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. YTMND, whether they enjoy vandalizing Safety or not, is a notable website.  RasputinAXP  c 13:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - AFD is not for rewriting or cleaning up articles. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if we must, but I support removal of list of YTMND Fads, siunce we can safely leave it up to YTMND to maintain thier own list. Since by definition a fad is a thing of no lasting significance, and these fads are only of any significance to YTMNDers in the first place, it seems to be cruft. Just zis Guy you know? 14:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. The first portion of the article is clearly encyclopedic. If problems exist with the rest of the article, they can be resolved within the article, not here in AfD. Third time's the charm... if this attempt at deletion fails, let's not rehash this debate a 4th time, folks. Wholescale deletion of an entire atricle is not the way to handle an item that has grown too large or contains too much minutia. That's what editors are for. I'm not sure that the YTMND Fads page is Wikipedia-worthy as a topic, but that article is separate and should have a separate AfD discussion if the result of this debate is "Keep". DavidGC 16:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's alexa rating is high enough to be on Wikipedia.
  • Delete for "list of YTMND fads". Weak Delete for YTMND. The website itself appears to fail WP:WEB, however, larger fad might warrant the article after some heavy re-tooling. I remain unconvinced that ytmnd.com is stunningly notable for having given a name to the practice of making short, funny videos out of movie clips. --Lee Bailey 20:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This website is actually used when the info section is down on ytmnd.Also, it can be useful for a complete list of websites.(Vance Clarend 20:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Rewrite main article, and delete list of fads. The site is way too known to not have an article. It's always going to have vandalism problems because of the nature of this site and the nature of YTMND users. Danny Lilithborne 21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both articles, this nomination borders on inappropriate. Silensor 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed why was this considered for deletion anyways?
  • It looks to me like lots of editors (and others) are becoming intellectually lazy and would rather delete an article wholescale than hash out issues on the article's talk pages and make the appropriate editing changes needed to repair it -- which naturally requires a lot more work. This is becoming a tiresome trend.DavidGC 03:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the page, I don't think this warrants a deletion unless it somehow becomes a problem to maintain, and the deletion was probably because of the big/huge fad list.
  • Keep. Any existing problems can just be rewritten. Efitu (Tlk Unc) 01:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite any problem sections. --Myles Long 02:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep YTMND, it's notable enough for several reasons that others have already touched on. Delete the List of YTMND Fads, as narcissistic garbage. The YTMNDers, or whatever they opt to call themselves, can make their own wiki for their fads or whatever. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 05:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite Although I'm biased, I'd like the page to stick around and hopefully become a little more organized and a little less controversial. 69.86.240.141 05:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the main article, with a rewrite, of course. Delete List of YTMND Fads. As much as I personally hate this website, it's definitely notable enough to have an article. -MysticEsper 06:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it would be totally stupid to delete this article. bbx 07:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep nominated by a troll, and we've alredy gone through this—two times. Mysekurity [m!] 13:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rewrite, YTMND is quite a significant and popular internet meme, as such, it is worthy to remain on Wikipedia. However, a rewrite of the article so that it would adhere to NPOV and Wikipedia guidelines would probably be beneficial. yueni 17:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is a good resource for people to put YTMNDs into context. --87.127.18.122 20:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep YTMND (AfD is not the place for content disputes), delete List of YTMND Fads as unverifiable and non-notable (unless any can be found referenced in reliable sources). Fagstein 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep' this please we have ways to fix articles and erasing everything is not one of them Yuckfoo 23:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is abuse of the deletion system by like two users. 24.185.27.112 23:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep It's YTMND.com. The site is one of the most famous on the internet for finding really funny stuff. Stormscape 00:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup. This page, and List of YTMND fads should be merged and cleaned up, and these versions should be Transwiki'd. While the page about YTMND fads can go, this should stay. It is a highly notable site. Crazyswordsman 01:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • As for the other article, I'd say either Edit down and merge here or Transwiki and delete. While an excellent resource, it is highly unencyclopedic. I'll help find a new home for it if need be. I'm saying this as a YTMND user, and I love YTMND. Crazyswordsman 01:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This website is probably world-famous. Ashibaka tock 01:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep nomination is poorly explained and the website has had a notable impact on the web *cough*Brian Peppers*cough*. Cedars 01:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Alot of people have worked hard on this, and I'm especially talking about the fad list. If nothing else, keep that up. Or just fix the main Ytmnd article, but for god sakes don't delete the thing. Kenshin1591 04:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The amount of effort put into an article is not really a good indicator of whether or not the article should remain on Wikipedia. If 5 friends spend 80 hours writing a Wikipedia article about what they did last weekend, it would be speedily deleted. I like the idea of moving the Fad page elsewhere and linking to the new location from the original article.DavidGC 05:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - highly notable internet phenomenom, the article is cited by the media, the website was mentioned by the media, the site has been featured on Attack of the Show on G4... the list goes on... —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 04:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • As for the fad list page, weak delete - any fad that's notable enough to be mentioned should be mentioned on the main article. —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 04:51, 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 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hobeywood

Somebody's weekend house by the lake. Claims to non-notability: around the same lake that Ernest Hemingway visited as a boy. Of course, the lake is 4300 acres in size. Put up by current owner, who describes himself as a 'socialite' and a '21st century Casanova' - in the article. (Of course, somebody immediately wikified 'Casanova'. and '21st century'.) Hornplease 06:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As per nom. Wikipedia is NOT a blog, try MySpace for that. MyNameIsNotBob 08:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fluit 08:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No sign of anything on Google. —Whouk (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable per nom. Kevin 11:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hobeywood is the new name for the home. It was once called The Cedars, during Ernest's time. Ernest grew up on the very same lake, directly across the way, and spent much time. This is, as stated in the article, one of the oldest homes on the lake. It was built around the same time as Hemingway's, the families were friends. Included in the Hobeywood collection are the light fixtures from Hemingway's original boyhood home, and more importantly to the article numerous postcards featuring a young Ernest in the lake with the cottage visible in the background. In response to the first posting above, the owner doesn't claim to be a socialite, the owner claims that the socialite Andrew Hobey is a frequent visitor. This house is an important piece of american literary history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.180.120 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete House that was visited by some people? As far as notability goes, ranks with anyplace bearing a sign that says "Lincoln slept here". Fan1967 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial and insignificant location loosely associated in a few people's minds with American literary history. The Revolutionary War being as it was, George Washington slept in more houses and inns than Abraham Lincoln or, uh, this Andrew Hobey non-notable fellow. Barno 18:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hemingway's light fixtures do not meet standards of notability. Andrew Hobey turns up 21 google hits, all of which seem to refer to a cross-country runner from East Lancaster who has made no claims to being a billionare playboy industrialist, or what have you. My guess is either WP:VAIN or WP:HOAX is in effect here. --21:07, 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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marduk in popular culture

A random list of fictional people, places, and things named "Marduk". Every single one of these things is unrelated to Marduk, and they seem to be more or less unrelated except in name, making this an indiscriminate collection of trivia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep nominator for some reason didn't mention the article just got off AfD. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Nominator misread the old nomination, and thought it was a year old, not a few weeks old. As may be, my reasoning above still applies, and the previous AFD was contaminated by a poorly-argued and belligerent nomination.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. An 'X in pop culture' page should give instances of X being used as a reference in pop culture, or of books, movies, or games erected around the historical fact of X. This article is a list of Things Named X in Games. That will not do. Hornplease 06:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Just survived AfD.... shouldn't be a change of consensus this early. -Mask 06:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The previous AFD was contaminated by a poorly-argued and belligerent nomination. Mine, well, isn't. Would you care to address the arguments I've made? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; articles should not be nominated to AfD over and over again. All the reasons given a week ago are still true.--Prosfilaes 07:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, the previous AFD was screwed up by a lousy nomination and an unrelated grudge against the nominator. Will my arguments be more valid in a month after the old AFD is a bit older? Will they be more valid in six months? A year? When does "This is just a list of random things named Marduk" get addressed? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Every previous AfD was screwed up by something if you disagree with it. It takes time and effort to handle pages on AfD, and if it made it past one AfD, it's not an awful page that just must be deleted. Backing off reduces stress on people and the number of pages on AfD.--Prosfilaes 21:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Read the last AFD. It degenerates into an argument about the nominator's motives, and begins with a "this isn't my pop culture, get it off my wiki!" argument. Heck, I may have voted keep if I had seen that last AFD first. Why is a precedent set because of a bad nomination more important than the merits of the article? Are you planning to address the merits (or lack thereof) of this article?
          • Because the precedent means we hashed through already, and not asking people to argue over an article over and over is more important than deleting a marginal article. I addressed the merits of this article a week ago; why shouldn't that be enough.
          • As for this article, half of Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of trivia. This article was probably created by someone wanting people to stop adding it to Marduk, which probably worked pretty well. Having this article lets a few new editors add something to an article and not get immediately reverted, and it saves the experienced editors sheperding Marduk some trouble. At the cost of letting a moderately unencyclopedic and moderately interesting and frequently read article stick around. What a deal.--Prosfilaes 03:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A bad decision is a bad decision -- how is this NOT an indiscriminate collection of trivia? --Calton | Talk 08:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hornplease. Kimchi.sg 08:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this was on AFD just a week or so ago, and kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or turn into disambig. Indiscriminate it stands and not warranting a main space article. Marskell 11:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no connection between these things except the spelling of their names. Putting it all together is just OR. Kevin 11:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting article. Could be strengthened with more information on why usage is popular. Kukini 13:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I take on board A Man In Black's (somewhat vociferous) comments re the previous AfD, but it is still an (inadvertent) abuse of process to renominate so soon. This issue of speedy renoms is something we really ought to take a look at in general. Badgerpatrol 15:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • merge into Marduk. Spearhead 17:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unrelated to marduk except by name. --Mmx1 17:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per calton, without regard to the previous AfD. Article appears to fail Wikipedia:Importance and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Since none of the listed items has any relevance to the Mesopotamian god Marduk beyond a name, perhaps I should write John in popular culture, add a picture of King John I, and list every movie and TV series with a "John" character. Barno 18:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment While your point with WP:NOT is well taken, Importence is an essay, not policy or guideline, so while it is interesting, it is not applicable. -Mask 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Barno -- Hirudo 18:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because who cares. Danny Lilithborne 21:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a pretty POV reason... --Tydaj 22:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Merge into Marduk. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep again. This was on AfD less than a month ago, and was a CONSENSUS KEEP. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails Wikipedia:Importance Aeon 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Aeon. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like a disambiguation page gone bad. Arguments from previous AfD leave me unswayed. Fagstein 21:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect with Marduk. It was originally part of that article, but was spilt from it here. --Tydaj 22:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to References to Marduk in popular culture to match other similar articles. Do not merge; the myth and legend articles get bogged down in modernfictioncruft unless that stuff gets split off like this. -Sean Curtin 05:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • But are these all references to one Marduk, or are they just characters coincidentally named the same? Fagstein 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as stated previously, the article itself was only recently nominated for the same reasons, and the conclusion at that time was that the 'keep' arguments were sufficient to save the article. It is, imo, unfair of you to nominate the same article again, for what essentialy amount to the same reasons behind the previous AFD, albiet written in a more eloquent fasion.
While the discussion seems a bit too fargone by now, I will none the less add my two cents: For unrelated reasons, I had become aware of the name 'Marduke' as a curiously repeating name in fiction. Namely, I noted at the time that he was a summon in Seiken Densetsu 3, was somehow related to the selection of the Evangelion pilots, and simultaneously lent his name to a dual-wielding demigod and a race of singing space warlords. In the end, my experience tells me that this information is significant, as it led me to seek out information on the character to whome the name originaly belonged, is that the sort of scenario wikipedia should strive to avoid? is the accumulation of knowledge so undesirable? --KefkaTheClown 06:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
This is what's called original research. It's prohibited on Wikipedia for the reasons described on that page. Fagstein 07:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Except the article you've linked to states quite explicitly that Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages. And since my statement was testimony, rather than an unverifiable theory, I stand by it.--KefkaTheClown 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll even cite my source on that for you... --KefkaTheClown 17:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. Marduk in popular culture is neither a Talk page nor a Project page. Fagstein 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
And duely, it would be wrong of me to drop my testimony into the article itself. However, AFDs are projects, rather than articles. --KefkaTheClown 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
(de-indenting) Comment: To summarise here, and to (try) clear up the confusion, Kefka's just stating his reasons why the article should be kept.
To Kefka: however, for the article to be kept, this claim would have to be in the article, and with a source (as indicated in the NOR policy you have cited). It is not enough for you to mention it here. Kimchi.sg 08:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. The basis for the article is original research. Unless this can be shown to be not true, the article will have to go. Fagstein 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my intention was to provide an example of how the page in question (and truly, any 'x in popular culture' page out there...) would be put to service, and not to imply that this would be the sole excuse to keep the article around, which seems to be the way it was interpreted. An another note, does the material not count as a source? I mean, if we're going to rely on a published work to verify that say... Marduk is referenced in Septerra Core, can't we cite the game itself as a source? Anyway, I'm too sick to argue the point, I still think that the article should stay, but uppon reflection, I don't see a reason for it not to be merged with the Marduk article proper.--KefkaTheClown 01:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think using the game itself can't be used as a source. The only thing is we'd have to show that the name "Marduk" is actually a reference to Marduk and not a coincidentally chosen name. Fagstein 18:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I just followed the link and found it interesting. Why delete it?
  • Keep, same as before. What's changed about Marduk's notability since last time? Jimpartame 07:18, 17 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 article went through a big change during this AfD and now refers to an entirely different person (a fictional character in Lost), but even ignoring that, there is insufficient consensus to delete this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valenzetti

This is either a hoax or improper manipulation of Wikipedia's reputation. There is information in this article that has not been revealed anywhere else (e.g., Enzo Valenzetti is said to have proven Fermat's last theorem but burnt his work after showing it to his colleagues) in either the shows or the related websites. The contents of this article are either invented -- & thus should be considered a hoax & removed -- or it is part of the Alternate reality game related to the television series, & thus should not be part of Wikipedia. Articles about ARGs are one thing: providing articles that are part of an ARG is another -- & something we must keep out of Wikipedia, because in blurring the distinction between fact & fiction this can only harm our encyclopedia's credibility. (And the information in the article has already been mirrored elsewhere, so deletion does not mean it is irreparably gone.)

Sorry to be so brief in my argument, but I really need to be in bed. I'll be happy to answer questions later, but in any case I believe this matter needs a thorough discussion not only about this case, but over future cases. -- llywrch 06:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. The key issue is verifiability. There have been a few newspaper articles lately about Lost and a book highlighted in the series called Bad Twin (which I understand was written by one of the characters in the show - sorry I don't watch it) that mention this as one of the other (fictional?) author's works. Fluit 08:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD is a mathematical calculation designed to predict nothing less than the exact number of days left before the deletion of this bad piece of unverifiable fiction. Kimchi.sg 08:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above and it's in no way notable or encyclopedic. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified and non-encycopedic. Kevin 11:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

*Delete as per all the above. Coffeeboy 14:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I have actually rethought the article. I think the original article was obviously original research, but it does deserve mention as a Gary Troup work along with any verifiable information. Perhaps Bad Twin, Gary Troup, and Valenzetti could be all wrapped up into one article. Coffeeboy 15:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Deletion is all very good -- & I was strrongly tempted to simply be bold & delete this article myself without nominating this -- but the issue still remains: what do we do when "puppetmasters" insert material from their ARGs into Wikipedia? Simply delete the article & move on? Ban the people? Bring the matter to wider attention? Or am I asking questions that are off-topic for AfD? -- llywrch 15:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why not just edit it to say "Valenzetti is a fictional character in the world of LOST. According to the ARG, this is his fictional background:" ?? --S 11:39 11 May 2006
  • COMMENT: This is fictional, part of "lost" history/ Culture. I do not think it should be deleted, only clearly stated that is is fictional and part of the lost TV show background. Currently, even ABC official site links here. So why not let 'losties' have their fun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.147.43 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 11 May 2006
  • WP:NOT a fansite to "let 'losties' have their fun." See also WP:FICT. Barno 18:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please re-read WP:FICT which gives specific guidelines on keeping or merging similar content, rather than deletion. agapetos_angel 11:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this is clearly a faux article. It may have been created to promote a fan site, http://valenzettifoundation.org which notes, "(This site is not affiliated with ABC, ABC, ABC or ABC)". Or it may have been added to support the "Lost Experience." In either case, use of Wikipedia for marketing purposes is wrong. A bit of research indicates that one of the editors for the article 71.140.128.230 is Javier Grillo-Marxuach (formerly) a writer/producer for Lost [10]. As much as I appreciate Javi's work, such an article is a misuse of Wikipedia. —LeflymanTalk 19:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If either Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta allowed an something like this in their website to promote a television show, I would lose a great deal of respect for them; I doubt am alone in this view. The same applies to Wikipedia: people would distrust us if we let Hollywood -- or any other commercial entity -- use us as a conduit to raise a buzz over their products. And I can think of half a dozen fan websites that would be excited to accept something like this from the creators of Lost, become part of the show & promote the heck out of it. Take it to one of them, & create goodwill with your fanbase; your submission is not what Wikipedia is looking for. -- llywrch 19:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is anymore "promotion" than an article on Superman or Spider-Man. Seriously, if you say it's fiction, it's just like those articles. Besides, before someone pointed out it had to do with LOST, there was no mention of LOST OR ABC - so someone coming across it wouldn't suddenly want to watch LOST - it's promotion for Wikipedia if anything. Besides, now that it's up at LOSTpedia, what's keeping someone from (after this is deleted), sourcing LOSTpedia and putting up the exact same text - only with the words "fictional character" in it . . . because then, it would be by the guidelines stated here. --S 11:39 11 May 2006
Those articles begin along the lines of "X is a fictional character in the works of Y", & refer to specific episodes, creators & other verifiable sources for their statements. In the case of this article, even if it were re-written to Wikipedia standards, & Lostpedia was used as a source, we still come back to the problem that we don't know where various details in this article come from: if Javier Grillo-Marxuach created these details, & they are canonical to the series then he must be quoted directly -- for him to say "it's mostly accurate" is not good enough.
He should have put it on a fansite first, for a number of reasons. First, Wikipedia does not accept submissions in the fiction category; if this is not a clearly understood, then give me 5 minutes & I'll start making it a formal policy. Secondly, all information on Wikipedia needs to be verifable, which means it can be found outside of Wikipedia in a book, the mass media, or an appropriate website; we don't accept primary sources or original research, so tv writers submitting fiction about their characters is again inappropriate. Third, as I said above, there are countless fans who would be thrilled to be part of the making of Lost, & they would be far more eager than we to help publish this kind of information; & if this became successful enough, an article would be written in Wikipedia. Lastly, as Leflyman above points out, this is part of a promotion for a television show, not an objective submission of information; Wikipedia is WP:NOT advertising. If you can't understand the difference between the two, then your time on Wikipedia will only become less pleasant: I'm being civil & respectful; there are other Wikipedians who won't be as nice over submissions like this. -- llywrch 21:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for being civil and respectful. I was merely trying to find a middle ground, but I do understand your points. I still stand by most of mine, but where my stance falters is the "all information on Wikipedia needs to be verifable." In the end - that's all it takes to make my arguments moot. That said, I just think that once it's deleted it will show up again and even though it will have been done by the book - there won't be much of a dif. Even so, as they say, rules are rules. --S 16:23 11 May 2006
Actually, Wikipedia is rife with 'submissions in the fiction category', and many along the same vein. The aforementioned Spidey and Superman, Scarlett O'Hara, Female protagonists in Disney animated films (full of links to fictional character articles, including Queen of Hearts (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland), a secondary character), etc. NOR is the only obstacle that I can see, easily overcome with a rewrite, rather than a delete. 11:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, but keep an open mind for the future. Alternative reality game PuppetMasters are notorious for passing off fictional material as truth in external sites they have access to (fan blogs, Wikipedia, etc.), in addition to traditional media channels. That's part of the fun in ARGs. The sources of the material on the page are fictional and currently, because the puppetmasters haven't posted it authoritively anywhere else, unverifiable. That's not to say that, within the Lost mythos, they're not true. In reality, Enzo Valenzetti is a fictional character referred to by the blast door map in the Lost TV series and the book Bad Twin. The "previous book" by the fictional author of Bad Twin, Gary Troup, was "The Valenzetti Equation" and is referred to as "out of print" rather than the more truthful "non-existant". Enzo Valenzetti may turn out to be an interesting character, plot strand or clue in The Lost Experience, or even a future series of Lost itself. Thus, Enzo may well be worth an article in future - it depends on how notable he becomes. Right now, he's a tiny clue fragment and Lost Experience puppetmasters are abusing Wikipedia's reputation. 195.173.23.111 11:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable Arru 11:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Alternative reality within tv shows and movies is just another version of a comic book or novel that supports a movie. As long as the listing indicates that Valenzetti is a fictional character in the world of lost. It is also an opportunity to educate and extend the capabilities of Wikipedia as a source of information (i.e. using the opportunity to educate and create listings about alternative reality segments of shows - 'what they are' and 'their history'. If we decide what qualifies under deletion, we should consider that we are missing an opportunity to educate and learn (fiction is a learning experience - sometimes it is as strong a lesson as non-fiction).
  • Keep given that it has undergone changes in the meantime ;-) — Timwi 13:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: WP:V, WP:NOT Amalas =^_^= 14:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The minute details of ARGs are not encyclopedic. FCYTravis 15:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep : Just move it to "Lost Experience" with the other clues. This clue shouldn't be treated any differently than Gary Troup, Bad Twin, the Hanso Foundation, or any of the ARG clues that are fictional, yet actually part of the Lost Experience game and the Lost TV show.--Dreadpiratetif 21:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep : If Wikipedia can have articles about porn, it can certainly support an(other) article about an ARG game. Just make sure it is correctly marked as such, so it is not confused with reality. agapetos_angel 07:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems to violate every rule I can think of, including WP:NOR. If this information hasn't been published elsewhere, by definition it has no place in Wikipedia. We can't even include info on the hoax itself, because *that* information has not been published elsewhere that I know of. If this wasn't from the makers of Lost, then it falls down under notability - what do we care about fan sites' fictional universes? If it was from the makers of Lost, but relates to unaired material, it falls down under WP:NOT a crystal ball. So many reasons to delete, do I have to choose one? Stevage 08:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, lot's of info from the garytroup website, and from the "interviews" at amazon, borders, and barnes and noble. ArgentiumOutlaw 17:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - The game might be notable, the character won't be. - Hahnchen 14:00, 17 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. Harro5 09:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flashblab

Delete - non-notable flash games site. No claims of notability. Almost no google hits for "flashblab". Wickethewok 07:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • SPEEDY' - per author blanking. Wickethewok 07:48, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied all as vandalism. android79 16:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zackary Clark

Part of a set of vanity/hoax pages (see also Z-Unitt, Zack Clark, Cruisin in my Taurus). Asserts notability, though claims are obviously bogus. Vandalism appears to be still in progress. Can this be speedy deleted, or do we just have to go through the whole AfD process? Ilmari Karonen 16:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm going to speedy this and all associated junk as vandalism. android79 16:34, 30 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yacht Guide Wiki

Sounds like just another non-notable wiki. The link being broken makes it hard to verify anything or establish any notability. Reyk YO! 07:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOT a directory of all wikis. Kimchi.sg 08:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. The link is fixed though, and when I looked a whole 105 others had also been there. That answers the notability question. Kevin 12:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge to List of wikis. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn website. Lankiveil 05:47, 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 11:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midegollado.com

Non-notable web site, makes no claim towards WP:WEB. Alexa rank 1,309,344. Contested prod. Weregerbil 07:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I put the link onto the Degollado page, and there's nothing else worth keeping. Kevin 12:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 04:40, 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 11:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ndff

  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}}

Delete - I love how users go anonymous to remove prod tags with no explanation. Anyway, non-notable forumcruft. Wickethewok 08:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Please don't delete this article. We're just trying to make a history of our forum because we want to remember major events.

Thank you. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky-Like (talk • contribs)

    • While your intentions may be good, this is not the purpose the Wikipedia. WP is a place for articles about well known subjects and individuals. It is not intended to be used to chronicle the history of individual internet forums. Wickethewok 08:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't we be revolutionaries? ( :P ) I know it may seem silly, and I can see that, but--dispite the silly face I added-- there are people who are interested in this history and would appreciate it if it were let on. I'll make changes to it to meet whatever needs that must be met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky-Like (talk • contribs)

    • Heheh, sorry, I'm not ready to take the leap in leading the WP revolution of forum articles. I don't think WP is quite what you're looking for to publish your forum's history. Wickethewok 08:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. :( Well, in that case, do you have any suggestions on other sites that are as neat as WP? Thank you for explaining, too. I appreciate it. Ricky-Like

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of web forums. Get your forum featured in a major newspaper or magazine first and you may deserve an article then. Kimchi.sg 08:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --mboverload 09:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
:'(
  • Delete, yet another non-notable forum. JIP | Talk 09:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn forum, terrible article. Example sentence: "She was later banned for insulting a number of forumers with forumers OrgasmAddict and EatTheCurb." And people wonder why forum articles almost never get kept! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • hehelolol^-^kekela delete.  RasputinAXP  c 13:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Andrew. Fave sentence: "A moderator called and spoke with his dad, who punished him." Go dad! · rodii · 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn fancruft. -- Kicking222 14:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because who cares. Danny Lilithborne 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly. Fagstein 21:14, 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 11:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retro_nightmare

Vanity page - CNichols 03:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that an unregistered user removed the AfD header from the page; this same person has also spammed numerous Wikipedia entries, adding nothing but links to the Retro Nightmare website (not only that, but adding them at the top of External Link sections, above things like official websites and IMDB pages). I have deleted every single instance, and reverted the Retro Nightmare article to include the AfD notice. EVula 05:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - vanity/advertising. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quote above. Freddie 02:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ample time has been given on this one, and its a pretty cut-and-dry case. EVula 22:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Relisting as the orignal addition to the AfD log was removed by accident here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as extremely blatant spamvertisement. BTW, does this AfD break some sort of record from nomination to closure? This was nominated more than 1.5 months ago! Kimchi.sg 08:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising, does not appear to meet WP:WEB guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 08:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete mgekelly 09:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, CSD A3. One line doesn't break A3 in my mind.  RasputinAXP  c 13:31, 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 11:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Winter

Delete band vanity Duckdid 08:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete both albums not released under a notable label - fails WP:MUSIC. Kimchi.sg 08:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 08:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BAND. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 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 11:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artistery

I'm not sure what makes this collective different from any other artists' collective; there is no assertion in the article that any notable artists are involved in it. In general, the article doesn't assert notability. Delete Catamorphism 08:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - The Artistery began in 2002 as a "commune" type of residency... and any residency requirements are unknown. Huh? Kimchi.sg 08:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kimchi.sg. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 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 11:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piotr Bielicki

Delete - for being not particularly notable film personnel. Hundreds of people work on animated feature films and not all can be considered notable. Please see Talk:Piotr Bielicki for full discussion on this topic. Wickethewok 08:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless the article shows he's more special than just working for Disney and a good fencer. Wikipedia is not a directory of Disney employees. Kimchi.sg 09:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:36, 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 failure, move Flop (disambiguation) here. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flop

I have been struggling to figure out what should be done here short of deletion. The entry itself is simply a dictionary definition, which is what this is not, so it should be transwikied to the wiktionary. However, the balance of the article seems to what should be an article itself: Commercial failures. That begs for redirection. Then again, it reads like a disambiguation page (for which one already exists for flop. Ultimately, this article doesn't know what it wants to be. Best to kill it off and start all over again. Fluit 09:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge the contents of this page to failure and then move the flop (disambiguation) page here. Flop mentions failures in general, not just commercial failures. Kimchi.sg 09:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep it the way it is, there is nothing wrong with it Karrmann 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and do what Kimchi says. Put all this under Failure with a 'Examples of Failures' heading (ugh) and subheadings for Commercial and Other. And yes, Flop should be the dab page. Outriggr 01:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and move per Kimchi. Flop should be a disambiguation page. -Sean Curtin 05:37, 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 speedy delete as a repost. Royboycrashfan 16:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 50 Bands To See Before You Die

Considered nominating for speedy deletion, but couldn't quite find the right category. Article is poorly drafted presentation of 50 bands listed by Q magazine in 2002. Nothing really to merge into Q magazine, which simply has a reference to its "Q50", which seems to suffice. Non-notable list from 2002. Fluit 09:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT a pure directory of information with no context. --mboverload 09:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Make this one of the 50 Articles To Delete Before You Die. :P Kimchi.sg 09:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete mgekelly 09:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per mboverload and potentially a copyvio. Speedy delete per Youngamerican. —Whouk (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Kukini 12:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spacefiller from one magazine. Of no objectively measurable importance. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously-deleted material. youngamerican (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    Marked as {{db-repost}} now. Kimchi.sg 15:35, 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 to Yao Ming. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Pine

Non-notable: he's a basketball player's interpreter. Certainly, the basketball player in question is quite notable, but Colin Pine hasn't really done anything noteworthy himself. mgekelly 09:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge any worthwhile content (I can't see any) into Yao Ming. —Whouk (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest merge rather than delete. ~~ Brother William 13:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He's a big part of the persona of Yao Ming. He's a co-star of the movie about Yao Ming's rookie year. He is a lot more important than say, one of Bertrand Russell's mistresses, which, yes, wikipedia does have an article on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.59.85.25 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, because of his role in The Year of the Yao, and significant associated coverage (e.g. see Google references). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirvan (talk • contribs)
  • Merge If the person has no notability at all aside from being related to another person, then he should just be mentioned in the latter person's article. -- Kicking222 18:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge a small amount (two sentences or so) into Yao Ming. Mr. Pine's notability comes only from association with YM and from the documentary about YM. The redirect resulting from the merge is sufficient to handle anyone searching on Pine's own name. Barno 18:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or exapand, if the only verifiable fact is that he is Yao's interpreter then there is no need for a second page. If there exists enough information for this page to be expanded, then I say keep it. DanielZimmerman 22:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Yao Ming, no notability on his own. --Eivindt@c 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • He gained his fame through his association with Yao, but now he is a well-known face. You can't easily merge this information anyways. Take a look at the following articles for comparison: Edith_Finch_Russell (I think this is what was meant above). Other non-notable Russell associates... John_Conrad_Russell,_4th_Earl_Russell, Alys_Pearsall_Smith. Wikipedia is full of such short biographies. In terms of fame, Colin Pine is way above any of the people I just mentioned. I think you all should take that into consideration, especially if you're not a basketball fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.185.129 (talk • contribs)
    • I'm not sure what your comparison with the Russells is attempting to prove. The Earl Russell's notability comes from his having been a parliamentarian. The length of the article doesn't come into it (and there being other subjects that potentially don't justify their articles has no relevance to whether this one does). —Whouk (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear the article will survive deletion. Let's change this to a "it has been suggested that Colin Pine should be merged with Yao Ming" type discussion.DownUnder555 18:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Update--discussion started, please look at the current state of the article and discuss why or why not it should be merged Talk:Colin Pine--DownUnder555 19:00, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 11:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The WorkPlace Group

No assertion of notability - seems like wikispam. —Whouk (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 11:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete adspeak, no attemt to write an encyclopedic article. --Eivindt@c 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert spam. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 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 11:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grains of Time

No apparent notability beyond the university. —Whouk (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable college singing group. Zaxem 11:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Possible A7. The JPS talk to me 16:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 22:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as pre nom.--Marysunshine 23:07, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Joseph Watson

Fails WP:BIO. Only claims to notability are guesting on a show and a self-published book. Google hits are mainly from Alex Jone's own websites, which Watson hosts. The JPS talk to me 10:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Too few 3rd party sources available. -Will Beback 10:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page. Notability not established. His one self-published book is ranked #1,367,630 in sales on Amazon.com. KleenupKrew 10:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Has some interesting theories, but doesn't seem to have gained sufficient attention to be considered encylopeadically notable. Zaxem 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Watson not only hosts Jones' sites but supplies all of the content, Alex doesn't. He writes hundreds of his own articles on a weekly, sometimes daily basis, Alex doesn't. Watson is well known in the UK, I have seen him on numerous conspiracy documentaries on Sky TV channels. Infact, Watson is the best known conspiracy theorist in the UK, some even say in Europe but I don't know. He is well known for Alex's "attack" on Parliament in London. Their is A LOT more information I can add to this article and will do it in time to make it far more encyclopediaic and worthwhile. FK0071a 11:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is right, and he did good doing so. This article is of high intrest to me and i appreciate being informed. --Striver 13:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did. Not to fill this debate with people just saying keep, but I did it to get users who are in the know to be aware of the article to supply more article details and I thought Striver would know the correct people as he is 'involved' so to speak. I certainly did not do this for any malicious reason. As Stiver has correctly stated, Watson is the predominent article writer on all three websites. FK0071a 13:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. The JPS talk to me 13:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How to list pages for deletion states "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article." Presumably it would still be OK to do such a notification after the article is nominated, and also for someone else to do it if the nominator didn't. Шизомби 18:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --mtz206 11:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as FK0071a has told, he is a considerable contributor of articles and content to prisonplanet.com, a prominent website among the 9/11 truth movement group. I would like to ask the voters to consider his notability among the relevant group and not wheather you personaly have heard of him before or not. I can guarante that i dont care much for tenis players, but of course should notable tenis players have their own article. Same with this guy, he is a notable "conspiracy theorist". --Striver 13:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and KleenupKrew. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Paul Joseph Watson has an audience of far more than the 5000 that WP:BIO demands, i hav read that only one of his sites, Prisonplanet, has 2 000 000 individual visitors per month. I dont have a source for that, but it is certanly more than the required criteria for inclusion. --Striver 14:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep In the interest of full disclosure, Striver alerted me to this AfD. I don't always agree with Striver, but in this case I do. Watson has 413 unique of 118,000 total Ghits - higher than much of what we consider notable - and is one of the most major contributers to a website with a 6,147 Alexa ranking. His book does not make him notable (a single self-published book is not adequat), but his work with Prisonplanet does. There is plenty of third-party verifiability to be found on Google. --Hyperbole 19:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, enough verifiable information for an article, as stated above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 23:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable and verifiable --Irishpunktom\talk 00:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete one book published by fellow conspiracy theorist and available on Amazon [11] but not even in the top 1 million in sales...hardly notable...rest of his work is in blogs and as a "guest" opinion commentator on the Alex Jones (radio) show...whoopie!--MONGO 02:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Million? 5000 is enough according to WP:BIO, and i assume you knew that when you wrote that, since you are a admin.--Striver 11:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
"not even in the top 1 million in sales" is referring to the book's rank, that there are over 1 million books that have sold more copies at Amazon. It is not stating that 1 million copies have sold. --mtz206 12:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, i see. Thanks for educating me. I retract my previous statment. --Striver 12:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't buy the notability argument. Sorry. Seems like he wrote one book and only has fame on one radio show and on blogs. However, if one can elaborate on: "Watson has also appeared on numerous worldwide radio shows and in many national and international magazines", I can be swayed. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiable and has about 100,000 Google hits. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The 5000 figure is a guideline, not a rule, and many consider it to be bunk. If I pass out 5000 flyers does that make me notable? Or if my band played at a state football game? Most college student newspapers have circulation over 5k. Are their writers notable for wiki? --Mmx1 20:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, lets ignore the 5k and compare him to passing 5k flyers...--Striver 20:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I never used to think this until recently, but what kind of jack-ass system is Wikipedia if all the evidence can be ignored (comments, Wikipedias own policies etc) and the delete number be justifiable above rational debate? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be independent? State run ot me on a great number of issues, even those I havn't had any input on. FK0071a 22:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-published author and blogger, all within the walled garden of the Alex Jones conspiracy business. Weregerbil 11:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
walled garden? Why dont we delete the entire sciontology church with the same arguementation? --Striver 11:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of differences between Mr. Watson and scientology, such as one being a person and the other a world-wide religion that is discussed by a number of credible external sources. Weregerbil 12:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
You get the point, 9/11 conspiracy theories are also discussed by a number of credible external sources, prisonplanet is the most prominent of the sites that promote them, and Paul Joseph Watson is the main contributor to that site. --Striver 18:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
If he is "the main contributor" to the site, it cannot be used as a "credible external source" of his notability. --mtz206 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep; Why was this article deleted when there was no consensus? Why was prisonplanet.com deleted when the discussion indicated two keeps? Whats with the agenda here?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westar_Aerospace_Research,_Ltd.

Page cites no references to its origin and appears to be part of a vanity entry. Requests for references have been ignored Brother William 10:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Article itself states the company is fictional. No reason to give it priority over non-notable real companies. Paddles 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While there are articles on fictional companies, the article cites no external sources. Also, article and associated entries appear to be Wiki-fanfic or vanity pieces. --YoungFreud 17:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the first sentence of the article. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 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 17:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YES Recovery

PROD'd by myself on April 27th. Just recieved a message on my talk page, contesting it's deletion. Since the author probably didn't see it during it's 5 day lifespan on PROD, I'm sending it here for further concensus. Original PROD reason: This 'movement' seems to be entirely created on Wikipedia. The forumsite in the external links crosslinks back to here. There is noindication of who is behind the movement. No vote. lightdarkness (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No notability, few web links, no citations. -- Kicking222 14:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Mangojuicetalk 14:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT a free webhosting solution... which is what it strongly appears wikipedia is being used for here. There is one external site [12], but even that doesn't meet WP:WEB.--Isotope23 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Not delete I have no pecuniary interest in this, but there are far less significant social phenomena referred to in Wikipedia, and in the case of this anonymous recovery group, there are special reasons given at[[13]] (which I hope will be read by people before voting here) to explain why certain kinds of "non-official", non-hierarchical self-help groups don't have what some editors might think are the "credentials" to exist. Consider "underground" movements in history ... just because their headquarters were not advertised nor their leaders celebrities, doesn't mean they didn't exist. I think the move to delete is too narrow in this case. Not everything real and useful in this world can be gauged by Google page ranking. YES Recovery is such a movement ... compared to, say, Alcoholics Anonymous which has a big head office and huge publishing industry. Wasn't Wikipedia itself not so long ago such an "underground movement" which could not be seen above ground according to such criteria as search engine mentions? My view of the original Wikipedia spirit, as I've always understood it, says "let it stand". It certainly isn't doing any harm or wasting bandwidth when people's lives are at stake. Cheers. Alpheus 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The original contestor of the PROD has explained their rational, and has asked I link to it here. You can see the conversation here. --lightdarkness (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: there simply aren't any significant sources to verify this with. --Hetar 20:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with Hetar (WP:V)--blue520 16:38, 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 11:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Guy

Has not even released any album yet. (Note that the Ian Guy from last year at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Guy may be a different person.) Aleph4 11:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Someone who "plans on releasing albums" is not notable. (At least not right now.) Zaxem 11:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not currently notable. Kukini 12:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Site linked to looks very basic. Trying in Google I can find no other reference to this person. Are they famous? --Archeus 12:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. per Zaxem.--cjllw | TALK 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 22:33, 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 16:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinate

nn-band, does not meet WB:BAND Spearhead 21:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As a newbie to Wikipedia, can you explain to me what nn-band and WB:BAND are or mean please? Thanks. fonetikli 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment You'll find the answer at WP:BAND. MyNameIsNotBob 11:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: the nomination process was not completed, so this nomination was not listed until 11th May 2006. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:18, 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 Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of goalkeepers

A list which is inherently difficult to maintain due to unclear inclusion criteria. Not linked from any main namespace article other than re-direction. Should have been replaced by List of renowned football players#Goalkeepers. --Pkchan 11:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Pkchan 11:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Metros232 11:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Categorise. I think the nominator has their argument back-to-front- the inclusion criterion here is blatantly obvious- a person who plays in nets for a football team. By contrast, the inclusion criteria for List of renowned football players#Goalkeepers are inherently POV. That page should DEFINITELY be deleted or merged with List of goalkeepers, or similar. We should wait and see what happens here first however. Badgerpatrol 15:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    I see that it already is a category- in which case, delete and redirect to category page. Comment re 'renowned' footballers still stands. Badgerpatrol 15:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly a category. -- GWO
  • Keep. More information here than in a category (i.e. the club is listed and more info can be added). Also I can't agree with the nom- goalkeepers deserve their own page, not buried in the list of renowned football players. -- JJay 18:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "The inclusion criterion here is blatantly obvious"?? Tell that to the notable National Hockey League goalkeepers who aren't included. "Football" does not appear in the title or description (nor does "soccer"). Delete in favor of the category, since anyone looking for the team of these players will find it as soon as he clicks on the link to the player's bio, and the category is much more maintainable. Barno 18:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought that ice hockey goalies were called goaltenders? If that isn't the case, the a dab page should be set up if this article is retained. Badgerpatrol 21:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't find a single reference to 'Goalkeepers' in ice hockey goaltender, barring one which explains that ice hockey goalies are explicitly not called goalkeepers, but you might be right re field hockey and also Gaelic games. A rename and a dab page would be appropriate. Badgerpatrol 22:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as useful list to find goalkeepers. Hockey (both field and ice) should have a section or it should be renamed to List of soccer goalkeepers. Capitalistroadster 20:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant per category Just zis Guy you know? 23:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete there's already a category, no need for what could be a monster of list. --Eivindt@c 23:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as totally unneeded -- Hirudo 01:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete totally redundant -- minfo 01:12, 14, May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Totally meaningless and only list of names! --202.40.210.164 05:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as no objective criteria are likely to be found for inclusion; topic covered much more ably by existing category. Qwghlm 10:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Categorize all which are not in category, then delete. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 04:37, 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 all articles. Mailer Diablo 11:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of bands and musicians

I am nominating the following 27 articles for deletion.

  1. List of bands and musicians by number
  2. List of bands and musicians by letter a
  3. List of bands and musicians by letter b
  4. List of bands and musicians by letter c
  5. List of bands and musicians by letter d
  6. List of bands and musicians by letter e
  7. List of bands and musicians by letter f
  8. List of bands and musicians by letter g
  9. List of bands and musicians by letter h
  10. List of bands and musicians by letter i
  11. List of bands and musicians by letter j
  12. List of bands and musicians by letter k
  13. List of bands and musicians by letter l
  14. List of bands and musicians by letter m
  15. List of bands and musicians by letter n
  16. List of bands and musicians by letter o
  17. List of bands and musicians by letter p
  18. List of bands and musicians by letter q
  19. List of bands and musicians by letter r
  20. List of bands and musicians by letter s
  21. List of bands and musicians by letter t
  22. List of bands and musicians by letter u
  23. List of bands and musicians by letter v
  24. List of bands and musicians by letter w
  25. List of bands and musicians by letter x
  26. List of bands and musicians by letter y
  27. List of bands and musicians by letter z

These lists are redundant to categories. A band should not be mentioned on Wikipedia unless it meets WP:NMG, in which case it should have its own article anyway and the category will suffice. Additionally, these lists are unmaintainable. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bands and musicians by name. Aleph4 19:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Unmaintainable lists, categories suffice for this. Metros232 12:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 12:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Pkchan 13:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with nom. Just duplicates categories. 23skidoo 13:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Categories, people. · rodii · 16:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC) sorry, forgot to sign
  • Delete per nomination. ScottW 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is what categories are for. Just zis Guy you know? 14:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. ES2 14:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that it goes by letter should immediately make one think "categories! Categories!" Delete all per nom. TheProject 15:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nomination.--Isotope23 15:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all The fact that the "B" list leaves out a little group from Liverpool, as well as some California surfing fans, says something about its unmaintainability. Fan1967 17:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Didn't we already do this? Delete all Nintendude-esque lists. Danny Lilithborne 21:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. DarthVader 22:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Aleph4 19:44, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs with talking as part of the rhythm

Nintendudecruft - list with no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Also POV criterion for inclusion. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. 23skidoo 13:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. I'm familiar with a few of the songs on the list but I still don't understand the criteria for inclusion. --Metropolitan90 13:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unsourced, indiscriminate, POV, listcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 14:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 17:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete three guesses why, first two don't count. Danny Lilithborne 21:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and all above, though I note from prior AfDs that naming the article's creator in the nom seems to be deprecated, perhaps a breach of Wikiquette. Шизомби 21:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You're right, of course; I went a little overboard there. All apologies. Danny Lilithborne 21:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Actually, I was referring to Stifle's nom...? Шизомби 21:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Arguably yes, but given the volume of AFDs that this user has been spawning, I beg pardon for getting a little frustrated. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:31, 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 Uplift Universe. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traeki

According to [14] it's an alien race from David Brin's Uplift sci-fi series of novels. Not notable race and the article doesn't say anything useful in any case. Optimale Gu 13:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks like there's plenty of room in the Uplift Universe article for a list of races. Not enough detail here to warrant a separate article. May be speedyable (A1 - no context). Fan1967 13:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICT to Uplist Universe#Races. Very slight chance of that growing large enough to split off into a List of Races, let alone an article for each. I'm a Brin fan, but I don't see Traeki references in popular culture. Do fans wear Traeki ears to conventions? Barno 19:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Traeki don't have ears. Fan1967 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It's been years since I read anything from the Uplift books. Do fans do some equivalent to Vulcan-ear-wearing that mass media has covered at conventions? Or anything notable? I haven't even heard or read the word in the intervening years. Barno 21:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think any of the Uplift races lent themselves to costuming. Certainly nothing that would draw interest outside of fandom. Fan1967 02:47, 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. Still a copyvio from [15]. Deleted for the second time. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 18:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bunnies drinking game

Original research about a college drinking game based upon a H2G2 article by the same name[16]. Author of this article claims to hold copyright[17], so this article does not qualify as a blatant copyright violation. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of the article. --Allen3 talk 13:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOR, WP:NOTMUISOD, etc. ES2 14:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an encylopaedic article. Zaxem 17:23, 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. Royboycrashfan 16:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zak Kinsella

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or even vanity ("As of 2006 he has made plans to publish 2 different books") Optimale Gu 13:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails our notability guidelines. The JPS talk to me 13:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity with no claim to notability. The rather mundane pic should probably go as well.--cjllw | TALK 13:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 14:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:19, 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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infowars.com

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web), and brief. Some assertion of notability, so not speedy. The author is also up for AFD: Paul Joseph Watson, along with his other website. The JPS talk to me 13:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep One of the most prominent 9/11 truth movement websites, if this does not qualify as a notable, 9/11 truth website, then what does?--Striver 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
As can be seen [18], the site has a very high Alexa ranking considering the non-mainstream information it propagates. --Striver 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Alex Jones. Such a small amount of content could be covered there.--Isotope23 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable for an encyclopaedia. Zaxem 17:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not sufficiently notable for mention beyond Alex Jones (radio) article. --mtz206 17:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Is a Alexa rating of 10 000 for a conspirace site nn? How do you justify that? --Striver 19:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't hold Alexa ratings in as high of esteem as you apparently do, and neither do the Wikipedia:Notability (web) guidelines. Traffic != notability. --mtz206 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Alex Jones. The subject is notable - its Alexa rating is sufficiently high to merit an article. But there is so little information in this article that it should be merged without prejudice to the recreation of this article if its subsection on that the Alex Jones page becomes too large. --Hyperbole 19:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, infowars.com is infact a notable website, passing WP:WEB.--Jersey Devil 21:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unwarranted promo. Anything that could be covered here will already be covered in Alex Jones (radio) so this is unnecessary duplication. KleenupKrew 21:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge so short it can easily be merged, but notable on it own. --Eivindt@c 23:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't know if it passes WP:WEB, but I also don't care. It's only a guideline, and this is certainly a notable website, even if it helps my investments in tinfoil futures. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not pass WP:WEB. The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria... — which it doesn't. Weregerbil 10:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB or redirect to Alex Jones. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please it is a notable and interesting site passing web Yuckfoo 18:28, 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 17:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propagandamatrix.com

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web), and brief. Some assertion of notability, so not speedy. The author is also up for AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Joseph Watson. Delete The JPS talk to me 13:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep One of the most prominent 9/11 truth movement websites--Striver 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete no demonstration of any wider, independent notability as per the cited guidelines.--cjllw | TALK 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Not enough notability, per Wikipedia:Notability (web). --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -non-notable, only 44,000 on Alexa traffic ratings. Madman 15:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable for an encyclopaedia. Zaxem 17:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not sufficiently notable for mention beyond Alex Jones (radio) article. --mtz206 17:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete One of the most prominent 9/11 truth movement websites? Even more of a reason to delete it! --mboverload 18:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think i need to change that to "one of the more notable". However, your arguement is a invalid one for deleting. --Striver 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
You can't call my arguement invalid, you're the sole person who wants to keep it. I perfer that trash not be on wikipedia. Not notable, nothing you can't get anywhere else, shouldn't have been made. --mboverload 00:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Paul Joseph Watson. I'd say "merge and redirect," but all the information in this article is already contained in that one. --Hyperbole 19:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unwarranted promo. Give it a single mention on Alex Jones (radio) and let it go at that. KleenupKrew 21:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 22:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pleaase--Burg Hambler 23:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:WEB -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:20, 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, even discounting the anon. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ah Hing (Comic Artist)

Page was prodded with reason Notability not established. Subsequently deprodded, but then prodded again by the original prodder. Bringing to Afd since I think re-adding a prod tag is not allowed. No vote for me on this one. Hirudo 13:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no reason for deprod given. Looks NN to me. Kuzaar 14:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Could be notable, but article lacks sufficient information to verify. BigE1977 15:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bige1977 or transwiki to Comixpedia. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Notability not established. San Saba 03:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep comic artist with a sizeable body of published work. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - As above. 204.69.40.7 13:42, 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 Delete. Merge is unnecessary as all the relevant content here is already in 10000 (number). Deathphoenix ʕ 16:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 40320 (number)

Tagged as an A7 speedy which fails for two reasons. First, A7 only goes for people. Second, being a factorial is an assertion of notability. Therefore, I am bringing this here, and would have voted keep had there been any more content. There isn't so I'm abstaining for now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable number. See also 362880 (number) and 3628800 (number). Merely happening to be a factorial isn't notable; there are potentially an infinite number of numbers which happen to be factorials. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Only three-quarters of the time. Tonywalton  | Talk
No, three-quarters minus one one-hundredth plus one four-hundredth. Delete per the WikiProject Numbers guidelines. Barno 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No, three-quarters plus one one-hundredth minus one four-hundredth. I agree though, that is thin. I land on delete as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There is a proof somewhere there are no uninteresting integers--something along the lines that after you remove all the interesting integers, then you must have a smallest and largest unintersting number, which are therefore interesting, etc. The same could be proven in the opposite direction I dare say. This just isn't... notable. ES2 14:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While a very interesting number, that it has its own article seems kind of numbercrufty to me. Kuzaar 14:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to 10000 (number), where it is already mentioned. — RJH 19:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all/Redirect all to 10000 (number), 100000 (number), and 1000000 (number). Melchoir 22:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per RJH. ShootJar 21:11, 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 speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Suns

nn-band; does not meet WP:BAND Spearhead 21:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: the nomination process was not completed, so this nomination was not listed until 11 May 2006. ×Meegs 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, or perhaps speedy delete The article does not even attempt to assert notability unless "notability" counts as having been a band for a considerable length of time. -- Kicking222 14:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and tagged per A7. TheProject 15:12, 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. This is hovering right on the keep/delete borderline for consensus, so I have no qualms about re-AfDing this in the near future if there are no improvements to this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Love Ends Disaster!

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 02:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, they are true in everything written on there. a band with notable reviews, releases and press approval. and bloc party like them, so what criteria is there to warrant deletion? : Andy Black
  • Delete per nom. --cholmes75 16:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some proof to the above keep claims can be given. ^demon[yell at me] /09:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I provided a link. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Two EPs and two demos aren't enough to meet WP:MUSIC. ergot 22:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • But multiple media coverage is, so why delete? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Because it does not appear to rise above the level of the trivial, very much as you'd expect from any number of nearly-but-not-quite-there-yet bands. They doin't even seem to have released a full album yet. Just zis Guy you know? 13:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

also proved BBC radio 1 and radio 6 air play, and prominence in the local music scenes of leicester and nottingham? - Andy Black

  • Comment. I was to close this discussion, but the result is not obvious as it may seem:
    • there is a supermajority of Delete, but AfD is not a vote
    • most of deleter suggestions refer to WP:MUSIC, but it has been shown that this band meets it, so these are somehow invalid, but
    • the provided link is to the band's web site, so this is cannot be considered a source independent on the subject
  • I think this article needs some more discussion. I'd support a relisting. - Liberatore(T) 17:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. heres the link to the rough trade text :

http://www.roughtrade.com/site/shop_results.lasso?search_type=advanced&artist=love+ends+disaster%21&album=&format= - Andy Black

  • Comment. heres the link to the drowned in sound text :

http://www.drownedinsound.com/bands/5964 - Andy Black

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!
Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not on Allmusic, does not appear notable. Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Multiple media mentions! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the many good chaps above. PJM 14:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What we've got evidence of is two demos, two EPs, a small mumber of reviews and their own website. None of this makes them a band that's notable enough for an encyclopaedia. Zaxem 17:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the press is proven to be true, notable, and in keeping with WP MUSIC guidelines. the band has national festival appearances and a national indie profile. They also conform to this section of WP MUSIC :

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. which can be verified by myself as an administrator of www.pineapster.co.uk for both the city of Leicester and the city of Nottingham. The band also have BBC Radio 1, Radio 6 and Xfm airplay in the last 12 months. Further regional press is demonstrated here : [20] [21]. the artrocker article is here: [22]. and the band have full UK major distribution : [23] - Andy Black

  • Delete per JzG. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is not a vanity article, it is informative and (although it needs some work), I believe it has a place on wikipedia. It comes close to many of the requirements for notability. And in a short space of time, may be a force in its genre of music, if it isn't already, I think that for the immediate good of wikipedia, and the eventual good of wikipedia, it should stay. I also agree with everything else said for keep.Benjaminstewart05 19:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Andy Black's references above, unless someone can show that LeftLion and High Voltage are not reliable sources. Fagstein 21:32, 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 nomination withdrawn with consensus of keep. TheProject 19:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drinker Paradox

Nonsense, but funny nonsense with logic. Suggest BJAODN. ES2 14:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • My applause...now ,Delete keep as long as more sources are added. PJM 14:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In defence of my creation of this article: this is a well-known paradox that is often used in introductury books on first order logic to explain issues related to material implication and excluded middle. It is often discussed in first year courses on symbolic logic. It is also used as a test case for automatic theorem provers. I will find some proper references to support it. Eubulide 14:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be the proper thing to do. Please see WP:V. Thanks. PJM 14:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep pending Eubulide's added sources -- actually, I could probably go out and find some books myself. I'm not entirely certain, but I believe I've heard this one before, and it's definitely legitimate. TheProject 15:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I added two references and the attribution. I know the paradox is by Smullyan but I don't know in which of his many books it is found. I am trying to find out, then I will add the original reference. Eubulide 15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep pending sources sources referenced. It's an interesting seeming paradox, so as long as it can be shown that it's not original research, it's a fine addition to the WP. AnonEMouse 16:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As nominator, changing to Keep now that sources have been referenced. It looked like a joke to me--but a joke used in multiple textbooks is definitely notable. ES2 18:16, 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 17:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epanodos

Entry is a dictionary definition. Deprodded on the pretense of being and "interesting" dicdef, and subsequently brought here. Kuzaar 14:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Whoopsy daisy, go figure, it was transwikied out of Wiktionary. Small wonder this article doesn't seem to belong in an encyclopedia. I'm going to recommend giving this a Merge into Figure of Speech Kuzaar 14:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I think you mean transwikied into Wiktionary, which is what I did a couple of days ago. I could see an article written on this -- similar to an article on Simile or Metaphor, perhaps, although this is not as well known -- so this is actually one of the prods I felt least confident about after prodding a bunch I transwikied. TheProject 15:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. BigE1977 15:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Sounds like an interesting expandable article, but now it's just a dicdef. Fagstein 21:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. San Saba 03:09, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy Westphall

NPOV, Original Research, trivial subject matter This unsigned AfD nomination was added by Sangrito (talk · contribs).

[edit] Reasons for Deletion

This article exhibits some fundamental and severe problems:

1) NPOV: While many articles that demonstrate POV issues can be successfully salvaged, the premise of the Tommy Westphall Universe Hypothesis (TWUH, for the sake of brevity) is itself a POV based on speculative interpretation.

2) Verifiability: Opinion cannot be verified. If the writers of every show mentioned in the article publicly agree that their shows were the figment of Tommy Westphall's imagination, I will support an article on the TWUH.

3) Triviality: Tommy Westphall is a minor character, not particularly worthy of a dedicated Wikipedia article. Tommy existed more or less as a foil for Donald Westphall, and although a recurring character, appeared in very few of the show's episodes. The bottom line here is that not every character appearing on every show merits an entry in Wikipedia. Any factual information can be merged with the main show article.

4) Fallacy: As pointed out on the discussion page, POV issues aside, the premise that the "universe" of any show that can be linked to St. Elsewhere is also the figment of an autistic boy's imagination is demonstrably false. Wikipedia is a work of non-fiction, so article should not depend upon a suspension of disbelief.

5) Original research: Another user has suggested that the contents of the article are based on a chapter from an existing book, although the original author never made any citations. I don't have access to that book, so I can't say rightly whether the article does or does not contain original research, but I invite more knowledgeable users to disucss the issue of original research here.

Sangrito 15:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Can't argue with any of that. Delete. -- GWO 16:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's a pretty air-tight case there... delete. -- Kicking222 18:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I will admit that the article has problems, i.e., it is not well written and needs to be seriously edited and rewritten, but I believe that the concept has merit. It needs to be rewritten to deal with the POV issue. But, no, one cannot verify opinion. What one can verify is that the opinion in question is widely held, and is not simply the product of the author's mind---and this is fairly easily done. Now, as to the hypothesis being a fallacy, I would argue that that point is specious. In as much as it is a discussion of a possibility (or a number of possibilities) in the context of a television show (and its "universe"), I would argue that it can neither be proven nor disproven. If one looks here (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~kwgow/crossovers.html) one will find a page dedicated to researching the subject, and wherein one will find an argument for the idea that not only is Tom Fontana (creator of "St. Elswhere") aware of the Tommy Westphal phenomenon, but he is actively seeking to expand the universe of shows related to it. As I said, keep the article, I believe it has merit as an interesting pop culture notion. --Charles 19:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, although his character wasn't significant to the storyline, it was significant to the ending of the series. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete on the sole basis that the character wasn't that significant to the series -- NOT for the POV arguments stated above since this was not a hypothesis created by a Wikipedia editor. Also this should NOT be taken as any sort of support for deleting List of series connected to the Tommy Westphall Universe which I support keeping. Suggest merge any useful information into the list article. 23skidoo 02:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Tommy Westphall hypothesis is not original research, having been discussed on Usenet possibly as far back as 1996 [24] and definitely as far back as 1998 [25]. It has even been described in an article on the BBC web site from 2003 [26], which means it has a reliable source. The article is already written in a neutral point of view since opposing arguments are given reasonable space. While Tommy Westphall would not have merited a Wikipedia article of his own absent the final scene which gave rise to the hypothesis, the scene was indeed the ending of the St. Elsewhere series and the hypothesis inspired by the scene continues to be of interest to fans of television in connection with the large fictional universe which is connected to the show. See this Google search for examples. The point is not that we need to believe that Tommy Westphall imagined the entire series I Love Lucy (for example), just that the hypothesis under which he is assumed to have done so is notable -- and it is. --Metropolitan90 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I have added some text to clarify that the hypothesis is an idea discussed by television fans, as opposed to an idea being espoused by this article, and added some representative citations. --Metropolitan90 08:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per comprehensive nomination. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, relatively noteworthy meme. If the list is deleted, do not merge it in without providing context or citations for each entry. -Sean Curtin 05:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't even watch TV, and I think it's at least as interesting as Jump the shark, Cousin Oliver, and Chuck Cunningham syndrome. It could probably stand to be cleaned up though. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 06:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is at best a speculative theory that gained notoriety BECAUSE it received a Wikipedia article. The sources given by Metropolitan90 are hardly convincing--the BBC article is a fluff piece that mentions the TWUH in passing; I sincerely hope that Wikipedia requires more of its sources than that. If the entire concept is unsourced and based on speculation rather than facts, there's no reason to devote an article to it. Croctotheface 08:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The BBC article was published in 2003, more than 2 years before this Wikipedia article was created (in June 2005). It's easy to find multiple blog entries about the main web site about the Tommy Westphall universe dating from 2004, and as indicated above the hypothesis was being discussed on Usenet in 1998, more than two years before Wikipedia was created. Thus, I don't see how the hypothesis's notoriety can be attributed to this Wikipedia article. I understand that you may consider the hypothesis unworthy of an encyclopedia entry on other grounds as well, but "gained notoriety because of the Wikipedia article" shouldn't be the reason for deletion in this particular case. --Metropolitan90 08:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable and clearly highlights an important televisual phenomona. Ydam 16:34, 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 17:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xaimer

A non-notable piece of software to help aim the cue on Yahoo Pool. Yahoo Pool does not have an article. Reads like an advert. It cites a source as 'www.aimerreviews.com', a miniscule site probably created to plug this product. Nydas 15:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 17:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

- dont delete. aimereviews isnt something plugging this product...it has many reviews on all aimers and gives all aimers a fair grade. i can help edit this page to your likes if you explain what would be suitable. t

  • Delete per nominator. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 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 17:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Margarine_or_Butter

This article is clearly not up to the standards of a wikipedia article. Any truly relevant information on the comparison between these two products can be done within their respectives articles. As it stands, this article is a joke and should be removed for the above reasons. Mystalic 15:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete comparison article... massive POV problems. More issue advocacy than an encyclopedic article. Parkay!--Isotope23 15:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't believe its not speedied. -- GWO
    Comment I can't believe it isn't a copyvio... oh wait... it is: [27]. Totally off topic but that site has a rather funny diatribe accusing Snopes and Urban Legends of taking payments to deliberately mislead people into thinking the "dangers of aspartame" are "just a hoax".--Isotope23 12:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and give author a referral to unencyclopedia. BigE1977 17:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Fabio ?. Oh, I guess not. Delete then, per nom. Fan1967 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some sort of rubbish. DarthVader 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If Wikipedia adopted a Limbo namespace, this article could be moved to Limbo during the discussion on deletion. Moving an article to Limbo would remove it from the article namespace and prevent search engines from delivering suspicious content while the community decides whether to keep or delete it. For more information, see the discussion on establishing the Limbo namespace. Fg2 00:12, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annette M. Böckler

Delete this lady is a professor of Jewish studies at what appears to be a high school associated with Heidelberg University, or if I am mistaken, a college at the same. Her claim to fame is translating a prayerbook and a Torah and a Haggadah. She is claimed to be a seminal figure in "liberal judaism" -- a movement I have never heard of -- and I am a practicing Jew. Here's her English CV [28] and here's a slightly helpful description of the "college" [29]. On the whole, she's very NN. 15 google hits for her full name, including de:WP. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete --Hooperbloob 16:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, per the tag that was already there. Disclosure:I removed the PROD that CrzR placed. It's not written very well now, but I propose that one of the acknowledged re-founders of a notable religious movement in a large country is notable. I believe "Liberal Judaism" is supposed to be Reform Judaism. The University of Heidelberg is internationally famous, and its site says the Hochschule is "the leading center of Jewish scholarship in Germany". I get 220 Google hits for "Annette M. Böckler", and 917 for "Annette Böckler", including this DE Wikipedia Article which I can't read, but looks impressive. She meets one or more of WP:PROFTEST criteria 3, "large quantity of academic work" (from the DE wikipedia article), 5, "originating an important new concept, theory or idea" and 6, "involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements" (from founding the reform movement). AnonEMouse 17:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Condensed from half a dozen posts by mutual agreement
    • The historical predecessor of the American movement that originated in 19th Century Germany no longer exists. The German article refers to coupla books that look like Bible criticism ("God as Father in the Old Testament", etc) and her translations. She's basically a prof, and she fails WP:PROFTEST: two books, one more co-authored, 7 articles, some as short as four pages, and a few translations, I bet are the minimum a professor anywhere would have to produce to keep her job. The Union of Progressive Jews in Germany movement, with only 3000 members, is nothing. As for the Google searches, I guess I shouldn't have searched for her with her middle name expanded. That would be 84 unique GHits for "Annette M. Böckler" and 226 unique without the M. Still not big enough for me.CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Condensed from half a dozen posts by mutual agreement
  • Comment. I am inclined to keep it because of the German Wikipedia entry. However, it would be useful if someone who speaks German could read it and see what it says for sure. Capitalistroadster 20:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The German page was created by user Amb (name and edit history suggest it might be the subject of the article herself); said user asked that the article be deleted on May 11, claiming it (presumably the edited version) was offensive and hurting her image. In the AfD discussion (the German equivalent, anyway) an anonymous user suggested that it is very offensive to mention the conversion of a person to Judaism (apparently, she used to be a Christian minister);it could presumably hurt her career as a Jewish scholar. Pretty much all the deletion discussion revolved around this issue (resulting in a clear keep), notability was only mentioned in passing (inconclusive). – As for the amount of publications, these are just selections (that's what "Auswahl" in the German article means). – The "Hochschule für Jüdische Studien" is closely associated with the University of Heidelberg, but not part of it; and she is not full or tenured, but assistant professor (basically someone with a PhD). – The liberal jews thingy she co-founded (Union of Progressive Jews in Germany) is quite notable. – My impression as a total layman is that she seems to be notable enough for a German Jewish scholar. Rl 15:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the research. AnonEMouse 16:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the professor test. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep if verifiable google is not the only factor Yuckfoo 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete please as per comments above - Hahnchen 09:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. As an academic she is borderline (not a full professor, just a wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin) but her role in the German Jewish community probably makes her notable enough, and her article on the German Wikipedia appears not to be contested, except possibly by herself and for reasons not related to her notability. u p p l a n d 14:37, 17 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) 08:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced Space Programs Development

Unverifiable autobiographical self-propaganda from an established liar. Nothing on google except self-propaganda from said person. It's a non-notable O-5 or O-6 command with a tenuous link to SDI. The only source for this is one Robert M. Bowman, who has hyped up his credentials in order to boost his political credibility. However, his lack of integrity is galling:

  1. He claims to have won the Eisenhower Medal, without specifying from which group. There is a prestigious one awarded to the likes of George Shultz, Colin Powell[30]. Bowman did not win this one, but some other one which google has failed to turn up. This is fairly dishonest claim given the notability of the Eisenhower Medal. It would be equivalent to claiming to be a Nobel Laureate on the basis of having won the youth Nobel prize from your high school science fair.
  2. He claims to have won the "George F. Kennan Peace Prize", which google has also failed to turn up. (all this was heavily examined when Bowman's article itself was up for deletion).
  3. Most damning, he claims to have won the SAME (Society of American Military Engineers) Gold medal twice, but SAME says otherwise: [31]

If you google this group, you turn up only Bowman's self-propaganda. Remove Bowman, and you get NO links. [32] The only reference is to a program with the same name, at Boeing.

--Mmx1 15:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --Mmx1 16:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nominator's excellent argument. -- Kicking222 18:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect I created this, but Mmx1 brings up a good point. Im not sure if im convinced about the lier stuff, but it giving no google hits does cause it hard to source. However, we still have lots of places in WP where he is presented as the former head of ASPD, and they should redirect to SDI. It could be argued that it has so little sources about it since it was a secret project, and it was later known as SDI, so the secret project name was droped. Ill go ahead and make the page a redirect. Mmx1, good work on a good nomination.--Striver 19:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom unless reliable sources surface. Do not redirect as a redirect would suggest the term and the "secret project" is real and that would be untruthful. If ASPD must be mentioned it would need to be verifiable information, e.g. documenting the hoax organization, the liar who invented it, and the conspiracy theorists who swallow everything hook, line and sinker (though good luck on finding non-OR sources on that.) Weregerbil 19:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Without sources, it has to go. Шизомби 21:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I believe user:Striver is probably right: A.S.P.D. was renamed "SDI" before it got any press, which is why Googling it returns nothing but Bowman's resume. Unfortunately, try as I might, I can't verify that that's the case. No one but Bowman is claiming this program ever existed, and I'm uncomfortable using him as the sole source. Even a redirect doesn't meet WP:V - until we get sources, this needs to be deleted outright. --Hyperbole 07:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I've asked around on the SDI page and that's not the story I've gotten: Talk:Strategic_Defense_Initiative#Merger. The SDIO (Strategic Defense Initiative Organization) had no precursor, it pulled together existing ABM programs from different branches. Moreover, when Bowman's bio was up for AfD, I asked if anyone had heard of him as a prominent SDI critic; the response was no. Sigh...if only there'd been a blogosphere in 1980. --Mmx1 15:08, 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 Redirect to Neighborhoods of Anchorage, Alaska. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of neighborhoods in Anchorage, Alaska

Listcruft. NN and incomplete. A list of notable neighborhoods in Anchorage would be far more relevant. BigE1977 16:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Nintendude-esque list. Danny Lilithborne 21:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Badgerpatrol 23:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup as useful list. Capitalistroadster 01:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Anchorage, Alaska. What is the positive result of keeping this list in this place? In this format, it is simply listcruft. Fake User 06:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep many similar "neighborhood list" articles have evolved to be a bit more... to include information a category can't, such as prose descriptions of the neighborhoods or the overall cityscape, maps, statistics and other information. Perhaps move this to Neighborhoods of Anchorage, Alaska but there's no reason to suspect that this can't become a good article someday. --W.marsh 16:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Eh actually, as Neighborhoods of Anchorage, Alaska exists, this should probably just redirect there. --W.marsh 16:11, 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. —Whouk (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CastPodder

Article created by the software's author. Stated in reasonably neutral terms, but without evidence of significance, user base, innovation etc. Creator is apparently indef-blocked for legal threats. Just zis Guy you know? 16:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Forget the fact that the article's creator has been blocked seven separate times and was indefinitely blocked today. The article itself is what's important, and the article asserts no notability. -- Kicking222 18:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 22:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Wikipedia is not paper. ForbiddenWord 18:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • On second thought, Delete. After googling around, it doesn't seem too notable. ForbiddenWord 16:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it. I don't understand what the problem is with this entry. AFAIK it's one of the few graphical podcatchers for Linux. (Full disclosure - I've contributed code to CastPodder). -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.220.61 (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. —Whouk (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Veroni

No notion of notability in text, WP:V. Smacks of vanity. Created by same author who created Peter Ong which was deleted on 20 April Roodog2k 16:16, 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 Redirected to Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas as duplicate article. -- JLaTondre 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas

This page is a duplicate of a page that already exists. The title's were very similar, with the exception of a colon (:), which resulted in the mistake of this article coming up as non-existent in the original search. JOK3R 16:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect seems like the most obvious idea. If the only difference is a colon, then why not just make this a redir to the colonized (get it?) article? -- Kicking222 18:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I'll simply change it to a redirect. Now how do I remove this from the Deletion Requests? --JOK3R 20:38, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran-Iraq UFO Sightings

Weird stuff, badly written, unencyclopedic. Añoranza 15:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep The article has references, but all but one of them are off of paranormal websites. BigE1977 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Basically, for the same reasons which Big E cites in his Keep, lack of reliable sources. Gee, people are seeing things flying through the sky in the middle of a war zone; what a surprise! Fan1967 17:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Añoranza and Fan1967. -- Kicking222 18:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because Fan-1967 just laid out one of the best arguements I have ever heard. --mboverload 18:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable conspiracy theory, as demonstrated by this [33]- an apparent "phenomenon" even if, as Fan suggests, it might be easily explainable- crop circles have been exposed as hoaxes in many cases and we still have an article about them- some of the other websites cited are notable, even if not reliable, and Wikipedia can neutrally report what they are saying. Contrary to what is written above the article is not badly written. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 19:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per fan1967. --soUmyaSch 19:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-cited, real phenomenon. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because of the BBC News article. Ziggurat 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I really really wish I could vote to keep this.. but there are just no redeeming features :( - Irishpunktom\talk 23:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep, per Auntie. Badgerpatrol 23:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fan1967 -- Hirudo 01:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wierd doesn't mean* bad. Tobyk777 04:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As the creator of this article, I assure you that the souces that I used are valid and this event is notable. Storm05 15:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not Wikinews or Wikiconspiracytheories. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Look, this incident is notable enough for its jusifcation of staying. Keep Storm05 18:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Coast to Coast AM. KleenupKrew 23:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, for all the above reasons to. NSLE (T+C) at 09:15 UTC (2006-05-13)
  • Comment, Come on, UFO sightings during the Iraq War is notable and thats the reason that this article is created and the reasaon that it should be kept. Storm05 15:57, 17 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 16:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamikaze

Non Notable phrase used as a POV attack on Islam and Muslims. Neologism at best. Irishpunktom\talk 17:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as Nom.--Irishpunktom\talk 17:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, I personally don't like this term but when the search term "Islamikaze" returns nearly 16,000 Google hits and finds a BBC page referenced by the term from links pointing to it. The non-notable argument seems specious at best. Netscott 17:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Its not nearly a case for a speedy keep, and those google links are 1. Overwhelmingly non-English, and 2. mostly referring to a Book by Raphael Israeli. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Even if we subtract the term wikipedia from the search (due to self-referencing concerns) the search still returns over 11,000 hits (which of course is still notable). As well, I doubt you've done a proper survey of those 11,000+ hits and so are not in a position to say with any authority whether the majority of them refer to the book you've mentioned or not (or are in a language other than English). Netscott 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't have to have any authority to make a statement on a Deletion page! Why are you being so very aggressive? --Irishpunktom\talk 23:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • See CrazyRussian's and my comments below for a more accurate count (hundreds, not thousands). bikeable (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Article was originally tagged {{empty}} twice, then prodded as Islamophobic. The term is Islamophobic, the article is not. It states clearly that the term is pejorative. Compare with Cat:Pejorative political terms which is chock full of such things, and they're notable, and it's fine. Term is reasonably popular, pre-dates 9/11, and gets 457 unique google hits [34], which means it has entered usage. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Netscott and Crz. Joe 17:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A few hundred google hits -- I get 286 unique with Islamikaze -wikipedia -raphael, and many of these still reference the book -- do not an English word make. bikeable (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per above. 1652186 18:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Funny --mboverload 18:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or rewrite to be specifically about the book by R. Israeli. With respect to Netscott's argument, one does not have to investigate every google hit to make generalizations about usage: a stratified sampling is enough, and to me it seems to me to be mostly about the book. As well, I could not find any instance of the term in the BBC article you cited; I think that only came up because people linked to the BBC article using the word. --Saforrest 19:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Quite right -- the BBC article never uses the term, but it appears in articles pointing to the BBC. this is of no use whatsoever. bikeable (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Irishpunktom. SouthernComfort 20:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless completely rewritten to be about the book. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef and neologism. Transwiki to wiktionary if you like. Шизомби 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Original research, POV attack, neologism, etc. --ManiF 02:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Netscott's comments. -- Karl Meier 07:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable (per bikeable) dicdef. Robin Johnson 12:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as highly offensive neologism. Fagstein 21:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a neologism, it does not have widespread use, and it is short enough to just go to Wiktionary. Faz90 00:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism, potentially A6. When you remove the book author's name from your Google search, the majority of these hits vanish. Let the name be reused when someone writes about the book itself. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Irishpunktom. Raphael1 23:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect - either to Suicide attack or to an article on Raphael Israeli's book. The word is not widespread or significant enough to have an article about it and the concept it conveys is nothing new. --Spondoolicks 17:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree totally with Irishpunktom. --K4zem 17:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable, verifiable, fulfills all WP policy requirements. Yes, is a POV, but stating what an opinion is (rather than stating it as fact) is a big part of Wikipedia - see for example Tony_Blair#Domestic_politics.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cynical (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 Arch Rivals. —Whouk (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arch Rivals: A Basket Brawl!

Already exists at Arch Rivals Thanos6 18:00, 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 NO CONSENSUS. —Whouk (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anupama Mandavilli

The article is about a volunteer media contact for Friends of South Asia, a San Francisco Bay Area activist organization, not notable except in the context of the organization she works with. Anirvan 18:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 22:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Anu Mandavilli or Anupama Mandavilli is widely known world-wide due to her involvement in the Californian Hindu textbook controversy, outside of her organization (University of Southern California). She has been widely mentioned and quoted by numerous news sources.--Cardreader 23:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
See talk page for detailed documentation and references.
  • Keep per Cardreader. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I recommend adding these claims, and their properly referenced sources, into the article. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteNot notable, this article must be deleted.
  • Keep. Anupama Mandavilli is extremely notable, not just because of her work, but because of her impact. She has been interviewed and quoted by many newspapers and radiostations. --Vikramsingh 01:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
See talk page for detailed documentation and references.
  • Delete Peripheral figure in regional news story. Hornplease 05:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep In National and international news. --ISKapoor 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Minor Activist. Doesn't meet any of the tests for WP:BIO. That pages says, for example, that when it comes to academics, the individual should be "more well known and more published than an average college professor ". For political figures (which seems like the other criteria being suggested) the guideline is "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature.". --iFaqeer 20:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC) updated --iFaqeer 20:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOTE

Please see the Talk page. I want to move comments to that page and leave only the main (one paragraph each) comments from each voter on this page.
--iFaqeer 22:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the details and second comments posted by Cardreader (talk · contribs) and Vikramsingh (talk · contribs) to the talk page.--iFaqeer 01:04, 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 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bayblab

A "not so popular science blog" at a university research center. "Popularity of baylab is rather limited to a close circle ot friends." Delete as non-notable and because Wikipedia is not a repository of links. bikeable (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete That's the easiest vote ever- the lack of notability is asserted by the original author in the article's first sentence. -- Kicking222 18:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definitely not notable. Haha yeah, lack of notability is asserted by the author. DarthVader 22:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete very much NN as above --Deville (Talk) 02:40, 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: deleted as a repost of an AFD'd article - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Blue_Panther

[edit] The Blue Panther

Please delete and protect from recreation. This page has been deleted before and the page has been recreated with identical content Grover cleveland 18:14, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rickshaw Productions Audio Books

Blatant advertising. Creator removed the original speedy. Several Times 18:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Zaxem 05:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haymarket Battle Cats

The following message was placed at the top of the AfD log for May 11th by anon IP 151.188.16.52: "To whom it may concern. I am requesting the immediate deletion of the Haymarket Battle Cats article and all article history. This article was initially written in good faith, but has since been edited by a vengeful individual whose sole purpose is to sully the reputation of individuals and the organization involved. It is no longer an article meant to inform, but rather it has turned into one mans forum to air his grievances. Please take this under serious consideration."

The article is listed here as a technical nomination with no vote from me -- yet. Please note that the IP has been warned for vandalism several times, but the most recent ones (the others are from three months prior and irrelevant, I believe) are for blanking the listed article, presumably as a request for deletion. One other warning is for blanking Education in the United States yesterday, and I am not quite sure why. TheProject 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and clean up; it is a POV nightmare at the moment. If necessary, it can be brought down to the stub-like level of New Market Rebels or Winchester_Royals. bikeable (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup- the previous versions of this article appear to contain perfectly acceptable and neutral information. It's difficult to determine what actually happened to the team, so a less detailed summary may be in order. --Several Times 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as minor team in minor league. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. There is no longer a "haymarket battle cats" there is no point in keeping the article.

  • Delete, because team appears non-notable in the first place. KleenupKrew 23:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and leave as is. All of the information is accurate, and while it can be judged as vengeful, it is a detailed assessment of the history of the ball club for 2004 and 2005. To delete this submission would be a complete wash of history which individuals who do not appreciate the truth exposed to the public want to have happen.

WildHawk 20:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • If it can be "judged as vengeful", it is probably not WP:NPOV and should be fixed. bikeable (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If it can be judged vengeful it should not be posted on the site. This is not the place for parties to wage a personal vendetta against another. That is what newspapers are for. And how do we know what is accurate?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tina Mathews

Non-notable bio. Argon233 T C @ ∉  19:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 22:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No Google hits except this entry. No pertinent bio information or sources.--Marysunshine 22:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 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 17:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex 'Ace' Dringer

Seems to be a NN fictional character. Prod was deleted by article creator, so I'm bringing it here. --cholmes75 19:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the following from the former "Prod" is useful information for this discussion: "Just 133 Googles, most of which aren't even related." Thanks -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  20:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Question What is the "UH Universe continuity" that he's a fictional character in? University of Houston? United Hippopotami? Fan1967 20:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, could have been speedied. Nothing that links to it explains what "UH" is. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 22:10, 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 16:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] True Torah Jews

I am nominating this article for deletion, I have not seen any evidence that suggests this organization is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. As I said on the article's talk page, when the only source that refers to an organization is the organization's own website it is probably not very notable. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it seems that TTJ is just a website. All their claims come from their own website or from User:Bloger. Their membership/leadership is unknown. If it's a group, it's a tiny fringe that tries to use Wikipedia for publicity. See WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - See the article discussion page were I wrote why I think it is notable enough for an encyclopedia giving the precedent of wikipadia articles. BTW i'm the article's primary author Bloger 20:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think that we should give Bloger some more time to find some verifiable sources for his claims. It think that Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers also means giving new users some latitude in these issues. Of course, if verifiable sources are not found the article cannot stay. Jon513 21:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. About a week time until this AFD runs its course seems enough to me. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep - there are plenty of minor Christian denominations and pseudo-cults that have Wikipedia articles. HOWEVER, in order to be kept, there needs to be some demonstration that this is a denomination or group that actually has members and that it isn't just the product of a single individual's views. If that cannot be demonstrated, then I would suggest Delete. BigDT 22:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed to Delete because concerns about the organization actually being real and not just the opinions of a few people could not be met - see below BigDT 06:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if external sites link back to that organizations homepage. Delete if the only verifiable website is its own. Allow the author to provide links. DanielZimmerman 23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
google can find who links to a site. It does not look promising for this website. Jon513 09:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - No valid reason to reomve. Verifiably true, and notable enough.--Irishpunktom\talk 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. IPT is wrong on all counts. The content is non-verifiable and this "group" is non-notable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - upon further consideration, I think the main problem is verifiability rather than notability. See talk, where I encourage bloger to find other avenues for this content--Leifern 12:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there are no third-party sources, it's violating WP:V. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. —Viriditas | Talk 00:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be a personal unverifiable website, nothing more; the web has millions of them. Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB (rank 504,601). Regurgitating anti-Zionist views from Satmar, Neturei Karta etc. Own level of observance shadowy. Pretty website, though. JFW | T@lk 02:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB and WP:V. The fact that the only means of contacting this alleged organization is by a PMB (private mail box), and the fact that there seems to be no human representative named anywhere who is a leader or even a member of this group raises red flags. There's nothing to establish it as being anything more than the personal website of an anonymous individual. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Btw, if we check whois the website jewsagainstzionism.com registered to, it is registered through third party domainsbyproxy for the purpose of not making public the owner of the site. Compare it with whois jewsnotzionists.org where at least we can see THAT site is publicly registered to the organization Neturei Karta, the admin being Rabbi Yisroel Weiss, the registrant being David Grossman, there's a street address, a phone number, a fax number, etc. But nothing equivalent for True Torah Jews...just anonymous. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 08:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I appreciate the response to my article. I now understand the concern of most editors and I will try to address them one by one. One easy thing for everyone to try is doing a Google search on Jews and the Torah True Jews website comes up the 5th. According to that, it’s a busy website and gets many hits External websites linking to this one: A simple search will find many websites linking to this website. About the concern of membership: It’s hard to verify this, because as stated in the discussion page, the group is like an offshoot of satmar and doesn’t keep its own membership, but as I said there the satmar rabbis defiantly back this group as evident by the letter signed by several satmar rabbis. Another example that the consensus in the street is that this group represents satmar is that recently the grand rabbi of satmar passed away upon his passing the PLO mission in Washington sent a condolence letter to the satmar community and the rabbi’s family it did so by sanding a letter to True Torah Jews and asking them to pass the condolences to the community and the rabbi’s family (the letter was widely circulated in the satmar community and I can post it if only someone here helps me in doing so. To be continued ….. Bloger 00:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Positioning on Google means very little. Anyone can buy google ranking or do something like a Google bomb to move their site ranking up. The fact that a letter was sent on the Rabbi's passing says very little as well as well, IMO. If the long time pastor of a 50-person Baptist Church were to pass away, the church would get letters of condolence, but that doesn't make the 50-person church notable. Can you give us an idea of the membership? Even if you don't know exact numbers, do they have five members, five hundred, or five thousand? If that's a question that you can't answer, then I'm not sure that it's a notable subject for an article. As I said before, a condition of a keep, IMO, would be some verifiable evidence that this organization actually has members that can't be counted on one hand. BigDT 01:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - You did not understand my point. The mission wanted to reach the “satmar” community (which “is verified” to have tens of thousands of members) they used the channel of the True Torah Jews. In my opinion, this verifies that the conventional wisdom in the street is that the True Torah Jews is the satmar anti-Zionist voice in the secular world. This brings me to my point that even though, to someone that is not evolved in satmar, it is completely new that this group is affiliated with satmar, it is the fact. About membership: the group does not keep its own membership satmar is behind the group and that is were they get there funding by making appeals in the satmat synagogues so they do not need independent membership. Nevertheless, they do keep some kind of membership by sending their weekly newsletter that they send to thousands of subscribers. Bloger 02:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Besides the fact that you have not provided any verifiable sources for these claims, you still persist on making illogical jumps. How in the world do you figure that True Torah Jews in the mouthpeice for the Satmar community. You have claimed to found a source that says three satmar rabbi's have said that they support the organization, but even if that is true how do we know they were acting officially on behalf of the entire Satmar dynasty, and how does showing suport indicate that they are part of the the same organization?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment - sending out a newsletter to thousands of people doesn't really mean anything either per se. I voted in a Republican primary almost ten years ago and ever since then, I've gotten newsletter after newsletter from little tiny non-notable conservative groups that nobody's ever heard of. If this group is, in fact, affiliated with Satmar, why not put a section on them in the Satmar article? I have yet to see anything to convince me that this site/organization is more than a few people. BigDT 04:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. For a website / organization to be encyclopedicly notable, it must do more than simply exist. It must have gained significant attention. There's no evidence that that's the case here. Zaxem 05:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The organization does not exist, it is a cyber-fiction. IZAK 05:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Zaxem and especially MPerel. -- Heptor talk 11:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Heptor and Nom. Zeq 20:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pecher Talk 22:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I have serious questions whether this organization exists at all. There is no question the Satmar by in large are against Zionism as under a strict definition (it should be remembered they freely work and live in Israel so not under most common definitions they are Zionists).
  • strong delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. I have serious question that they would buy into Zionism = Nazism equation this site makes, that strikes me as much more in keeping with white power organization than Satmar.
  2. More importantly the whole argument is addressed to a secular audience, I've never seen any of their writings that are addressed for the secular.
  3. This website recommends the JPS bible I can't in wildest dreams imagine the Satmar endorsing the JPS.
I think this website is a poorly thought out fraud. jbolden1517Talk 01:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


In VaYoel Moshe Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum explicitly declared that the Zionists violated the three oaths, and thereby caused the Holocaust, as well as all violence in modern Israel, as a result: "...it has been these Zionist groups that have attracted the Jewish people and have violated the Oath against establishing a Jewish entity before the arrival of the Messiah. It is because of the Zionists that six million Jews were killed."[35]

How about "An Open Letter to President Bush" for a start, isn’t that addressed to a secular audience [36]

As per the JPS bible, I will have to admit I am not an expert on English translations to the bible if you elaborate more I might be able to answer


Bloger 02:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This article is propaganda for a website which promotes a private establishment. Almost Famous 05:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Comment.

Hi I will again try to address the concerns raised.

About the concern of anonymity: MPerel

It is an understandable concern but one has to take in account that when an issue of such controversy is involved it is understandable why one wants to remain anonymous.

Take for example Rabbi Weiss of Neturei Karta, one can only imagine what harassments he has to encounter, because he is in the public arena on an issue that is so close to so many harts, and is dear to so many people.

It takes a very strong person to be able to withstand such hardship, which this group probably cannot find.

This should also satisfy the concerns of , Heptor (as per MPerel concern)

As per the concern from Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg:

He raises a few concerns with the article:

Concern:1) The only source that refers to the organization is the organization's own website.

Answer: The fact is that there is quite a few referring’s to the group and its web site:

Try for example searching the word JewsAgainstZionism (as one word) in Google this is the result Results 1 - 100 of about 21,000 for "JewsAgainstZionism" for the 621 you can actually see they all are referring to the group’s web site. [37]

Then Try searching the word JewsAgainstZionism (as one word) in yahoo this is the result Results 1 - 100 of about 7,340 for "JewsAgainstZionism" for the 1000 you can actually see they all are referring to the group’s web site. [38]

Now try searching the word TrueTorahJews (as one word) in Google this is the result Results 1 - 89 of about 395 for "TrueTorahJews" [39]

Then try searching the word TrueTorahJews (as one word) in yahoo this is the result Results 1 - 60 of about 252 for "TrueTorahJews" [40]

If this is not “being referred to”, I do not know what is.

This should also satisfy the concerns of DanielZimmerman ,Jon513, Zaxem, Heptor (as per Zaxem concern), Zeq(as per Heptor concern),

Concern 2) Three satmar rabbis, does not necessarily mean the entire community is behind it.

Answer:

Firstly:

The three rabbi’s are not just three picked out of all the other’s, they are of the most senior of rabbi’s each one in there own respect.

Take Rabbi Nathan Joseph Meisels for example he was the chief dean of the yeshiva (rabbinical university) from-----until his retirement in 1982.

The position of chief dean can be characterized as the second in commend of the dynasty, given the fact, that at that time almost 100% son’s of satmar’s studied in this college.

In addition, he was a very close confidant and personal adviser to the Rabbi, Rabbi Joel (of blessed memory) on all aspects and on anti-Zionist issue’s in particular.

In fact, the famous - and one of the most important in regards to anti Zionism - book published by the Rabbi, Al HaGeulah V'Al HaTemurah was written and published by Rabbi Nathan Joseph Meisels.

Rabbi Mayer Weberman, was the only English speaker at most anti-Zionist demonstration called by satmar, which makes him the face to the media or the press secretary if you will, when it comes to satmar, the media, and anti-Zionism.(a clip from one such speech can be heard here [41]

In addition, until recently (when he fell ill) Rabbi Weberman was the official censor of the satmar boys & girl’s school’s, censoring all - secular studies - books for Zionist and adult content.

Rabbi Abraham Leitner, probably one of the most revered and respected student’s of the Rabbi, Rabbi Joel (of blessed memory) still living among us. . (A clip from one such speech can be heard here [42]

Therefore, instead of taking ten’s of signatures from all the satmar rabbis the group chose the most senior in respect to the satmar battle with the Zionists state. And by that scale, these three rabbis’ were picked to sign the letter.

So my point is it’s not three random signatures that can be dismissed as not being the mindset of the entire community. It is as if the three most senior cabinet members of the white house sign a proclamation, you con rest assured that this is the holding of the entire cabinet.

Secondly:

As I wrote before, an example that the consensus in the street is,- that even though TTJ isn’t per se a mouth piece of satmar - this group is the de-facto satmar podium on anti Zionism, is that recently the grand rabbi of satmar (Rabbi Moses of blessed memory) passed away, upon his passing the PLO mission in Washington wanted to reach the “satmar” community (which is verified to have tens of thousands of members) and the rabbi’s family to express there condolences they used the channel of the True Torah Jews and asked them to pass the condolences to the community and the rabbi’s family (the letter was widely circulated in the satmar community and I can post it if only someone here helps me in doing so).

In my opinion, this verifies that the conventional wisdom in the street is that the True Torah Jews is the satmar anti-Zionist voice in the secular world.

Thirdly:

The grand Rabbi’s of satmar both Rabbi Aaron and Rabbi Zalman leib Teitelbaum are active supporters of the organization. Rabbi Aaron has proclaimed in the Talmudic journal published by the satmar yeshiva in K.J. that everyone is to see that this organization succeeds in there work and he made it a necessity that everyone gives at least $20 to the TTJ.

Rabbi Zalman leib Teitelbaum personally attends fundraising diners made by the TTJ.

In addition the TTJ is regularly featured as news and in editorials in both “Der Yid” (the official newspaper of the Rabbi Zalman faction in satmar) and Der Blatt” (the official newspaper of the Rabbi Aaron faction in satmar)

Fourthly:

As you watch, the clips and slide shows on the website of the TTJ from the numerous demonstrations called by satmar, you will - in almost every instant - come across a sign with the TTJ web site plugged and even sometimes the banner behind the head table was dedicated to the TTJ group (B.T.W. in one such instance Rabbi Zalman can bee seen seated on the head table that the banner featured the TTJ.


In addition, as I have said before the funding for TTJ comes primarily from satmar by making appeals in the satmar synagogues (which – BTW - can only be done with the approval of the congregation)

The above should also satisfy the concerns of BigDT, Leifern, Jayjg ,

Another fact that would make the TTJ notable is the expensive website the ads it takes out in the biggest newspapers and radio station’s which add up to ten’s of thousands of dollars yearly this can only be achieved with a strong financial backbone such as financial support of satmar.

As per the matter of membership:

The group does not keep its own membership they get there funding (for what membership is primarily needed) by making appeals in the satmar synagogues and diner’s maid by satmar’s.

Nevertheless, they do have some membership by sending their weekly newsletter that they send to thousands of subscribers.

And the point that BigDT raised sending out a newsletter to thousands of people doesn't really mean anything:

You say yourself that it came upon you by voting that sets up a data base of conservative thinking people that might be interested in getting conservative literature, but the TTJ does not have such a date base available to them, the only way the TTJ sends an e-mail is by people subscribing to there newsletter on there website.

Moreover, one cannot be sending newsletter’s out every week to thousands of people with such highly controversial content, when one can with the touch of a button, block and report it to be spam, and within a month or two your list goes down to none.

Given the above, the fact that they send out thousands of newsletters, and are not blocked is significant inRegard to the support they have

The others I cannot satisfy since they did not say why they think it should be deleted.

This is my case, the defense rests, and the decision is in the hand of the jury.

P.S. I would like to ask all participants to thoroughly read what I wrote and rethink the position taken.

Bloger 23:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - several things: (1) The google hits look to be self-generated. I lost count of the number of JewsAgainstZionism hits that were from the comments section of blogs. Just because someone has time on their hands doesn't make them notable. Are there any references to the organization from a mainstream media site? (2) The fact that some Rabbis agree with the objectives of the organization and that some of their quotes and audio clips are on the site doesn't mean that the Rabbis are a part of the organization. Plenty of Baptist churches quote John Wesley, for example, but he was most certainly never a Baptist. (3) The newsletter is email? Good grief - then it really doesn't mean anything.
I respect your views. But I haven't seen any actual, verifiable, evidence that the organization/website is more than just a few people. If you could find mentions of them in the mainstream media (not blogs) or some kind of reference to their actual, registered membership, that would be something convincing. Again, this is not a vote on their worthiness to exist or the correctness of their views ... it is just an attempt to establish a consensus on whether or not the organization is notable enough for a WP article. I haven't found any evidence that it is. BigDT 00:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment

Thank you for taking the time

It may be that many hits are from blog commenting, but there are 21,000 sittings according to Google. And I do not think, you think that a few people did all this.

With so much time on there side you don’t think they would try to get some attention from any notable media outlet, for crying out loud people with much smaller issue’s and much less time on there side get signifying more attention.

The truth is TTJ isn’t in the market for good looks all it does is trying to get there massage across and according to there web director (you can contact him just like I did by e-mail) they get thousands of hits a month and that satisfies them.

About the rabbi’s you missed the point all I was trying to say is that for example if the pope, the secretary of state of the Vatican and cardinal Edward Egan of New York sign a proclamation on something doesn’t this mean that a significant amount of people in the catholic religion think the same way?

The same way when rabbi’s in the position of the ones mentioned take a position on anything it carries the thinking of a nice majority if not all of satmar.

And about the newsletter it’s not only e-mail the reason I spoke about e-mail is that e-mail is blocked very easily and the fact that thousands of people let this in there inbox and don’t spam it means a lot in my opinion

Bloger 02:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. – Although I’ve edited Wikipedia in the past[43], I’m not sure about the rules here. However, if being a die-hard Wikipedia reader qualifies me to vote then I offer this:

I’m a Satmar member who can attest to the fact that this organization takes its philosophy from the teachings of the Satmar rabbi Joel Tietelbaum, and its financial support from his today’s over 120,000 (according to latest news reports) followers.

I now recall a morning in the summer of 2005 as I entered the main synagogue in Kiryas Joel, a Satmar village in upstate New York with 15,000 residents. I met a huge poster stating: Support True Torah Jews. I followed a call from Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum, chief rabbi of Kiryas Joel, to support this organization. I took out my wallet and found my last twenty dollars. I made my donation and walked away with an empty wallet.

It’s possible that the three above mentioned rabbis serve as an editorial board, but they are certainly not “the only” rabbis behind True Torah Jews.

One should not expect as many Satmar internet users to notice this discussion as Zionist do, since Satmar educates its members to refrain from internet as much as possible. This vote will probably be decided by two types of voters; the ones who are truly unaware of, and the others who are truly biased against True Torah Jews.

In the recent 6 months, I’ve come to rely on Wikipedia as my encyclopedia. It will be devastating to learn that I was only reading the side of the story allowed by interest groups. I will be shocked to see an article deleted because some people, who can’t tolerate criticism against the Zionist cause, are better positioned on Wikipedia. Finally, it will also be informative to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that the list of Israeli targets for censorship now includes Widipedia, with quite some success!

User:67.139.62.77, you can certainly comment here, however this is NOT A VOTE, it is an discussion to talk about this issue. Please don't assume that the posters here are biased. Try to see it from my perspective. I have never heard of this organization. All I have to know that is exists is its own website and a few anonymous poster. Letters by rabbis might show that this exists but it does demonstrate what it does, or how big the organization is. We are not looking for a thousand links to it's website but to one link to a real news source talking about what this organization is and what it does. We are not making these rules up because we are biased. You can read the rules yourself WP:N, WP:V, and WP:WEB and then you will understand our objections. Jon513 15:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I’m sorry; I got carried away. I looked up the Verifiability rules. This is what I came up with as, in my opinion, relevant to the article in question:
"Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them.”
When I look back to the current version of the article I see that it describes in TTJ’s words what it claims to be doing; this article is about TTJ and TTJ only. It doesn’t even make the claim that it is supported by Satmar, although it is. The article doesn’t give clue about the magnitude of its followers. It is only stating that there is this website making such and such claims.
I also think that Blogger made a good point that the level of support that TTJ enjoys from the Satmar rabbis can be evident by watching footage on TTJ’s website. In Blogger’s words: “As you watch, the clips and slide shows on the website of the TTJ from the numerous demonstrations called by satmar, you will - in almost every instant - come across a sign with the TTJ web site plugged and even sometimes the banner behind the head table was dedicated to the TTJ group”
Perhaps Blogger can give us a link to the footage.
      • this is a clip that User:67.139.62.77 requested

[44] The Forth picture is the one with the head table back banner for TTJ

Bloger 18:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • DELETE DELETE DELETE! This article is not up to Wikipedia's standards of verifability. Just because I put up a website doesnt mean that Wikipedia should have an article on it. -Reuvenk[T][C] 19:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. At the request of Bloger, I’ve read his/her appeal to reconsider my vote and this is my response. First, Bloger, I do appreciate your efforts here on behalf of the article and I echo what BigDT said, that "this is not a vote on [TTJ's] worthiness to exist or the correctness of their views ... it is just an attempt to establish a consensus on whether or not the organization is notable enough for a WP article." My concern about the anonymous nature of the website still stands, since for whatever reason the website owners have for remaining anonymous, this factor alone unfortunately still makes it fail WP:Verifiability, one of the three WP non-negotiable policies. If TTJ were really a mouthpiece for Satmar, there would need to be some official statement from Satmar or even something in the media verifying this, we can't just assume. Since the anti-zionist views don't appear dramatically different from Satmar, it doesn’t make sense to me that Satmar would feel the need to be anonymous about it if it were indeed their mouthpiece organization. Now, what I have found, however, on a little further investigation, are a few names associated with the website that I’ve been able to glean from some blog sites (these aren’t verifiable sources as far as WP is concerned, but they do shed some light for our discussion here on who is behind the website). Three names keep popping up variously as "founders" of the group: Mark Elf, Tony Greenstein, and Roland Rance, basically bloggers with an anti-zionist slant. None of these three individuals appear to be religious Jews (which precludes them as representatives of Satmar), though there seems to be some possible loose association with the British Socialist Workers Party. All I can find so far is data that points to the website belonging to one or a couple of individuals, an extension of their blogs really, and while the site is certainly interesting, it doesn’t meet WP encyclopedic standards for notability. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for responding:

Firstly, as I said before the TTJ isn’t per se a mouth-piece of satmar – nevertheless because satmar doesn’t have an anti Zionist platform for the outside of satmar - meaning Jewish non satmar’s and non Jews - this group has become the de-facto satmar podium on anti Zionism in the world of non Yiddish - so to speak –, this can be seen thru several thing sited above,for one the satmar rabbis, the banner on the head table for TTJ by an official satmar demonstration, as I linked above.

This brings me to my second point:

Should it be the fact, that the TTJ is run – or for that matter in any way associated - to non-religious Jews, or even more, to a left wing socialist movement, you can rest assured not only wouldn’t you find any satmar rabbi signing a proclamation for the group, but also not in any circumstance letting the group grab any publicity on an official satmar event, given that satmar is not a political opponent to the state of Israel, but rater a morel opponent of it, in fact should the world - and for that matter Evan the Arabs - miraculously unanimously become supportive of Israel, it wont affect satmars opposition to Israel not one iota, moreover satmar has always maintained the position to not be seen in any way having an association with people or groups like the ones you mentioned, so much so that when a group like the Neturei Karta - which is an orthodox Jewish group and even has the same fundamental for opposing Israel like the one of satmar – but because they associated themselves with the political apposition to the state, satmar very openly and aggressively disassociated themselves from them.

Thirdly, as I said before the TTJ is regularly featured in the two Yiddish newspapers “Der Yid” and “Der Blot” that are the official newspapers of the two satmar factions (the Aron’s and Zalmons).The question is would it be considered a verification of TTJ works and structure if it is spelled out in the above newspapers?

If yes, I would be more than glad to present such writings and let the Yiddish speaking and reading editors here, confirm the content.

However I would need more time to do just that, since they don’t publish the newspaper on the web I would need to contact them, go to there office and get a hold of the articles.

17:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Bloger 17:40, 17 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 17:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The scooter shop

Non-notable family-owned store. SCHZMO ✍ 19:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable, Wikipedia is not a directory.--Marysunshine 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Zaxem 05:15, 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 17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Götschli

Delete:Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary,Neologisms Philip Gronowski Contribs 20:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 20:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

it is a description of a word commonly used. and it is just for information purposes. i did not wanna offend anyone by this article. please let it be posted. i would greatly appreciate it. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triangulu (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, foreign language dictdef. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:29, 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 17:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gottbetter & Partners

Nomination: nn advertising and copyright violation from firm's site --User:Chaser (T, C, e) 20:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No reason given for notability, Olayak has admitted to writing it for the company [45]. In my opinion this sort of thing should be strongly discouraged. Mak (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DONT DELETE I wrote this as a courtesy for the company because the managing partner is the Mann Report's Hedge Fund manager of the year and has been written up in several financial papers and law journals. I will cite sources if this will allow the page to remain. I was NOT commissioned to add it, but I do have permission from the company. Also, this firm has created a process called the "GPO" (which is a trademarked procedure- completely unique) which differentiates it from other firms. Also, if this is a corporate "vanity site", then arent all articles about actors, musicians, celebrities, and fashion companies also "vanity sites"? What about celebrities with no known occupation that are famous anyway (such as Kato Kaylin). Would an article about him be a "vanity site"? Another thing to note- look under "law firms" on wikipedia. If you look at the list under "united states" there are several law firms listed, and many of them have articles on wikipedia. Are those also all considered "vanity sites"? What regulation says that those articles can stay and this one cannot? Olayak 21:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)k
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not free web hosting. If these lawyers want a website, they can make on. Olayak, if there are other non-notable lawfirms on Wikipedia, nominate them for deletion. BigDT 22:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DONT DELETE this is not a website, nor does it try to be one. It explains mostly the unique "GPO" procedure. Look under "law firms" in wikipedia. Are you suggesting that every one of those firms should be deleted? There are at least 100 from around the world. Also, this company has been written up many times in the media, does that not merit an article in wikipedia? How often must a company or person be written up before someone will approve its article? Once again, the firm did NOT ask me to write this article. I thought it should be added and gained the permission of the company to write about it.Olayak 22:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)k (Second Olayak Vote)
  • Delete per nom. Any notability beyond a typical law firm is not evident upon reading the article. Remember, Wikipedia is not a directory.--Marysunshine 22:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DONT DELETE Please read the section on the GPO. It is a trademarked and unique process and has been discussed in several financial venues and journals. I still dont understand why all the other firms get to stay and this one which describes a unique process of handeling mergers and aquisitions is not.Olayak 23:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)k (Third Olayak Vote)
  • Delete, wipe your feet before you step on the astroturf or you might slip. Badgerpatrol 23:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all non-Olayak comments above -- Hirudo 01:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, delete, delete NN, copyvio--Deville (Talk) 02:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing in the article suggests that this law firm is sufficiently notable to have its own page in an international encyclopaedia. I agree that there are some other pages on law firms which should be deleted too. But that's not a good reason for keeping this one. Zaxem 05:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Where do law firms fit? Under WP:CORP? I was about to vote delete but then I looked at some of the others, many of which are just as bad. I know, thats no reason for a keep, but what are notability criteria here and why hasn't anyone addressed this? -MrFizyx 06:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It's unclear, though there are a few pages that are helpful. Wikipedia:Notability; checking notability; Deletion precedents; etc. Nothing on seems to be binding policy, but there are plenty of guidelines and essays. --User:Chaser (T, C, e) 06:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps taking a look through the category linked would be a start on getting rid of what are essentially ads? I checked on at random, it had an importance subst on it added half a year ago. Were it that important, someone should have indicted its importance by now... --ES2 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If this GPO process is so unique and useful, that should be an article, not this ad. SteveHopson 13:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Other non-notable pages are not reason enough for a keep. Rather, they're reason for a number of AfD nominations. --ES2 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as A7. Note to Olayak: One vote per user, please? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:58, 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 17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expulsion of Germans after World War II/new

obviously a sandbox for someone, two editors, actually the last major edit in february, but google points here first

  • Speedy Delete G6 - it looks like someone was working on a new version of the page. Either they finished or quit. Either way, the page can be speedied as a housekeeping deletion.
  • Delete, per above, but please remember to sign your posts. Stifle (talk) 18:46, 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 17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syncan

Listed for {{prod}} but the proposal was removed. This character barely meets my speedy-deletion notability standard, but as it's contested I felt I should bring it here instead. Non-notable webforum member. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

for the love of god, delete it. jon 22:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. DarthVader 22:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopaedically notable. Zaxem 05:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible speedy as {{nn-bio}}. Stifle (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - Notable in the YTMND community, not much place else. However he could be mentioned in the section about his win for AOTS' contest. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 19:36, 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 to delete; redirected to Automobile. —Whouk (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jalopy

  • DeleteWikipedia is not a slang guide. Bill 20:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Could it be Transwikied to Wiktionary? That's a better place for it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.154.49.153 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment It looks like its already in Wiktionary--Bill 20:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Automobile for now. Someday someone could write a good article about old, broken-down cars -- the trouble they cause people, pollution, use as a symbol of rural America, stuff like that. I wouldn't want to discourage them by deleting Jalopy. --Allen 01:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

WisC—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.221.5.234 (talk • contribs) .

Redirect to Automobile, clearly.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.26.128.249 (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 Parodies of the ichthys symbol. —Whouk (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin Fish

This seems to be a vanity article about a pastor at some obscure church in California. I don't think it warrants an article any more than something like Church of reality. VetteDude 20:26, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Lawton

1. Non-notability. Cannot be characterized under Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature, Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage, or Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events.

2. Vanity. ...edits about the editors themselves, their close relatives or their personal associates. It appears that the original author falls under the category of personal associates. Ekrub-ntyh 20:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn 11th-grader who's a "political activist". Fan1967 20:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity and nn. DarthVader 22:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: If you work hard, maybe in 15 years there will be enough reliable sources that someone will write an article on you. --Hetar 23:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN --Deville (Talk) 02:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not verifiable Ground Zero | t 15:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom and above. Ardenn 04:08, 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. Discounting all the anon IP first-time votes to keep. WP:V is non-negotiable. Proto||type 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traditum Votum

A society that is so secret as to be unverifiable... or possibly just a hallucination caused by reading too much Dan Brown. FreplySpang (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I am adding to the nomination for deletion the related page: Ivo mihaylov
  • Delete unverifiable hoax--Bill 20:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I've speedied Ivo mihaylov FreplySpang (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • He's recreated it, with absolute garbage. Fan1967 01:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
        • No, just ...no. Wikipedia states that I shouldn't take offence, however I'm finding it increasingly hard to do so with comments like that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Banksy1988 (talk • contribs) .
  • As unverifiable as ones autobiography. It should stand. Unless proven to be wrong ofcourse. I think I know my life well enough.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivom (talk • contribs) .
Note. Only edit from this user, two minutes after registering. Fan1967 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP - The references verify that such a society does exist and that it has done for many years, the School of Oriental and African studies has done much research on it's existance and it is to be published in a book named "Secrets of Spain" in late 2006. Do NOT delete this until the author has a chance to update the wiki page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Banksy1988 (talk • contribs) .
Note. This user has no edits that are not about Traditum Votum. Fan1967 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
YOU note. I only created this user to create awareness of this society, is it so common on wikipedia for someone to make up absolute rubbish that I am being accused of FABRICATING a secret society which I stand to gain NOTHING from? Banksy1988 23:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
To answer your question, it is very common on Wikipedia for someone to make up absolute rubbish. Most commonly it involves teenagers. Fan1967 00:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Some conspiracy sites and an unpublished book don't make the grade as Reliable Sources. - Fan1967 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a single hit on Google or on the academic archive JSTOR. Humansdorpie 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Bill37212. DarthVader 22:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP all of the books listed under references include this society in their discussions. if i type my name in to google, i will not get a single hit - does that prove i dont exist? naive statement in my opinion to rely on google for the truth.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Banksy1988 (talk • contribs) .
    Comment Doesn't matter if it's true. It's not verifiable, which is required for Wikipedia. Also, the fact that the alleged translation of the Latin name is not remotely close doesn't speak well for the accuracy of the article. Fan1967 00:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Note Second vote from this user. Fan1967 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Unintentional second vote, I'm new to this. Banksy1988 23:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not a single google hit. —Mets501talk 22:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hey, when that book comes out in late 2006, as I'm sure it will, we can put the page back up. --Deville (Talk) 02:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wouldn't bet on it. None of the external links have anything relevant, and the titles of the listed books look promising. Combine that with the mistranslated name, and I'm leaning more toward total hoax. Fan1967 02:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looking into Wansbrough's profile at SOAS it is highly likely that his works will be published as early as next month, also i've checked out one of the sources on the references list and it appears that the author of this article isn't totally fabricating the story. There is clear links to some secret society over Seville FC and that the society is a break-away faction of the Illuminati - which is implied in the article, though not accurately.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.118.149 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Can you be more specific? Which source is it that provides support for this story? Also, can you explain why a scholar of Islamic history who died in 2002 has a book coming out in 2006 about a Christian secret society? Fan1967 13:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Note. IP address resolves to Woodhouse College, a London high school. Fan1967 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant. I don't see how this is relevant, are you implying that a high schooler is somehow aiding me? Banksy1988 23:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and edit it. The source John Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition Of Islamic Salvation History checks out, though the translation of the work is under question, Traditum is to surrender, so Traditum Votum should mean Surrender to God, shouldn't it? The School of Oriental and African studies stated that the book was delayed as a result of the author's death. SOAS is also apprehensive about having a wiki page on the society, I think they don't want this being "leaked". But obviously there is no proof that this society has any links with the institution. 212.219.118.149 14:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment (1) Please do not vote multiple times. (2) I suggest you put a little more effort into your Latin classes. You're not even close. (3) How does Islamic Salvation History relate to a secret society that allegedly includes a Christian saint (Louis IX)? Fan1967 14:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment lol, you're expecting a student from a high school to have expert in latin. However I too don't know whether or not traditum actually means surrender, though I'm sure you would be able to enlighten me with your perfect latin translation abilities. Through Wansbrough's notes, the name Louis IX was stated. However, I cannot be 100% certain it is St Louis it is referring to. The time period of the 13th century led me to assume that it was St Louis of France.Banksy1988 19:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment You still haven't explained how any of this secret society (whose secret activities included founding a football team) relates to a history of Quranic studies. Can you understand why that might be a little puzzling? Fan1967 20:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment They didn't found a football team, they took control and then allocated control to the fans. Islam was the religon under which the soceity was founded in the south of Spain, the Quran was a big influence on their thinking. The Church where the engraving of the societies initials and seal still remain today, stands on an old mosque. Mushrif-ud-Din Abdullah (known more commonly as Saadi in his works) was captured during the crusades and he is said to have become a member while in captivity in Spain. In Wansbrough's last edition of his book Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation he states that part of the thoughts Saadi portrays in his writings are Quranic (i.e. of Islamic origin) and speak of his "finding of a new politcal underground" which "does the word of God through subtle means". This very writing was found within the remains of the church.Banksy1988 22:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Note that the current wiki page for Saadi verifies that he was captured during the crusades and that his writings were contreversial, how likely is it that a Muslim in his times would write about homoeroticism? Surely, he was protected by some sort of organization from certain excecution. Banksy1988 23:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
(backing up, pushing the right margin) So let's get this straight. You've got a medieval Sufi, who may have been captured by the Crusaders and is said to have been held in Spain. He wrote of an unnamed political underground but said little about it. From that, you come up with a group with a Latin name (whose meaning you don't know, but got from where?) supposedly connected to a French king and saint, as well as an Italian saint, neither of whom was remotely connected with Spain. And all of this is somehow connected to a 19-year-old Bulgarian/British schoolkid, whose article appears to have just been deleted and recreated. Fan1967 00:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The society's emblem is engraved in the mosque turned church in andalusia. The saints are all connected to the crusades. Bulgarian schoolkid? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Banksy1988 (talk • contribs) .
You forget about Ivo mihaylov already? You created his article twice. Fan1967 22:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I created it once...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Banksy1988 (talk • contribs) .
No, you created it twice, as is clear from the article's deletion log. You also created Osman Junaid, which has also been speedy deleted, a supposed descendant of Saadi, the Bulgarian's right hand man in this Spanish secret society, and, wonder of wonders, another high school kid at Woodhouse College. What a coincidence. Delete, hoax. Interestingly enough, Image:Postertrad.jpg indicates that it was created by photoshop on May 10, one day before Bansky uploaded it. So much for ancient history. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Image was cropped using Photoshop CS2, yes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Banksy1988 (talk • contribs) .
... and Aquinas wasn't involved in the Crusades. Fan1967 23:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
...but he wad related to the french royals Banksy1988 09:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You couldn't make this chain of links more tenuous if you tried. Fan1967 17:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
During 1269 to 1271 he was active in Paris, lecturing to the students, managing the affairs of the church and consulted by the king, Louis VIII, his kinsman, on affairs of state. <-- taken from the wiki page on Thomas Aquinas, verified further by http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm <-- a catholic encyclopedia which states that Aquinas was promoted and given much wealth after proposing the writing of a book which the church should have opposed, though under the influence of Louis IX no less, Aquinas was promoted and allowed to continue. Banksy1988 19:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
None of which remotely connects him to a Spanish secret society. Fan1967 20:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
No matter what I say, you won't let this page remain or believe what i say, so why dont you just delete it now instead of wasting my time. <personal attack removed -- User:Zoe|(talk) 23:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)>. Banksy1988 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Dan Brown wannabe. I'm SO tempted to speedy this. GarrettTalk 02:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete WP:NOR & WP:V ~Kylu (u|t) 03:54, 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. Royboycrashfan 23:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Baccay

Vandalism and/or vanity. Exact copy of Benigno Aquino Jr. with name replaced.

Al Clark 20:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as vandalism BigDT 22:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above —Mets501talk 22:42, 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 Keep. There is some consensus to merge, but a merge vs. keep debate can be carried outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Da Vinci Code WebQuests

Violation of WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. User 67.100.48.189 (contributions) and his/her suspected sockpuppet 67.101.134.76 (contributions) repeatedly spammed numerous articles with the Webquest information, even though they fail WP:WEB. The current article contains far too many external links, in violation of WP:EL. Also note that a Google search for "The Da Vinci Code WebQuests" only yields 63 results, with the first 3 from Wikipedia and its Answers.com mirror. Madchester 20:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete A1. Danny Lilithborne 21:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into The Da Vinci Code (film) —Mets501talk 22:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete already merged into film article; I also believe 67.101.128.103, 67.100.49.172, 67.101.128.6, and just about every IP in the 67.*.*.* range in the edit history of the Da Vinci Code is the same guy. But not in 66.*.*.* range, those are likely User:Rodgerbales, who I have talked to and has complied with my requests and DOES NOT start edit wars that violate the 20 reverts rule. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, per nom, no further action required.--cjllw | TALK 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Heavy Revision & Possibly Move - See also: Talk:The Da Vinci Code#Webquest_solution?. I had created this article originally in an attempt to diffuse arguments over placement of WebQuest content that had been on The Da Vinci Code and others (I simply moved a copy of content that had been on another article, but I don't remember which offhand currently). I feel that that in theory information recent promotional marketing strategies can be good information (espically to people with interests in those areas (marketing majors?)) IF and only if it can be written in NPOV. Furthermore I feel that while such information is interesting (and has been on The Da Vinci Code for years (per its talk page)), I feel that it's not quite directly related to the content of the Book or the movie (it's more related to the general public's interactions with the book/movie), and therefore deserving of a seperate page. Thirdly as the Da Vinci Code has the potential of being a large franchise (3 books, 1 movie already, several related books), and having seperate articles that are common/related to multiple articles can help keep the pages smaller and concise (note the too long tag on the book's page). All that said... In this case I'm also not opposed to Deletion, per nom. --Charlie(@CIRL | talk) 04:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep. The information is appropriate for Wikipedia, though the format isn't. To be honest, this info will probably need to be split out to its own page eventually anyway (the Da Vinci Code article is getting too large as it is), but as it stands, this info should be merged back into either The Da Vinci Code or The Da Vinci Code (film) until it can be split out in a more encyclopedic manner. I'm also open to someone heavily revising this article to bring it more into line with Wikipedia format, in which case it can be kept. --Elonka 16:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
(Update: Since the article has been extensively edited, I am switching my vote to Keep) --Elonka 22:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge to The Da Vinci Code. Stifle (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Deserves to be mentioned in the The Da Vinci Code movie article, but by itself it is just a short marketing campaign. --SirNuke 03:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. (revised opinion) - yet another new webquest has just been released by Eurostar in the last day or so.. it's starting to make sense to have a separate article for Da Vinci Code webquests, and then the two other articles due to length issues (one for the Da Vinci Code book and one for the Da Vinci Code movie and future movie(s)). Some of the comments above like SirNuke's or M1ss1ontomars2k4's could have researched a little deeper first - I don't think some of the commenters are even aware there are separate webquests, some related to the movie, some to the book - two of the quests have been running since 2003 and are not short-term promos, they are quests in their own right and continue generate a lot of interest. I don't know if Google will keep thier webquests on line permanently, but judging by the interest, I'd imagine they will. Likewise with the even newer Eurostar quest - it seems like launching Da Vinci Code Quests is gaining momentum, so it would make sense to keep this info active and on its own page. As far as people deleting links, if it's possible to protect portions of an article, then do so. AFAIK, the legitimate links that have been there from the start are this one for the original two webquests since 2003, and these two for the Google webquests. NB: I've added links for the new Eurostar webquest to the article. 64.105.73.85 17:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep--Sina 13:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for Now. The google contest doesn't end until the 21st, at this point here are the wisest things to do, since there are those individuals who are intent upon deleting the work of those who are trying to gather helpful information for all to use, I would 1. keep the page separate until sometime after May 21 2006, and 2. lock it from edits and deletes until that point. I'm sure what happened before will start to happen again. 65.182.71.146 14:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — When looking for links to the webquests, I found this page and found it helpful. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if more webquests are created, and as this happens, it would be helpful to collect all this information on one page. Trey56 16:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep? Rename?. I'm not really sure about this, to be honest! I think having the fine detail of the various WebQuests is maybe a bit too "crufty". But maybe they could go under a new article The Da Vinci Code spinoffs which could also include notes on the video game, The Da Vinci Code (film), and the many other things that are popping up everywhere. What do people think? --A bit iffy 21:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Even with the revisions, there are still far too many external links. Half the page length is devoted to external links, when the actual article itself is at most 500 words long. Remember, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. --Madchester 16:23, 17 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. RadioKirk talk to me 19:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brent Corrigan

The long revert war over including this actor's real name aside, I am not convinced that this article asserts the subject's notability. Controversies exist over the actor's apparent admission that he falsified his identification in order to work in porn at age 17 (illegal in the US), and over his insistence that he is entitled to continue using "Brent Corrigan" (which Cobra Video claims as intellectual property), but these "controversies" were exclusive to the gay adult entertainment community and media, and went utterly unreported in mainstream media, per Google. (As an aside, I cannot find any source other than the "press release" supposedly issued by Cobra Video for the subject's "real" name which, frankly, comes across as an effort to discredit the subject or and/or lay claim through the "media" to its "property".) Since I alone cannot determine whether this is a clear-cut case of notability or non-notability, I am bringing this here. RadioKirk talk to me 21:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Legal issues and revert wars aren't a reason to delete; he's in the news and appears to be notable from what I can see. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Care, but keep I've done a lot of work salvaging this article from edit wars and horrible POV writing from both sides. I really have no care in the world about whether gay porn stars are automatically included in Wikipedia. But, considering the number of het porn stars that exist on wikipedia, it makes sense to keep the gay ones too. It may miss "mainstream media" but who cares about mainstream media? The porn media has shown itself repeatedly to be quite reputable, if self-serving (of the industry, not of the subjects it write abouts). SchmuckyTheCat 19:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I should mention his sexuality is irrelevant to me; I questioned this based entirely on notability. :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Then notability is established. Wikipedia has hundreds of porn star bios, many just stubs. If it was my encyclopedia, I'd probably delete most of them, but it's not. Consensus is that being a porn star means being notable. This porn star has a following and created news. SchmuckyTheCat 19:48, 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 17:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quallium Corporation

Non-notable company, or so it seems. Founded 2002, some 250 Google hits (almost all in yellow pages of sorts), zero in news and usenet. Rl 21:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; also it doesn't really talk about the significance of the corporation —Mets501talk 22:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:CORP, or transwiki to Yellowikis. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CollectiveX

Ad for a website less than 2 months old. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable, POVish, and SPAMish —Mets501talk 22:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, blatant advertising. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. LjL 00:33, 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 Speedy keep — product now released. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 14:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacBook

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, per WP:NOT. Example from page: "The 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." Nothing can be said about the MacBook that is verifiable. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It appears I misread the appropriate section of the WP:NOT page. I apologize for the error, and withdraw the nomination. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Okay, so a page about a future product isn't the most encyclopedic thing out there - but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. In fact, WP:NOT says that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". And most certainly MacBook meets this criteria. Analysts are predicting it, rumour sites are all over it - and more notably, Apple accidentally leaked the name a few days ago on the iPod page. Thus, it is both verifiable (analysts and Apple, if not rumour sites) - and if we delete this, there are so many other things that could be deleted. I suppose we just wait a week and see what happens. =) --mintchocicecream 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with MacBook Pro - should be sufficient to add a section to that article like "Speculation about MacBook" or similar, with legitimate sources. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 23:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, here is the excerpt from the WP:NOT page. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate. ". Well documented speculation is allowed for soon to be upcoming events. Speculation about this release has been documented in the article. DanielZimmerman 23:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Has several references to a well respected source. Contains information. WIkipedia isn't paper, so let it stay. -- 9cds(talk) 23:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Speedy Keep - It has now been announced and is for sale. -- 9cds(talk) 13:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above Keep comments. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above... unless someone is willing to put up a CFD for this... PaulC/T+ 04:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per DanielZimmerman. Could be useful to someone, and the product is likely going to be released over the next few weeks anyhow. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 07:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless/until officially verified. Stifle (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as withdrawn nomination. Fagstein 21:42, 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 17:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tacorral

Single restaurant that asserts no notability beyond "a notable location since (sic) for mexican food in Hartford County". (Prod contested.) —Whouk (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN, unencyclopedic. The worst is The taco meat at Tacorral is the best meat ever made in the USA. I've traveled to the west, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, those kinds of places, and no food compares. and this is about a Mexican restaurant in Connecticut?!? Clearly WP:BALLS. --Deville (Talk) 02:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Zaxem 05:26, 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 to speedily delete as per the author's request. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 23:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molapro Productions

nn webcomic, only in existence about six months, alexa ranking of 988,206. Created by User:Molapro, who claims to be the creator of the image used to illustrate the article, thus making this vanity, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, delete it. Whatever. It wasn't my idea to put it up, some people on my site said it would be cool if we had a wikipedia article, so I made one.

Quoted from my shoutbox: "(X)(E) Lak (205.251.48.98) Someone should totally do a Mo,lapro Wikipedia article "(X)(E) Andrew (205.251.49.188) Am I allowed to do that? isn't that sort of like, promoting myself on wiki? XD ONE OF MY LOYAL FANS, YOU DO IT."

Gah.--Molapro (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment Though it might be a tad early to have an article here, you might want to check out Comixpedia. It's dedicated specifically to webcomics and uses the same Wiki interface Wikipedia does. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Comixpedia. Stifle (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per author's request. Fagstein 21:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, even without the vanity, no sign that this article meets WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 17:12, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sick Nick Mondo

Does not meet notability requirements.
↪Lakes (Talk) 21:38, 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. After discounting comments by new users, anons, etc., there is insufficient consensus for deleting. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brownian Motion Ultimate

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

nn club team. See the precedent for deleting Claremont Braineaters. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 21:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete & Redirect to Brownian motion--Burg Hambler 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you joking? It has nothing to do with brownian motion.--ragesoss 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, per nom (& ignore odd suggestion to redirect to Brownian motion, not the same thing at all.--cjllw | TALK 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This page does not violate any of the major standards set by the deletion policy. Furthermore, the precedent is a terrible one. Club sports do not by default indicate not notable, esp. if there is not varsity equivalent. As Ultimate is an extremely popular sport (estimated that over 100,000 people play Ultimate in the United States alone UPA Fact Sheet), Ultimate is a notable sport, and the college level is one of the priemier levels of Ultimate. I really don't see the worth in deleting the page, as it could certainly be of interest, it is not vanity, it is of relatively high quality, and does not violate any Wiki standards. I strongly push for a keep. Metromoxie 20:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Ultimate is a fast growing sport, with international following, worthy of wiki pages.pineapplespatula 21:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This page does not violate any of the major standards set by the deletion policy. I find it ridiculous to consider the deletion of a highly recognized and respected team in a very large and active sport especially at the college level. This article provides extensive insight into the teams successful history and can be of interest to any ultimate player at the college level. I too, strongly push for keeping this article. - Shane, Brown Student
    • Note unsigned. Fagstein 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep without a doubt. BMo is an important team w/r/t ultimate, esp. having won nationals last year.
    • Note unsigned. Fagstein 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Ultimate is a one of the most popular and growing college sports and Brownian Motion is one of the elite teams in the sport.
    • Note unsigned. Fagstein 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As previously stated, club sports without varsity equivilents are certainly of note. I am not, nor have ever been a member of the team, but it is a strong and positive symbol Brown University that reflects prevailing attitudes about athletics, community and independence. I find it innane that this article would be considered for deletion. The contributions that B-Mo has made to ultimate fribee as a sport are significant and their accomplishments are more than worthy of record on Wikipedia. Their success as individuals and as a team are NOT exaggerated, as a recreational ultimate play in DC, strangers would ask me with admiration in their eyes, "So, do you know Zip?" -User: petercirincione
  • Keep Informative article on topic of some interest. No harm done. Paul Hope
  • Keep Not only is the article not breaking any of the four rules set by the deletion policy, it is a well-written article on a topic that many people are interested in. Brownian Motion is a well-known name among college ultimate players, and this article does a very good job of presenting the history of the team in an unbiased fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.10.189 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Per the reasons listed above. It's a good page, darn it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.26.192 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Why would you delete something as interesting as this major team of a major college sport? Keep it for its witty name Brownian Motion if for no other reason. MSueWillis
    • Duplicate vote (see below). Fagstein 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable non-notable student club. Fagstein 21:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Note to closing admin most of the keep votes above are unsigned anons with similar IP addresses. Fagstein 21:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep For reasons stated above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.110.224.209 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The information can be verified throught the Brown University Website. See documents at http://www.brown.edu/Athletics/Mens_Ultimate/archives/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.35.199 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep; interesting article.--ragesoss 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I already posted a "Keep" above, but wanted to expand a little. I mostly add and edit articles about literature and writers, but the thing that has attracted me to Wikipedia from the beginning is its inclusiveness. I ofent use it in my own writing as a first choice source of information. I could easily imagine myself drafting a novel with people playing Ultimate Frisbee mentioned in passing and then deciding I needed a couple of facts about how it is played-- club sport at college-- who plays it-- Ivy leaguers and others-- what do they call themselves? Brownian Motion for heavens sake! This is exactly the kind of odd quirky info that a fiction writer thrives on. MSueWillis
    • Please cross out your previous votes when adding new ones. Thank you. Fagstein 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The club team precedent seems unreasonable; Ultimate has a very large player base these days yet there are no varsity ultimate teams I know of. As club teams go, Brown is certainly notable; the team won nationals last year and on another previous occasion and gets significant name recognition from Ultimate players across the country. Tobinmarcus 19:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm entirely willing to change my recommendation, but the article needs sources. Fagstein 19:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I would be happy to add references where applicable. Could you suggest some areas that need references in particular (I originally thought that the "external links" at the bottom would suffice, but I see now they are insufficient :)? I would also strongly urge you not to vote for deletion if it is a matter of reference; the page was never given a "need references" tag; had it been, with suggestions, I would have gladly help build a bibliograpy. Metromoxie 22:25 May 13 2006 (UTC)
        • Well for one thing, some media source that shows the group won a national championship would go a long way toward getting this article out of AfD. Every fact in the article needs to be referenced with reliable sources. The group itself can be used for some information, but external sources are needed to confirm all these facts. Fagstein 07:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Started adding references, will certainly continue to do so. Thanks for the pointers! -- Metromoxie 04:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an interesting article about an important team in a very popular sport in college, high-school and other venues, and it is well-written. Andyw77
    • Note user's first edit. Fagstein 07:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Re the use of "interesting": Please note that "interesting" is not a criterion for keeping. You have to explain what makes the club notable. This is a discussion, not a vote, and if you don't explain your reasoning, the closing administrator may discount your comments. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting in the sense that it is useful can be criterion for keeping. If it is useful, then it is, arguably, encyclopedic, and thus wiki-worthy. Secondly, as the defending national champions in a large college sport, I would argue that notability has been proven. I would ask, at this juncture, why are they "not notable"? By asserting that they are not notable, but by not giving justification, it is really impossible to defend the article. To quote the great Jerry McGuire, "Help me help you (understand why this subject is notable)"-- Metromoxie 04:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Interesting article on Brown ultimate team. We have many articles on college teams (and need a lot more), some of which can be seen here Category:College athletic programs. However, this is a perennial powerhouse and recent national champion in a sport where college level is the peak. Ultimate fans will want to know about the team. In my view, that positively reeks of notability. -- JJay 21:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Continuing in this vein, I found several interesting and well established articles about college clubs. For example, the Dartmouth Outing Club has, for quite some time, had an article (which, after reading it, I would agree that it whole-heartedly deserves). There are over 350 college teams that participate in the UPA Championship series (see the reference to the UPA factsheet in the article), and Brownian Motion reached the pinnacle of this compeition this past season. As JJay implied above, if this doesn't show notability, I don't know what does. -- Metromoxie 04:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per DarthVader. Too many anon sockpuppets IMHO. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed that there are too many anons (whether or not they are sockpuppets is another story). However, note the number of long time users who have posted. By my current count, the "keep"s by non-anon, non-first time users outnumber the deletes. -- Metromoxie 04:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment On the issue of notability, Brownian Motion has appeared numerous times on College Sports Television, a major television channel for college sports. If you would like to see some of the videos they have put on television, please look at the CSTV Ultimate Page, which also has several articles on Brownian Motion. -- Metromoxie 04:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good article on a notable sports team. Why on earth was this nominated? Jimpartame 07:20, 17 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. Looks like this needs to be merged somewhere. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shi'a view of Hasan ibn Ali


Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.
Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. Provided that all POVs are represented fairly in the new article, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate a controversial aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious.
Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View.
As for "original research", im sorry to say it, but nominator has no idea of what he is talking about. The same nominator aslo claimed in a previous nomination that Sahih Bukhari was a non notable source. Regarding POV sign, it not POINT, its a fact, the article IS pov, since i didnt write the text.--Striver 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment you didn't write the text? Add possible copyvio to the reasons for deletion.--Jersey Devil 23:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Perhaps if this article's creator (Striver) had mentioned somewhere in the first place that the text in the article is taken from some paras which had been inserted into an earlier version of the Hasan ibn Ali article by another contributor (user:Salman01), then some confusion may have been avoided. Given that other editors (rightly or wrongly) removed that text which now appears in the separate article, for consistency's sake it would seem better to have attempted to find some sort of consensus at the main article for 'fairly representing all POVs' before simply hiving off the disputed view into its own article (which itself fails to mention any other alternative view).--cjllw | TALK 00:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The text appears to be originally lifted directly from [46], making this a copyvio. I'll assume good faith - that user:Striver thought user:Salman01 had written it for Wikipedia - but it looks at a quick glance like Salman copied it into the Hasan ibn Ali article, it was removed for being a copyvio, and Striver misunderstood the reason for its deletion and moved it into a POV fork. Whatever happened, it needs to go, as both a copyvio and POV fork. --Hyperbole 07:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Merge to Hasan ibn Ali now that Striver has rewritten the article and addressed copyvio problems. What that article should have is some kind of "Controversy" section that details (with sources, please!) the differences between the Sunni and Shi'a view of Hasan ibn Ali. There's plenty of room in that article, and, written concisely, I do not think this information would dominate. There's no reason I can see to write it exclusively from the Shi'a POV; instead, the section should be framed as the differences in opinion between Sunni and Shi'a. That way, no POV would be afforded due weight in the article. --Hyperbole
  • delete with that further analysis from Hyperbole, and a candidate for speedy at that.--cjllw | TALK 09:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete -- the Hasan ibn Ali article already contains Shi'a POV material, such as the charge of poisoning. The POV fork just presents the same charge in greatly amplified form with much emotive language and ancillary vilification of Yazid; moreover, it is presented as truth, not opinion. There are no references given at all. If the Shi'a editors could give a short quote, referenced, saying the same thing, we could put it in the regular article. There is no need for a POV fork. Zora 11:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I didnt know that it was a copyvio for starters. Ill expand the article to include a full detail of the Shi'a view of Hasan. I strongly reject that this is a pov fork, see here. As is right now, i could appreciate a delete vote, but give me a day and ill change that.--Striver 13:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
So, now i improved it, and it now includes a lot of Shi'a views that are not present anywhere else. It no longer has any copy vio material and it tells about his doings before becoming a caliph, something that the main article does not. It still needs sourcing, and the details surronding events can be expanded, for example, his actions during Umars era. Anyhow, it should now be clear that its not a pov fork and that it merit its own existence, since it would dominate and be given undue wieght if the info was to be merged in to the main article. --Striver 14:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is true. Ill try to work on that. --Striver 23:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I just added some ref, more is needed. --Striver 23:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Changing vote to keep now that references are being added. Fagstein 03:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- Striver has added some hadith references to Hasan's role in raising troops against Aisha. There is nothing specifically "Shi'a" about this; if he wants it in the main article it can go; however, hadith references are notoriously tricky and it would be better to consult modern authorities like Madelung, who mentions Hasan periodically in his treatment of early Islamic history (Madelung's Succession to Muhammad, Oxford University Press, 1997 -- about half of the book is devoted to Ali and Hasan's caliphates). The references to Suyuti, ibn Arabi, and ibn Kathir do not come from these works (Striver can't read Arabic -- nor can I). They're from Shi'a websites mentioning those works. Striver has based his article on whatever he can google and has read nothing of the academic literature on Hasan. I certainly haven't read all of it, but I've read some of it, what there is in English. I am therefore distressed to see that his hit-or-miss googlings in Shi'a websites and the MSA hadith database are being construed as evidence of "research". Those fragmentary references are to events that could be added to the article, if necessary. They do not require a breakout article.

Striver's article is extremely Shi'a-POV, but the POV is found in the descriptions of the people involved (Muawiya and Yazid are villains, scum of the earth, Ali and Hasan are the noblest of humans), the reduction of history to a morality play, the suppression of inconvenient historical facts, and above all in the elaborate descriptions of the death of Hasan by poisoning.

This is an interesting topic. Madelung (p. 331) believes that it is not purely a Shi'a invention, and cites several Sunni scholars as supporting the poisoning theory. However, Madelung has spent his life studying Shi'a Islam and it is clear from his book that he has absorbed much of the Shi'a POV, even though he is not (so far as I know) a Muslim or a Shi'a. I'd have to do a trawl through the academic literature to find out what other scholars think about the poisoning theory. The poisoning story certainly fits into Twelver Shi'a theology, which postulates that the first eleven imams (all of them up to the twelfth imam, who has disappeared, and will return as the Mahdi) were all killed by Sunni Muslims and were all martyrs (a loaded word). Hence any natural-seeming death of an imam MUST be the result of conspiracy, poisoning, whatever.

Striver set up his own article just because he didn't want to engage with other editors who might criticize his writing, or his use of sources, or his reduction of history to morality play. He really ought not to be allowed to set up his own little Shi'apedia, where he is unchallenged.

There is only one way to salvage the article. Someone would have to do some intensive research, in Arabic and Persian language sources, many of them probably still in manuscript, on the evolution of Shi'a views of Hasan. This would be original research, unless first published as a book, and it would also be extremely controversial. The Shi'a version of their history is often quite at odds with an outsider's view of their history (hence Momen, in his book on Shi'a Islam, has two historical sections: the accepted Shi'a view and "what happened," as near as he could come to it).

Since no one is going to do this research (certainly not me, unless someone wants to give me a huge grant to learn the necessary languages, get a graduate degree, and visit various archives to search for sources), I think this article should be deleted, or if kept, merged. There is simply not enough uniquely Shi'a material to justify a breakout article. The main article could just be expanded to incorporate the material Striver thinks should be included. He's going to have to allow editing, however, to which he has never taken kindly. Zora 05:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

Zora wrote:

Striver has added some hadith references to Hasan's role in raising troops against Aisha. There is nothing specifically "Shi'a" about this; if he wants it in the main article it can go; however, hadith references are notoriously tricky and it would be better to consult modern authorities like Madelung, who mentions Hasan periodically in his treatment of early Islamic history (Madelung's Succession to Muhammad, Oxford University Press, 1997 -- about half of the book is devoted to Ali and Hasan's caliphates).

I agree that it can be added to the main article, sure, do that. But as you laid out yourself, Shi'a, Sunni and Non-Muslims have different views of the events. I described the Shi'a view of it, and the hadith are perfectly valid to describe those events from a Shi'a view. Madelung is a "modern authorities" on Madelungs view, hi is not a expert on the Shi'a view. Hence, the position that madelung is a beter source for the Shi'a view than hadith are is rendered false.

The references to Suyuti, ibn Arabi, and ibn Kathir do not come from these works (Striver can't read Arabic -- nor can I). They're from Shi'a websites mentioning those works.

Yes, excatly my point. Shi'a sites are a far better source for the Shi'a view than Madelung is for the Shi'a view. That is obvious.

Striver has based his article on whatever he can google and has read nothing of the academic literature on Hasan. I certainly haven't read all of it, but I've read some of it, what there is in English. I am therefore distressed to see that his hit-or-miss googlings in Shi'a websites and the MSA hadith database are being construed as evidence of "research". Those fragmentary references are to events that could be added to the article, if necessary. They do not require a breakout article.

That is a personal attack on me. First of all, whe are not here to disscuss me or you, we are here to disscuss the article and its sources. And further, you seem to imply that there are no academic works on the Internet. That is proof that you are not familiar with the Shi'a view enough, otherwise you would know that many Shi'a academics such as Muhammad al-Tijani and al-Sistani have many of their works on the internet, and i have linked to those sources plenty of times. Zora seems to assume that since i have my sources online, they are somehow inferior. I didnt know that a work becomes inferior when it is uploaded. For more Shi'a academic books online, see the library at Al-islam.org

Striver's article is extremely Shi'a-POV, but the POV is found in the descriptions of the people involved (Muawiya and Yazid are villains, scum of the earth, Ali and Hasan are the noblest of humans), the reduction of history to a morality play, the suppression of inconvenient historical facts, and above all in the elaborate descriptions of the death of Hasan by poisoning.

Yes, of course, didnt you read the title? "Shi'a view of Hasan". If you mean that my sentences are pov, then you are misstaken, i always write "Shi'a belive he was poisoned", "Shi'a belive he was good", "SHi'a belive Yazid is scum" and such, in perfect harmony with wikipedia rules. What are you suggesting, that we should present the Shi'a pov, but not state that SHi'a belive Yazid is the scum of the earth? Please get your facts straigh, writing "Shi'a belive Yazid is X" is not POV, "Yazid is a scum" is pov. Dont accuse the article with false accusations.

This is an interesting topic. Madelung (p. 331) believes that it is not purely a Shi'a invention, and cites several Sunni scholars as supporting the poisoning theory. However, Madelung has spent his life studying Shi'a Islam and it is clear from his book that he has absorbed much of the Shi'a POV, even though he is not (so far as I know) a Muslim or a Shi'a. I'd have to do a trawl through the academic literature to find out what other scholars think about the poisoning theory. The poisoning story certainly fits into Twelver Shi'a theology, which postulates that the first eleven imams (all of them up to the twelfth imam, who has disappeared, and will return as the Mahdi) were all killed by Sunni Muslims and were all martyrs (a loaded word). Hence any natural-seeming death of an imam MUST be the result of conspiracy, poisoning, whatever.

Yeah, great, that it Madelungs view. Why are we talking about Madelungs view in this article? His views on whether it acctualy happened or not is relevant to Non-Muslim view of Hasan ibn Ali, and his views on why Shi'a belive it is so could go to a critic section of this article. Madelungs views are not to repleace the Shi'a view, Medelung is a critic of the Shi'a view, he does not hold the Shi'a view.

Striver set up his own article just because he didn't want to engage with other editors who might criticize his writing, or his use of sources, or his reduction of history to morality play. He really ought not to be allowed to set up his own little Shi'apedia, where he is unchallenged.

Oh, is that so? Then why have i had to defend evey single "SHi'a view of" article, for example Shi'a view of Umar, Shi'a view of Abu Bakr and this? Is it because i dont want to engage? Why i am writing this, because i dont whant to engage? Please lay of the ad hominen attacks, please lay of the personal attacks. This article is just as legitimate as Jewish view of Jesus and Christian views of Jesus are.

There is only one way to salvage the article. Someone would have to do some intensive research, in Arabic and Persian language sources, many of them probably still in manuscript, on the evolution of Shi'a views of Hasan. This would be original research, unless first published as a book, and it would also be extremely controversial. The Shi'a version of their history is often quite at odds with an outsider's view of their history (hence Momen, in his book on Shi'a Islam, has two historical sections: the accepted Shi'a view and "what happened," as near as he could come to it).

You just said it, Shi'a have a very special view of History, that is why it warants to be retold every time from the Shi'a view. Thank you for explaining why this article is a necesary, thanks for saying that even acadamicians like Momen do just that. And no, we dont need to read arabic to learn the Shi'a view, they have translated the books to English. Try reading the books at al-islam.org.

Since no one is going to do this research (certainly not me, unless someone wants to give me a huge grant to learn the necessary languages, get a graduate degree, and visit various archives to search for sources), I think this article should be deleted, or if kept, merged. There is simply not enough uniquely Shi'a material to justify a breakout article. The main article could just be expanded to incorporate the material Striver thinks should be included. He's going to have to allow editing, however, to which he has never taken kindly. Zora 05:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please, give me a break. "There is simply not enough uniquely Shi'a material to justify a breakout article"? Are you kidding me? Try by starting to read Then i was Guided. You dont even need to buy it, just read it online--Striver 10:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete this and all the other inherently POV articles that begin with Shi'a view of..... M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
So, is Jewish view of Jesus and Christian views of Jesus also "inherently POV articles"? Could you please tell me where i am wrong on my justification above? Please also reade this--Striver 10:08, 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 Transwiki to Wiktionary. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billy club

It's a definition. Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete or redirect to baton or club or police. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy transwiki just a definitition —Mets501talk 22:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'll have you know that "speedy transwiki" is an oxymoron. Just have a look at the process, or the Move to Wiktionary backlog. :-) TheProject 00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to the Wiktionary. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The definition is incorrect (used for punishing unlaful individuals? where?); compare with [47], for example. - Liberatore(T) 16:58, 17 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 all. --Ezeu 16:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Ramsey

Under WP:FICT, this page probably should not exist. Jennifer Ramsey has already been deleted for non-notability.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they were similarly created and describe characters nn outside the film:

  • Dylan Johns
  • Conor James
  • Christian (Poseidon)
  • Elena Gonzalez

Jonathan F 22:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all. The movie article can list its characters. Insufficient notable content for individual articles. Fagstein 21:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:FICT, which provides that short articles about characters in a movie, such as these, should have their content included in the article about the movie, not separately. --Metropolitan90 01:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to the main article, not-notable in thier own. Jaranda wat's sup 22:13, 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 transwiki and delete. --Ezeu 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jana Seta

Untrasnalted Latvian, was at WP:PNT for more than two weeks. No idea if it should be translated, transwikied, or deleted, but if nobody translates it by the end of the AfD, delete. Kusma (討論) 22:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Latvian Wikipedia (I can't tell if it exists there already) —Mets501talk 22:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What is it about? If you suggest transwiki, you seem to think it is notable enough for inclusion in the Latvian Wikipedia. Kusma (討論) 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to be about a map publisher [48] [49], I have no idea if they're notable or not, suggest we Transwiki to lt.wikipedia.org and let them sort it out. --Eivindt@c 00:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without transwiki. Note that the article begins with a question, which makes me doubt that it is written in encyclopedic style. If English-speakers started writing low-quality English-language articles in foreign-language Wikipedias, I wouldn't want the foreign-lanugage editors to transwiki them to the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 03:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and Speedy Delete. Let them deal with it there. It's clearly in the wrong place here. Zaxem 04:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is advertising text written in name of company "Jana Seta"; one they would put in a handout page at a local trade show. It definitely should not be kept in wikipedia. Aivars from Latvia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.68.64.2 (talk • contribs)
  • Transwiki to the Latvian Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 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 Keep. Tawker 05:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debbie King

delete - Many similar articles on non-notable people have been deleted in the past and there is no reason why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Vandals have already removed this AfD tag before and it should stay on this article until the matter is resolved. Lughguy 22:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Notible presenter on a very well known TV show. I removed the AfD tags because they were not done corectly (only the tag was added). -- 9cds(talk) 22:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Well known presenter and creator of a popular TV show. SaltyWater 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per above. Another reasons why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 23:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are all of these really good faith nominations? I don't believe they are. At best, I think we're well in WP:POINT territory; at worst, this smacks of vandalism. -- Captain Disdain 00:16, 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 Keep. Tawker 05:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nigel Mitchell

delete - Many similar articles on non-notable people have been deleted in the past and there is no reason why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Vandals have already removed this AfD tag before and it should stay on this article until the matter is resolved. Lughguy 22:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - extremely well known presenter, who was a presenter on Nickelodeon UK and Disney Channel (two big UK childrens TV channels). I deleted the AfD tags because it was not added correctly. -- 9cds(talk) 22:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - well known presenter on well know TV channels/programs. SaltyWater 23:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Same user added a mass number of these presenters. -- 9cds(talk) 23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 23:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are all of these really good faith nominations? I don't believe they are. At best, I think we're well in WP:POINT territory; at worst, this smacks of vandalism. -- Captain Disdain 00:17, 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 Keep. Tawker 05:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Thomas (2)

delete - Many similar articles on non-notable people have been deleted in the past and there is no reason why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Vandals have already removed this AfD tag before and it should stay on this article until the matter is resolved. Lughguy 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - well known producer and presenter. I deleted the AfD boilerplates because they were not added as AfD correctly. -- 9cds(talk) 22:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - regional television producer, WP:NN. Also a sad lack of verifiable sources that are not fan/PR-based.--Marysunshine 22:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Producer for Quizmania, a national (once ITV1) show. -- 9cds(talk) 23:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Same user added a mass number of these presenters. -- 9cds(talk) 23:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - nationwide TV presenter and creator of a popular quiz show. SaltyWater 23:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 23:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are all of these really good faith nominations? I don't believe they are. At best, I think we're well in WP:POINT territory; at worst, this smacks of vandalism. -- Captain Disdain 00:17, 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 Userfy. Stifle (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saar Gur

Created by User:Saargur in his only edit. Has no links from any other Wikipedia article. Reads like a resume, and boils down to saying he went to school in various places, has certain family members, and has been an employee of different companies. The one thing that remains that would seem to qualify as suggesting notability is the assertion that he and a business partner started a company, raised $11 million, and sold it. However, I'm unable to verify this, due in no small part to the complete absence of identifying details. --Michael Snow 22:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per A7. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy del. per nom.--cjllw | TALK 00:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete --Deville (Talk) 02:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:53, 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'. --Ezeu 16:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Blurock

Vanity. No assertion of notability. Not much in Google except mirrors, a lawsuit, and philanthropy. Rklawton 20:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Undecided nomination is false, there is an assertion of notability - but it fails to establish the claim from reliable sources, and also fails to establish whether the subject is distinguishable from other architects. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Go back and read it. There is no assertion - unless you count the word prolific. Rklawton 03:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no assertion of notability. Hence I have gone ahead and tagged it speedy delete per A7. TheProject 17:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • 'The most prolific architect in Orange County in the 20th century' is indeed an assertion of notability. I have removed the tag. Snoutwood (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • He's one of the most prelific architects in a very large county fer Pete's sake: not country; not state. County? Gees. And there's no awards cited. Rklawton 20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not speedy, but definitely strongly. NN --Deville (Talk) 02:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but expand and add images of his buildings rather than that rather uninteresting plaque. Presuming the claims in the article are correct, he has designed a number of public buildings and other major structures, a few of which actually have Wikipedia articles of their own. I think this makes him notable enough. In any case, Orange County, California has over 3 million people, which is more than many small countries. Add an {{unreferenced}} tag to the article, and revisit it again in a while if there is any serious argument that it is a hoax. u p p l a n d 07:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Being the "most prolific architect in Orange County in the 20th century" is claim I'd like to see the slightest backing for. And 37 Google hits, few -- if any -- discussing his legacy as an architect. Borderline speedy, despite the seemingly bogus assertions of notability. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and those buildings he's supposed to have designed that have articles? None of the buildings have articles due to architectural significance. --Calton | Talk 01:46, 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 Speedy Keep. Tawker 05:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Scott

delete - Many similar articles on non-notable people have been deleted in the past and there is no reason why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Vandals have already removed this AfD tag before and it should stay on this article until the matter is resolved. Lughguy 22:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, well known presenter. -- 9cds(talk) 23:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Same user added a mass number of these presenters. -- 9cds(talk) 23:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per User:9cds. Also note nominator has been removing information from the article[50] [51] SaltyWater 23:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 23:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are all of these really good faith nominations? I don't believe they are. At best, I think we're well in WP:POINT territory; at worst, this smacks of vandalism. -- Captain Disdain 00:19, 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 09:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Baldry

This appears to be a personal bio. Not sure though. Kukini 05:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Tawker 05:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Baldry (2)

delete - Many similar articles on non-notable people have been deleted in the past and there is no reason why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Vandals have already removed this AfD tag before and it should stay on this article until the matter is resolved. Lughguy 22:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Well known presenter. -- 9cds(talk) 23:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Same user added a mass number of these presenters. -- 9cds(talk) 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per 9cds. SaltyWater 23:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per above. Article does have some POV issues and needs a cleanup. However, this is another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 23:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are all of these really good faith nominations? I don't believe they are. At best, I think we're well in WP:POINT territory; at worst, this smacks of vandalism. -- Captain Disdain 00:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is a relisting of a nomination from February 2006, which was nominated by Kukini and closed as "Speedy Delete" without any discussion (!) by the administrator Sceptre. This re-nomination should definitely mention that it is a re-nomination, and it would be good if Sceptre could explain the rationale for closing the original nomination. --Saforrest 02:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The original article was only the following content: "Lee started out as a marine engineer officer before travelling the world and living in Thailand. He later became a top model, presenting live shows for Barclaycard, Sony and Vodafone. You may recognise him from 90s boyband, Northern Live and his stints on Bid TV and Sky Vegas Live." Sceptre, not unreasonably, felt that this was not quite enough to establish notability. I think the current article makes it more clear, though. Just because something was speedied once does not mean it can ever be created again; speedy deletion is a way of cleaning out the thousand obviously bad/fake/wrong articles we get per day at Wikipedia, sometimes a few things slip through the cracks. (If they are really notable subjects, then someone will soon create a new article about it. Which seems to have been the case here.) --Fastfission 04:45, 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 Keep. Tawker 05:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lottie Mayor

delete - Many similar articles on non-notable people have been deleted in the past and there is no reason why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Vandals have already removed this AfD tag before and it should stay on this article until the matter is resolved. Lughguy 22:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Well known presenter. -- 9cds(talk) 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Lots of theatre and movie credits, easy claim to notability as an actress. Whats with the mass nomination of all the presenters? --Hetar 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per 9cds. SaltyWater 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 23:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are all of these really good faith nominations? I don't believe they are. At best, I think we're well in WP:POINT territory; at worst, this smacks of vandalism. -- Captain Disdain 00:19, 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 Keep. Tawker 05:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beverley French

delete - Many similar articles on non-notable people have been deleted in the past and there is no reason why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Vandals have already removed this AfD tag before and it should stay on this article until the matter is resolved. Lughguy 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Known presenter. -- 9cds(talk) 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Same user added a mass number of these presenters. -- 9cds(talk) 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per 9cds. SaltyWater 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are all of these really good faith nominations? I don't believe they are. At best, I think we're well in WP:POINT territory; at worst, this smacks of vandalism. -- Captain Disdain 00:19, 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 Keep. Tawker 05:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat Porter

delete - Many similar articles on non-notable people have been deleted in the past and there is no reason why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Vandals have already removed this AfD tag before and it should stay on this article until the matter is resolved. Lughguy 22:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Well known presenter. Same person added several of these. -- 9cds(talk) 23:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per 9cds. SaltyWater 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per above, plus very hot (not a reason for inclusion in wikipedia, just needed to be said). Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 23:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are all of these really good faith nominations? I don't believe they are. At best, I think we're well in WP:POINT territory; at worst, this smacks of vandalism. -- Captain Disdain 00:19, 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 Keep. Tawker 05:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Stevens (presenter)

delete - Many similar articles on non-notable people have been deleted in the past and there is no reason why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Vandals have already removed this AfD tag before and it should stay on this article until the matter is resolved. Lughguy 22:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Well known presenter. Same person added several of these. -- 9cds(talk) 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per 9cds. SaltyWater 23:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per above, but cleanup. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 23:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are all of these really good faith nominations? I don't believe they are. At best, I think we're well in WP:POINT territory; at worst, this smacks of vandalism. -- Captain Disdain 00:19, 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 Keep. Tawker 05:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Coxon

delete - Many similar articles on non-notable people have been deleted in the past and there is no reason why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Vandals have already removed this AfD tag before and it should stay on this article until the matter is resolved. Lughguy 22:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Well known presenter. Same person added several of these. -- 9cds(talk) 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per 9cds. SaltyWater 23:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 23:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are all of these really good faith nominations? I don't believe they are. At best, I think we're well in WP:POINT territory; at worst, this smacks of vandalism. -- Captain Disdain 00:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly. Also WP:POINTish as per Disdain --Deville (Talk) 02:26, 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 Keep. Tawker 05:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simeon Courtie

delete - Many similar articles on non-notable people have been deleted in the past and there is no reason why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Vandals have already removed this AfD tag before and it should stay on this article until the matter is resolved. Lughguy 22:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Known presenter. -- 9cds(talk) 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per 9cds. SaltyWater 23:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but expand - as per above, but the article needs some expanding. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 23:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are all of these really good faith nominations? I don't believe they are. At best, I think we're well in WP:POINT territory; at worst, this smacks of vandalism. -- Captain Disdain 00:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Richardcavell 01:11, 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 17:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complete list of streets in Bolivar, West Virginia

Complete lists of streets seems to fall under WP:NOT - I can't see the encyclopedic benefit of this. TheGrappler 23:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate... blah blah blah Badgerpatrol 23:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, per above.--cjllw | TALK 23:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Exterminate before more of these appear -- Hirudo 01:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, now that is crufty --Deville (Talk) 02:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 03:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolutely useless and non-encyclopedic. List of streets in Manhattan should not be a precedent. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Friday, 12 May 2006 @ 17:04 UTC
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Wikipedia is not Mapquest. KleenupKrew 23:15, 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. Users whose only edit are to the deletion debate tend to have their recomendations discounted. - brenneman{L} 10:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Average Homeboy

The article on the subject of this Music Video was previously speedied. This time the creator has made a more attractive page about the music video, instead of just about the person. It still looks like nothing more than an amatuer music video, and I see no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC or notability/verifiability guidelines. Bringing here for greater discussion/community input. --Hetar 23:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an internet meme, a popular viral video. I wouldn't keep this page on its music credentials. Keep it because it's a significant internet meme. -nathan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.166.237 (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete. Not encyclopaedically notable. Zaxem 04:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic, and because it's an internet meme, and I feel that memes are inherently not encyclopedia material. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do research first I don't know what kind of rap was done in the 80's specially not by white rappers. If it's one of the first kind, it may be worth a small paragraph in a more approprate topic regarding Rap. (Vince)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.98.246.93 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep People need to feel the Blazin Heat!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.137.175.71 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.25.161 (talk • contribs) .
  • KeepPopular internet meme. RidE the Lightning! 01:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - If you want to delete this just because it's an internet meme, then you should also delete: Numa Numa, Star Wars Kid, Bubb Rubb, Leeroy Jenkins, Badger Badger Badger, Dancing Banana, Dog poop girl, Goatse.cx, Tubgirl, other similar Shock sites, as well as the other hundred+ articles linked in Internet Phenomenon and, why not, the Internet Phenomenon article itself. I'm not necessarilly saying that internet memes are encyclopedic, but if you want to delete this one, then you have a lot of work ahead of you in deleting the rest. Also, and no offense to this site (I love Wikipedia), but there is a lot of stuff on here that is "unencyclopedic" (not a word, btw), but that is part of what we all love about this site. You can't open up the Encyclopædia Britannica at your local library and find the information you're looking for on up-to-date pop culture, Flavor Flav, Manbearpig, Casa Bonita or whatever other random things you're interested, including internet memes. Wikipedia is the place that people come to find out random information in a clear understandable format. Articles on things such as Average Homeboy make the sight what it is, so I say keep it! --Btb01 04:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. Also because Denny Blaze is a total dude Slickshoes3234 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per CSD G4. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 01:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blupantha

Recreation of twice-deleted content from The Blue Panther. See previous deletions here and here. It might be a good idea to do something about User:Far2steep who recreated the pages. Grover cleveland 23:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Far2steep also wiped Blue Panther and replaced it with the deleted content. See history. Grover cleveland 23:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a {{db-g4}} for recreated articles, you know. Speedy delete and tagged per G4. TheProject 00:42, 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 merge/redirect to Blue Frog. --Ezeu 16:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PharmaMaster

Non-notable, possibly non-existent spammer. Don't let the external link fool you. The article is not about PharmaMaster, it just quotes a Blue Frog person who claims that this person exists. Judging by this quote attributed to him—"Blue found the right solution to stop spam, and I can't let this continue."—he seems to be a modern day Emmanuel Goldstein. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

+ Merge and redirect to Blue Frog--TheDoober 18:43, 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. Proto||type 11:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garbasail

It looks like some guys messing about with duct tape and trash bags. Appears to be a vanity page. Joyous | Talk 23:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - although the page is vanity, and probably also original research, it seems notable enough to keep it here. He's not trying to make money out of it, and it's no worse than the Star Wars Kid or other memes that catch on for their 15 minutes of fame. - Richardcavell 01:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "He's not trying to make money out of it" is hardly a reason to keep the page, and this is hardly a meme on the scale of the Star Wars kid. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - While it may not be an intensely popular sport, this appears to be more than just a couple of bored guys. There are several teams, including one in Brazil, that are active participants. There are also techniques for construction and piloting that go beyond simply "duct tape and trash bags." If anything, maybe this article should be expanded with more details. - --geoff, 71.96.104.114 01:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: "There have been 6 Garbasails that have achieved flight. The first four being a product of the creator, Josh Levine." Clearly not a significant trend. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am an outsider to the world of Garbasailing, but I appreciate having a place where i can see where this up and coming sport is going. P.S. don't fly your sails near power lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.198.93.189 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Being initiator of the Texas division of the Garbasailing community I feel that the sport is in the beginning stages of its popularity. After me and my team built our garbasail it has sparked interest in many other groups across the state. --Cale —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kicknit2 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)., whose only other contribution is to this article.
  • Delete, original research, WP:NFT, etc. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable original research. See also Josh Levine. Fagstein 22:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity page and OR. KleenupKrew 23:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Dr Zak 23:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The sport is in the beginning stages of its popularity.... come back later. TheMadBaron 21:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Garbasailing is a unique combination of art and athleticism, uncorrupted by corporations, thus making it not very well known, do not squelch the future, try it.--71.96.224.40 23:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Paul
    • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't create articles in the hope that things will eventually become notable enough to be included in here. Fagstein 06:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page. Mrees1997 23:04, 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. Rx StrangeLove 03:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Struggle over Palestine/outline

Sandbox, no major edits since 2004, of an article that has since been turned into a redirect. TheGrappler 23:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete, per nom, not useful.--cjllw | TALK 23:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 23:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Allen 01:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 02:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per subpage policy. Stifle (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This might conceivably have eben a sueful page if it had been written, rather than being left as a list of headings. Peterkingiron 01:15, 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 redirect. TheProject 00:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rutilius Namatianus

duplicate article; 1911 article already in Wikipedia under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutilius_Claudius_Namatianus FeanorStar7 23:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Thats not a reason to delete, it proves notability and verifiability. Clearly it needs to be wikified and a good cleanup. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not a good reason to keep. It's a perfect reason to speedy redirect, and I'm not exactly sure why this wasn't done. I've gone ahead and done that. TheProject 00:12, 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.