Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 16 May 18 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] May 17

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Drini 04:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UUCCD

Amateur film project with extremely limited release. Joyous! 00:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom --Strothra 00:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete google search finds nothing but gibrish and Swedish libraries (???). --Eivindt@c 00:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. IrishGuy 00:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page. The full name pulls up zero Google hits. Aplomado talk 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing verified at all. Kevin 01:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, and abbreviated name has only 404 GHits. My guess is that the organization is a 404. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 01:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 02:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: There isn't a single relevant google hit, under either the acronym or the fully expanded name. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 02:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity page. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 04:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page. --Dakart 05:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:FILM, vanity.--Dakota ~ 05:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity (nice pictures though.) Rockpocket (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above arguments. Metamagician3000 13:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn Computerjoe's talk 14:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm curious: who is it who "almost always" refers to this as UUCCD? I don't see much evidence that anybody refers to it as anything. Just zis Guy you know? 14:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Amateurvanitycruft. Beno1000 19:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:FILM ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:51, 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. -- Drini 04:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilman vs. The Rominator

Delete: Completely non notable short-lived comic strip. Unverifiable notability with extremely small publication area. Strothra 00:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Zero G-hits. This is probably a hoax. Aplomado talk 01:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete zero Ghits for the strip or the creator. I find the comment about eBay listings to be dubious at best. IrishGuy 01:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing verified, and a search of eBay revealed nothing. Kevin 01:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax-ish comic strip with dubious background. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: per all. :) Dlohcierekim 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Total Google hits come up as dry as a desert each time I look this up. Delete as a bogus hoax. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 04:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Original copies occasionally appear for sale on eBay and can fetch a hefty sum from collectors., and searching eBay via both their search function and google provides absolutely nothing. For that matter, a google search for 'Gilman vs. The Rominator' results in absolutely nothing relevant (aside from a suggeted spelling, which doesn't have anything relevant, either). Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems unverifiable. PJM 11:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I started this article a few days ago. It definitely fulfills the "notable" requirement because of its large regional cult following and its potential as an influence on current cartoons like South Park, etc. It is definitely not a hoax, I used to collect this comic years ago. I have watched several auctions on ebay regarding this comic over the years. They do not come up very often, though, so it's not surprising that your search of ebay today did not find anything. It also is not surprising that your Google search yielded few results - it hasn't been published in 15 years so obviously it is not going to have an active homepage. This is certainly not a reason to ignore its contribution to underground comic history. Another point - shortly after I made this article, it was edited by another anonymous user and more detail was added. I checked the IP address of this user and it is maps to Milwaukee, the region where this comic was popular. The fact that someone from this area found the page and edited within days of the article's creation clearly indicates interest in the topic. Amazinglarry 14:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
comment If there was any chance at all that this comic was a potential influence on current cartoons like South Park then it would be verifiable. As it stands, there is no evidence at all that this thing ever existed. IrishGuy 19:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: I added a clarification regarding the distribution of the comic to the article (it was available around the midwest, not just Wisconsin), maybe this will address some of your concerns. If anyone has any other suggestions please let me know. I would love to keep this article here and I am very serious about becoming a regular contributor of high quality content to Wikipedia. I have been reading the site for years and finally decided to start adding some of my own input, and I hope you will not simply decide to can this article because I am a new user. Please see non-homologous end joining for tangible evidence of my desire to improve wikipedia, I've added some detailed informatin to the NHEJ article and I am going to add some citations in the next few days. Thanks in advance for helping me to improve this article and save it from deletion! Amazinglarry 14:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT, which is what this seems to be. I have an identical-sounding cartoon drawn by one of my dad's students (Muchmore was his name) - the Mighty Much cartoon was hugely poipular in its day, but with a highly select audience... Just zis Guy you know? 15:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable in the least.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NFT ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:51, 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. Mostly Rainy 11:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] America Is in the Heart

Delete as non notable book, if neccesary to keep then Merge with Carlos Bulosan. Strothra 01:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge. Amazon shows this book cited in 51 others, so it should have a place on Wikipedia somewhere. Kevin 01:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if expanded merge if not American Patriot 1776 01:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but only if expanded, per Kevin M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge; if kept it should be moved to "America is in the Heart". Bucketsofg✐ 02:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 04:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP as it is a very notable book for American Ethnic studies courses in many universities. Peoplestruth 05:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It needs to be expanded, though. Most books on Wikipedia are listed separate from their authors.--Dakart 05:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Rockpocket (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Book notability guidelines, suggesting that any book with an ISBN (which this has) and that is available in multiple libraries (which I haven't checked, but it is available on Amazon), is notable enough to have an article. This book has an entry on Amazon, it has somewhere in the region of 31,100 relevant google hits, and its author has a large amount of relevant results (around 45,000/50,000). Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, not a vanity release, popular book. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Either expand or merge.--Jusjih 13:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Doug (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since notability is not a policy when reguarding books. ---J.S (t|c) 16:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. leave for expansion.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep – and expand, obviously. Possibly merge if not, though I'd keep it separate – Gurch 12:05, 18 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. --MONGO 07:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aww Nigga

A video clip featured on http://www.awwnigga.com/. I don't see any claims to notability, and the website itself has no Alexa rank. --Hetar 01:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. Likely just an advertisement--Conrad Devonshire Talk 01:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete adcruft. What it takes for people to get off these days... Aplomado talk 01:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete frankly, this should be speedied for being pure nonsense. There is nothing encyclopedic about a homemade porn film. IrishGuy 01:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Dear Lord. - Richardcavell 01:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per IrishGuy M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete racist junk. Notability not established. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Needs to go. Per Nom. Navou talk 02:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn. --Hyperbole 02:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete for the love of all things good and true BigDT 05:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per the above. Gyre 05:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of internet memes or whatever that article is. This is popular on teh intarwebs for some reason. --Rory096 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Where's an admin when you need one! ;) If someone wants he or she should add this to the "internet memes" page listed above... But it is not worthy of its own page.--Dakart 05:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I tagged it as db-nonsense, but another editor removed my tag. I maintain that this portion of the definion of patent nonsense fits: Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever. Even if it doesn't, certainly this "Tone" fellow and his friends are non-notable. So delete it as a vanity article. This is most certainly an "addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." So speedy it as vandalism. This article gives us no context on which to base expansion. That's another criterion for an article speedy. So pick one - A1, A7, G1, G3 - just speedy it.  ;) BigDT 06:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Per nom. Total garbage. Ckessler 06:32, 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 deleted --cesarb 01:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Governor industries

Advertising, original research. Previously speedied. Accurizer 01:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete incredibly non notable advertising. The article even makes it clear: The company currently has 4 members and is gaining popularity throughout. Four members? That pretty much sums it up. IrishGuy 01:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Hi I'm GoVernor Voxaman and I own Governor Industries." Hi, Governor. Delete at any velocity, the faster the better. Aplomado talk 01:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as reposting of previously deleted content. WP:CSD G4 applies. I have tagged the article also. Kevin 01:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ASAP. Cordless Larry 01:24, 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 Weak keep. Computerjoe's talk 15:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National association of investors corporation

This reads like an advert. Cordless Larry 01:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. However badly this article is written, it seems that they are notable. This link shows their chairman ringing the bell at the NYSE. I'll make some attempts at a cleanup. Kevin 01:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain The article is amazingly terrible, and even its title (which should be "National Association of Investors Corporation") is poor, but with that said, I can't figure out if this is worth a rewrite or not. If Kevin1243 is going to attempt it, then by all means, do so. But for now, I'm just going to vote with a no vote. -- Kicking222 01:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm going to try the old wipe it clean and let someone start again, and it'll end up better than trying to clean this up trick. - Richardcavell 02:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this is a ridiculously redundant title. Association and Corporation in the same title? wtf? M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That is the actual title of the organization. GRBerry 01:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep per Kevin and 45000 Ghits M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Kevin. As painful as it is, someone should pity on it and clean it up. Rockpocket (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, per the 44,600 relevant google hits (when excluding Wikipedia and mirrors). The article does read like an advertisement, and though the majority of hits are relevant, they all appear along the lines of a single, few-word definition that's identical to what our article has (though this looks promising). Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been boning up on investing lately, and a few of the books I've blown through on the topic have said that they are one of the best sources for people interested in starting or joining an investment club. GRBerry 01:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Maybe rewriting the article will make it better.--Jusjih 13:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Put a cleanup tag on the article to get attention (it seems like this has already been done). I'm not a fan of deleting articles that can be cleaned up and expanded. --Quintin3265 21:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Seriously, does anyone know if the AfD helper automatically inserts the image on a whim, or what? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Shall I take the delete tag off now since we've already started to re-write? Cordless Larry 14:12, 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. -- Drini 04:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Kramer

Probable hoax. Google search for Kramer Saint Louis University comic produces no relevant hits except Wikipedia and mirrors. Prod removed without comment. -- JLaTondre 01:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's either a hoax or spectacularly non-notable. Pretty much all of the Google hits reference the movie. Aplomado talk 01:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable at best. More likely a thinly disguised attack page. Fan1967 01:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This seems a far stretch from notability. Kevin 02:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It doesn't matter if it's a hoax or not. As Apolmado stated perfectly, it's "spectacularly non-notable" either way. Even if the comic exists... whoop de do. It's a comic in a university newspaper. That might be even lower on the list of "non-notable comics" than a web comic. -- Kicking222 02:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Aplomado talk. Gyre 05:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 09:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing relevant for Andrew Kramer, nothing relevant for Kramer vs Kramer. Not notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google gets about 43500 hits.--Jusjih 14:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That's if you only search for "Andrew Kramer". There are a lot of people named Andrew Kramer. This article isn't about a person. It's about a specific comic strip that has no Google hits except Wikipedia and mirrors. -- JLaTondre 18:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kicking, and because I am sure we've seen this before - and because in the end I could not verify this from any obvious reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 15:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if not a hoax then non-notable. Rjm656s 17:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:52, 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. -- Drini 04:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan eng

Tagged for speedy deletion; contested. Contains mild assertion of notability--sending to you guys for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 01:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. No Google hits in a search for his name in conjunction with "Bushanomics," so I must assume that this is a vanity page. Aplomado talk 01:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be hoax. A number of guys by that name, but none match the details. Random House has not published any such book. Fan1967 02:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Based on [this], which matches the name of both his grammar school (middle school?) and high school, he's still in high school. Fan1967 03:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete fewer than 2000 ghits, and it's possible that they're not even related to the subject M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If it's not a hoax, it's self-promotion. Or it's both. Probably both. -- Kicking222
  • Delete The publication info is written in future tense, but dated in the past, so I guess the publication didn't happen Kevin 02:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 03:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Does the assertion here strike you as saying that David Kennedy mentions Eng or that he mentions people like him? This was the original confusion that led me not to speedy this thing. Does anyone have the current edition of the book at hand? Chick Bowen 03:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • To me it reads like a very carefully worded evasion. Reading that, you could read it as Kennedy mentions Eng, and Eng has been on those TV shows. Or, more likely true, Kennedy mentions US citizens and Eng is one, and Kennedy has been on those shows. It could be read either way. Fan1967 03:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This edit [1] convinces me he's still a high school student, and made up the rest after the {{db-bio}} tag was put on the article. Fan1967 03:56, 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. Kusma (討論) 02:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christine Robinson

Completing the nomination by an anon. editor - User:69.143.30.51 Kevin 02:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete nonnotable bio per A7 and fails WP:BIO M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what that person said. 7th place water polo team?! Someone appears to have made bios of a ridiculous number of Canadians who were at the 2004 Olympics. Olympian does not = notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.30.51 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment If you plan on nominating a lot of articles for deletion, PLEASE register and get an ID so you can complete the process. IP's cannot create deletion articles. Fan1967 03:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair Warning Same IP has nominated a bunch more. Guess he doesn't like Canadian athletes who didn't medal. He's now discovering he can't complete the AfD articles without registering first. Fan1967 04:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There were no fewer than 26 tagged last time (the Baumann one). -- Jonel | Speak 04:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep I don't see anything wrong with this article besides being very short. People will expand it over time. Are you trying to challenge the notability of this (obviously) notable bio? Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 04:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep this and any other of Olympic bio articles this anon has tagged. Let's not encourage further time waste on this. --Rob 06:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, being recognised among the best of the best at anything is notable in my book. Rockpocket (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, article is indeed very short, but athletes who have participated in the Olympics are notable. JIP | Talk 08:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per precedent on Olympic athletes, since they all meet WP:BIO's standards for athletic achievement. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per ranking 7th in a world-wide compitition. ---J.S (t|c) 16:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep competition merits inclusion, but lack of medalling worries me ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Week keep, the lack of medalling also worries me. However, as other users have stated, all olympic athletes meet WP:BIO. Personally I would prefer to delete articles like these, but wikipedia consensus is against that. Falphin 23:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - if lack of medalling was a concern, then not being in the top three teams in the world would get a weak keep. At the moment the England football team hasn't come third in the world cup yet in recent times, so this might mean that David Beckham would be weak keep? on that reasoning alone. Being in the 7th best team in the world is certainly much higher than being a band member of some random band and getting a WP bio.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • According to Wikipedia, 11,099 people competed at the 2004 Olympics. The Olympics occur every two years, and while there is a lot of overlap (i.e. many people compete in two Olympics), even if we assume that half of all competitors will do so, that's still over 5000 new biographies every two years. Of course, what really happens is that the athletes from countries with better technology access have stub bios put up regardless of how well they did, and the athletes from other nations are ignored (Nigerian bronze medalist Christy Opara-Thompson has no bio despite her bronze medal; Jamaican multi-medalist Juliet Cuthbert, ditto). I recognize that I am not an established Wikipedia editor and therefore unlikely to change the minds of those who are, but the staggering number of cheap bios that would result from a genuine policy of "all Olympians are notable," or the nationalistic bias that is what really occurs, were what led me to nominate for deletion the three-sentence bios of Olympians who have never medalled nor competed professionally. However, if so many are passionately committed to the inclusion of every Olympian, perhaps they could put some work into those bios and also reduce the tendency of profiling only people from wealthier and English-speaking nations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.30.51 (talk • contribs)
    Every single competitor (at least, those whose names were recorded) at the 1896 Summer Olympics has an article. See Category:Competitors at the 1896 Summer Olympics. Also take a browse through Category:Competitors at the 2004 Summer Olympics - I'm not even sure I can pronounce half the names of the people found there. There is a quite-active WikiProject dedicated to expanding coverage of the Olympics. While there are a lot of editors that add sportspersons they are familiar with first, and while it is a fact of life that this being the English Wikipedia sportspersons from English-speaking nations are usually the easiest to find information on, there are some of us who do work to make our coverage comprehensive. We will get there. I invite you to help out yourself—we could always use more helping hands. -- Jonel | Speak 04:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Scoo 16:53, 18 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. Rje 12:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of films with one sequel

  • Keep - Just as useful as Trilogies and Series. If you see something missing just add it. It may never be complete, but neither are pages about living people or current events.

Indiscriminate collection of data. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete just what Wikipedia is not. Kevin 02:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete an indiscriminate collection of data to be sure, but, as the author said, "It is comparable to 'List of film trilogies' and 'List of film series'" M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is not that indiscriminate. Wikipedia is not paper encyclopedia. Besides, someone a hundred years ago might say, “Hmmm, I wonder which films had but one sequel.” :) Dlohcierekim 03:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't think there's a term for these series yet (duplogy? :) ), but I felt these pairs were as worthy of a list as trilogies and series. Tim Long
  • Keep - I don't think there's a problem with keeping this list. - Richardcavell 05:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's not indiscriminate, but I can't see any possible use for it. JIP | Talk 08:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Can't say I'm enthused by it, but to disallow this is to diallow the list of film trilogies, which would be nonsense. Vizjim 09:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or else we'll have list of films with two sequels and list of films with three sequels etc... Where would it stop. Ydam 09:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What we have is, as it says on the page, a "list of one-off films", a "list of films with one sequel", a "list of trilogies" and a "list of film series" (series being taken to mean more than a trilogy, e.g. Aliens franchise)Vizjim 09:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • hmm In that case I change to weak keep per what you just said. I must have missed that first time I looked at the page. Ydam 10:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This will be, at best, a vague list. Sequels are so incredibly common that any effort to maintain this list will be difficult at best. Trilogies, while common, are still rarer by a significant magnitude. That being said, if some editors of a particularly industrious bent want to keep the list fresh and current, who am I to stop them. It's all according to the rules, after all. --Agamemnon2 10:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't an extremely notable topic and some of the lists in the series (especially the one-offs) would probably become excessively long. Cedars 13:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The parameters are poorly defined, the list can never be complete, and after all that it's useless. What reason could anyone possibly have for wanting to know what movies have one sequel? By the way, I would also vote "delete" for the "list of one-off films", "list of trilogies", etc. Listcruft, all of it. Kafziel 13:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT listcruft, unmaintainable, pointless. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless. Presumably they move from this list to another as the second and subsequent sequels are rleeased? On second thoughts, I don't care. Just zis Guy you know? 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a cruftastrophe. PJM 17:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Is THAT a neologism?? <grin> :) Dlohcierekim 17:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It's neologism-cruft. Maybe. :) PJM 18:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-defined list with obvious appeal for users who want to know if a film has a sequel. That would seem rather important given the amount of money that is invested/made on these sequels. It also raises serious questions about why certain films got a sequel in the first place, or why certain sequels didn't lead to series a la Star Wars? Nothing pointless or indiscriminate about that and lot's of room for development. -- JJay 21:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So first they've got to guess if it's one sequel or multiple sequels and pick the right listcruft... Just zis Guy you know? 21:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have faith that our users/readers are intelligent enough to do research, find the right list and go from there. However, why is it that people who want to delete articles of this type feel obligated to use words like "pointless", "I don't care" and "listcruft"? Belittling other people's contributions is not the way to contribute constructively to the discussion. -- JJay 18:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep – potentially useful list – Gurch 21:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If anything, should be turned into a category. Aguerriero (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete will never move past listcruft ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just a thought, but maybe this list (and the other similar ones) could be replaced by categories? That wouldn't be quite as useful (you wouldn't have them clustered), but at least it would still let a user find the tagged movies. -- Zawersh 07:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename - List of film duologies Lady Aleena 09:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a useless list, with arbitrary criteria for inclusion. See WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment:How is a series of TWO films arbitrary? I think it is pretty specific. Lady Aleena 03:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless and would have to be continually updated. Technically two films constitutes a series, anyway, so that topic is already covered. I would, however, support a listing of true duologies -- not sequels, but actual continuations of the storyline. Had there only been two Lord of the Rings books, for example, then Fellowship and Two Towers would be a true duology. Deuce Bigalow Male Gigolo and Deuce Bigalow European Gigolo is not a duology. 23skidoo 15:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: List of film series is for any series of films with 4 or more films in it. Duologies and trilogies do not belong on that list. In regards to your comparison of LOTR and Deuce Bigalow, it is like comparing a animal with a mineral. They are completely different. (Personally I can't stand either.) I don't think that the film people would have a problem keeping the list updated. Lady Aleena 18:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: more useless listcruft, we already have Category:Sequel films. --Hetar 19:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The category is useless if the two films do not have similar names. I did not know The Chronicles of Riddick was a sequel to Pitch Black until after I watched the movie and then looked up the information on IMDb. I just thought Chronicles looked to be a neat sci-fi movie by the silent watching of the TV spots. (I mute commercials.) So, some duologies out there with vastly different titles would not be quickly noticable without the list to point it out. Lady Aleena 03:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Note:The page has been moved to List of film duologies and the AfD tag stripped off. I will be retoring it until such time as this discussion is over. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep per Lady Aleena, Dlohcierekim and Richard Cavell. And don't worry, the folks at WikiProject Films are faithful, nay, zealous about keeping such lsist up to date. Her Pegship 06:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep encyclopedic list with a reasonable criterion of inclusion.  Grue  13:55, 21 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. Kusma (討論) 02:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matt K. Miller

Marked as nn-bio, but he's a real voice actor so I thought I'd bring it here. I should add that I don't really have a opinion on this, I brought it here because I took a speedy tag off. Put a gun to my head and I'd probably keep it. Rx StrangeLove 02:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. IMDB shows 41 voice roles, with the last in 2004, so I don't think he is notable enough per WP:BIO. Kevin 02:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - let's not be harsh. It doesn't harm wikipedia to include him. A few of his roles are notable (though it seems that he is B-list). - Richardcavell 02:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It would be different if he were the voice of the main character of a series, but there are far too many one-shots and "Additional Voice" credits to make him notable. -- Grev 03:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but only because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia :) Dlohcierekim 03:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Switch to STRONG KEEP, per Ghits. :) Dlohcierekim 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete 41 voice roles but none are main characters. I don't like to be harsh, but this may seem non-notable. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 04:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Yeah he's B-list, but I think he is worthy of a page here.--Dakart 05:54, 17 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 06:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, notable enough for me. hateless 07:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Noteworthy enough. Vizjim 09:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google gets 23700 hits.--Jusjih 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep': Let this page stay.---User:Rtkat3 11:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep 40 voices would be notable in a radio actor, in a video game voice? I have no idea. Seems to be B-list, as Dakart says, but since we routinely keep all the way down to Z-list I'd say this is OK. Just zis Guy you know? 15:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep since he had a speaking part in Gods and Generals, and a quite a few notable video games. ---J.S (t|c) 16:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Notable video game? Does not compute :-) Just zis Guy you know? 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep People who seem to be B-List are notable enough for Wikipedia. Beno1000 19:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep semi notable voice actor ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:54, 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. -- Drini 04:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperactive Forums

  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}}

Largely 1st hand article about an online forum that is largely about an Australian gaming magazine, Hyper (magazine) which already has an article. I would normally say merge, but most of the info on this page is unencylocpedic has no really bearing on the magazine so Delete CHANLORD [T]/[C] 02:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a blog. If you remove all the cruft, then the remainder is less than a stub. Kevin 02:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kevin: Uses “we/my” statements-- Wikipedia is not a blog. Not notable, only about 2,000 G-hits, not all relevant to subject. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web) :) Dlohcierekim
  • Keep* The Hyperactive Forums serves as the offical website for the Hyper (magazine) and with editors pressence on the forums and often recruiting the forums for alot of their magazine articles. The forums serve a purpose as a medium between the Hyper staff and it's readers. They deserve their own page in history, even if the forum is unknown to you, it's known to countless others. And is in no way presented as a blog. Zip_it007
  • Delete There are a lot of gaming forums. This is one of them. Alexa 491,260. Fan1967 04:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kevin. Non notable blogcruft. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 04:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep* The Hyperactive Forums serves as a community for those who like to talk about Gaming and just anything. Because of this, groups are formed, people get to know each other and gain friendships and many stories come out of this community because of this. This entry serves as a history of the goings on of the Hyperactive forums over it's lifespan and I see no reason for deletion as this section is not a blog, but a chronicalisation of Hyperactives History.Sloppy Sailor
    • The preceding comment was actually added by 138.130.7.83 Kevin 06:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep* Leave your ignorance at the door. This forum is the biggest gaming forum for Australian gamers. It has a history rich in intrigue. We promise to get rid of the shit (ie, anything that Mav/LXS wrote) because we agree it's rubbish. Besides that though, the entry is worthy and important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.116.234 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above, in particular the unsubstantiated claims about the sheer pwning power of the forums. Wikipedia is not not a host or webspace provider, and the history of the forums would be better catered for by a series of posts in a locked and stickied thread on the forum itself, as opposed to an external site. If evidence showing the impact of the forums can be demonstrated through the use of reliable and external third party sources, and by using these sources the information in the article can be verified, it would pass the WP:WEB inclusion criteria. (Note: Hyper Magazine would not qualify as an external, third party source. However, I am happy to settle for a Mention in and redirect to Hyper (magazine), limited to the existence of the forums, and what can be externally verified as true and summed up in a couple of paragraphs. -- saberwyn 06:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep* The forum is one of the most relevant sites on the net for Australian gamers. Agentknight
    • Would you be so kind as to provide a citation from a reliable, external source (such as some form of printed media, newspaper article, or published non-fiction book) to back up this claim? -- saberwyn 06:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: A number of these votes are from very new or anon logins and are most likely contributing because they are posters on the board that this article is about. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Every website that has a forum cannot (and shold not) be noted independently. Rockpocket (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete despite diligent meatpuppetry. Aplomado talk 07:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 07:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. After seeing so many votes beginning with "Do not delete", I was ready to vote delete without even reading the article, but then I went ahead and read it anyway, and found it to be your basic forum vanity. JIP | Talk 08:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another forum bites the dust. Vizjim 09:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Considering there hasn't been a single Keep vote I don't think this will last long. Ydam 09:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. (watch your userpage etc. if you comment here, see [2]. that thread also has their request for people to vote "Do Not Delete"). --james °o 10:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: also note this diff where someone made the "Do Not Delete"s into "Keep"s to make them look less suspicious... --james °o 10:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: the edit of Do not Delete to keep was in response to Ydam's comment. Zip it007 10:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure forumcruft. A typical gem of prose: Luckily, Mykle's excellent name for our group, Pressed Pork, fell through and he suggested the League of Extraordinary Spammers – LXS for short - turning spam into an art form, while I conjured up our infamous signature, which to this day remains banned on this very forum. Yeah. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most of the contents of the article are of no interest to anyone outside the forum. I do not need to know how the moderators are, what "awards" the forum hands out to particularly blameless pedestrians, or what have you. It's all very introverted information. I'd like some exformation for a change. --Agamemnon2 10:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. You are all nazi editors that take this simple article too seriously, the forums should be documented amoung all the other rubbish that is here. 211.30.210.79 10:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Whoops! You just fell foul of Godwin's Law, and automatically lose the debate. Vizjim 11:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a metaphor, you fail at the english. The fancy terms used to describe it does not make your opinion superior.211.30.210.79 15:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It's a metaphor Thats exactly why Godwins law applies here. If it wasn't a metaphor then Godwins law wouldn't apply would it.Ydam 16:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--cj | talk 11:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "It's all very introverted information. I'd like some exformation for a change." <-- Wow, I can see how you got to be a Mod around here.
    • Comment: User:Agamemnon2, who wrote the "exformation" text quoted above, is a regular user, not an administrator. See this list. JIP | Talk 14:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are towns that have less people in it than our forums and they get mentions here. God knows their far more boring and useless than this.Failing that can we just get this added onto Hyper mags wiki? After all they are involved here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.41.1 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment It's fine for anyone to tack information about the magazine's forum onto the end of the main article, as long as it meets our rules - the article we're talking about here is just some sort of blog/history of a non-notable (by our standards) forum. If you want to mention the forum in the main mag's article, you probably won't be challenged :) --james °o 11:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. TheMadBaron 11:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete entirely non-notable forum. --Roisterer 12:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. michael talk 12:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment note that this page has been edited by 203.134.138.150 to change "delete" votes to "keep", blanked and AfD tagged. TheMadBaron 13:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable and definately not encyclopediac material. Peripitus 13:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Chanlord, TheMadBaron & Kevin were all members of Hyperactive until their respective bannings. This AFD could infact be there way of revenge agaisnt the forum who banned them. Request this article be Kept not deleted. Why should it be deleted because of some angry ex-members. Zip it007 13:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply: I have only signed up to the Hyperactive forums today to reply to comments made about me (and my personal life) on the forums. And I have posted on these today and have not been banned. I nominated this article for deletion prior to even visiting the forum's website -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 13:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment Nice try, but I think you girls lost all credibilty the moment you vandalised the page. TheMadBaron 13:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment regardless of their opinion's the reason people are voting delete it is because it does not meet the criteria set down in WP:WEB. Nobody here votes one way or the other simply because thats what other voters do Ydam 13:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Not to mention that AfD is not a vote in the first place, so telling everyone to come here and 'vote' doesn't mean the page won't be deleted anyway. WP:ISNOT a democracy and closing admins are intelligent enough to work out who's meatpuppeting :) --james °o 14:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If these are the official forums for this magazine, then a short piece of info on the forums should be in the article for the magazine. The forums themselves are just another Internet bulletin board. -- Kicking222 13:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN forum, fails WP:WEB. As is typical with forum articles, contains no information that would be interesting or useful for anyone not already familiar with the forum, and most of the article is stuff that should really be hosted by the forum itself (list of admins, list of ex-members, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Kafziel 13:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Hyperactive Forums are different to other forums. They have a unique and diverse culture that cannot be found anywhere else. Just look at how the forumers have banded together in an attempt to keep the work they have worked so hard to create. These forums have over 3000 registered users, many who contribute in their own way. In a way, the forums are really a community of gamers. Being the Internet, how else is it possible for a community to exist without a way of communicating? -FrozenSoul80202.61.229.215 14:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Just about every forum article ever posted to AfD has had its users "banded together in an attempt to keep the work they have worked so hard to create." That's why they had to create that big white box up there. Not unique or notable, I'm afraid. Delete — AKADriver ☎ 15:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What's more, might I add, forum members banding together in an AfD discussion, in an attempt to save their forum, will generally make Wikipedians want to delete it even more. JIP | Talk 19:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly both unencyclopedic and non-notable. The magazine has an article, and a brief mention of an online forum can be made there. —CuiviénenT|C, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 @ 14:13 UTC
  • Delete POV article packed with vanity namechecks. No evodence of meeting the usual guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, unsourced, and non-notable. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic, unsourced. Rjm656s 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, mention inside the article about the magazine these forums are "linked to". LjL 18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, please! Unencyclopedic and not funny at all. --Ouro 18:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --cholmes75 20:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete – non-notable online forum – Gurch 21:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just don't see the point of this being on Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to serve anyone but forum members - which means it should be on the forum's webspace. Aguerriero (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm a game magazine editor, plenty of experience in the professional game review industry and I've never heard of these forums before, and only briefly of the magazine.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's the largest multiplatform magazine in Australia. It’s been around for over 10 years. I just find it odd that a game editor as yourself has only briefly heard of it, even if you are from another country. I guess Australia is ever more isolated from the rest of the world than I originally thought. By the way, we also have electricity! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.94.127 (talk • contribs) .
Please keep the discussion relating to the Hyperactive Forums AFD debate and not the Hyper (magazine) article. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 02:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the "nazi-editors". --Eivindt@c 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete only 20 sites link here? what? M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:49, 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 Redirect to Parahuman. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human-animal hybrid

  • Delete - Wikipedia should not be a place to list your favorite or least favorite quotes. This page is worthless to the Wikipedia community. I believe that all useful information should be moved to Bushism and Parahumans. Then the page should redirect to Parahumans. Dakart 02:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What you're basically asking for then is a merge and redirect. That does not require a deletion at any stage, and this should have never come to AfD. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - there is such a thing as an animal-human hybrid. Specifically, if one were to include the nuclear DNA of a human but the mitochondria of a pig ovum, then you'd have a plausible creature (and one that is probably technically possible today). This is to what GW Bush was referring, even though he probably doesn't realise it. - Richardcavell 02:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Move the information currently in there to Bushism and then rewrite the article to what Human-animal hybrids actually are. Beno1000 19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but that's why we have pages such as, Parahuman and Chimera. The useful info on this page should be moved to those and then this page should be redirected there. The quote, "Human-animal hybrid" should be moved to Bushism. --comment added by Dakart
  • As it looks now, I vote to delete as a neologism, as the article itself doesn't even explain what the word refers to (other than to point us to Chimera and Parahuman). -- Grev 03:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge per Dakart, please. Article is about a Bushism. As such, it is as about as complete as possible. Needs to be w/ other Bushism, w/ "see also" to Chimera and Parahuman). :) Dlohcierekim 03:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to parahuman or Bushism. It's a nice little article (or would be once you take out the commentary about Bush's religion) that references a political discussion that has attracted notice of the President and references National Geographic. Also probably lose the picture, whatever it is. Anyway, "Delete and merge" is an odd vote- illegal under the GFDL unless you want some history merge- and I think it would be worth a redirect. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Parahuman, which already has all relevant info there. If our readers want to learn more about Bushisms, we can just put a small link to that article in the Parahuman article's sentence on the Bush quote.--Pharos 06:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I moved all the relevant info to the Parahuman page and the Bushism page. I agree that we should redirect. --comment added by Dakart
  • Redirect. This shouldn't really have come here. Vizjim 09:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. It has sources, but these aren't relevant to the topic of the article (George W. Bush), and the topic Parahuman already mentions and expands on. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Pharos and others. Paddles 13:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect seems to work. Just zis Guy you know? 15:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect – keep and redirect to Parahuman as suggested above – Gurch 21:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to parahuman and Bushism. - CNichols 23:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, with no useful information. Most likely, though, it's because I have a POV very different from the author's. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of most egregious abuses of medical research. Ewlyahoocom 21:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete iff We will kill them in the shithouse is deleted.  Grue  13:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to parahuman and Bushism. Joffeloff 16:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - What an amazingly useless Wikipedia article. Not only does this add nothing at all to Wikipedia, there's already an article for it here Parahumans. It seems the only reason this article exists is to sell the T-Shirt so eloquently displayed on the Wiki article's page. (Kujila)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 food bank Just zis Guy you know? 15:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Food Banks

This article contains no content except for one link to a Wikipedia entry and two external links. The topic is sufficiently covered by Food bank. A redirect is unnecessary because 0 articles link here. Occamslawnmower 03:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well done :) Dlohcierekim 04:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Excellent Boldness is good. Navou talk 11:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy close of AfD Debate. What has occured here is a bit out of process, although I'm pretty sure that there would be no objection by the community. Considering that the article initially didn't have any information at all, it should probably have been initially made into redirect or perhaps a speedy delete CSD A3. I think that there would be no objections to the redirect that has now been made (albeit out of process). DarthVader 10:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Second the speedy close. It would seem the issue has been solved with redirect. Suggest close this and refer to redirect deletion if needed. Navou talk 11:32, 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 deleted. -- Drini 03:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miserology

Original research. Probably a hoax. No relevant Ghits. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:23, 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 delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent DePalo

  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}}

Non notable. Most probably is a hoax. No relevant Ghits. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Srikeit. :) Dlohcierekim 04:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-verifiable WP:V. Also strong chance of a hoax, for example related the edits [3] & [4] by 149.61.153.56. --blue520 04:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete most likely a hoax. Kevin 04:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP Definitly NOT a hoax, read book during college class about the island. Mention DePalo, he was an explorer of the island in the late 60s and early 70s. In the book, Beyond the village : local politics in Madang, Papua-New Guinea / Louise Morauta. User:JillOSullivan
  • Note Brand new user, only edits in this AfD. Fan1967 03:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP If you look at the bottom there are two books that are citing the legitimacy of this man. One, Lonely Planet Papua New Guinea & Solomon Islands (Lonely Planet Papua New Guinea), by Andrew Burke speaks briefly of Vincent finding the region of Papua New Guinea. In the other book, Lonely Planet Papua, New Guinea (Lonely Planet Papua New Guinea), by Adrian Lipscomb it speaks in more depth of the region and also more about the explorer Vincent DePalo. That is where it mentions his early life and later life, along with his expedition involving professor Caron. Although DePalo isn't a significant character in history, he is still a person in history and deserves recognition. I feel both of these sources are sufficient for keeping this post on this illustrious website. User:Reddog1234
Note comment added by 149.61.153.56.--blue520 05:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to the article written in the Vineyard Gazette, written December 13, 1998. It has an interview with the good Vincent DePalo. He speaks of his exploration of the region and his relationship with Professor Caron. User:AStanhope—Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.61.153.56 (talk • contribs)
Multiple username fake signatures support notion of a hoax. Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 18:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete obvious hoax ("discovered Papua New Guina"). --MarsRover 05:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I like "a very rare odiferous fern", but still, Delete. Vizjim 09:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A search of sources in Australia and elsewhere came up with nothing on him at all. Australian forces were fighting the Japanese on the Huon Peninsular in 1944, 24 years before he was supposedly exploring it. Capitalistroadster 10:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 10:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. DarthVader 10:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete - i too think this is a hoax Vegalo 10:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if the Lonely Planet references are real. I can not check them. The Huon Peninsular certainly has some remote parts and the fighting in 1944 was mostly along the coast with earlier passage of coast watchers across the Peninsula. The fighting certainly did not open all of it up. --Bduke 11:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Semi-weak Delete. I find it unlikely that the Lonely Planet references would have anything actually about this person. The CIA World Fact book doesn't mention him, and I can't find anything relevant on google. I think that charting an "previously uncharted region of the island" would at least warrant a mention. Searching for "Huon Peninsula montane rain forests" doesn't seem to return any results, however, so I haven't been able to check if he's mentioned. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If in fact he discovered several new species google would have heard of him. Also it is unlikely that parts of Papua New Guinea were only 'discovered' in 1968. Either a hoax or simply unsubstantiated. Crum375 13:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, as Dlohcierekim says, the many fake anon Keeps support the theory of a hoax Crum375 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per failing the Google test and per many of the editors above, especially Capitalistroadster and Crum375. -- Kicking222 13:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not verifiable. Kafziel 13:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP I went to Manhatten College and Vincent DePalo has something of a cult following there, being one of the Alumni patrons of the Phi Delta Epsilon fraternity. The membership of this frat is sometimes collectively referred to as the "New Guinea Boys", in his honor. User:WaddamsM
  • Note Only edit from another brand new user. Fan1967 03:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've spent some time at Manhattan College and I am sure this is a complete fabrication.--Paraphelion 12:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I too attended the fine institution of Manhattan College, and can attest to the legitimacy of Vincent DePalo's work as an explorer. I had the wonderful opportunity of taking an anthropology course taught by Professor Christopher Caron, DePalo's colleague. I am somewhat offended by the doubt expressed by the wikipedia community. I do not take lightly an attack on the integrity of a fellow Jasper. Facta Non Verba! User:McLeansJester
  • Note What do you know. Another brand new user making his only edit. Fan1967 03:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you help us out here, and give us some verifiable sources? Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) for guidelines on notability. I would love to keep, but the article needs work and sources. And being mentioned by someone's prof, a book, or a magazine article is not neccesarily enough to support notability. The question is not just whether he did these things, but more so, whether he has achieved sufficient notability. Thanks for you help, :) Dlohcierekim 18:11, 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 - early SNOWY close. Metamagician3000 14:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scars on Broadway

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The title of this article is the rumored name of an album that might or might not be coming out sometime in the future. NatusRoma | Talk 03:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per NatusRoma Also, possible copyvio. Just cut and pasted the stuff in a different order. Not notable with 544 Ghits :) Dlohcierekim 03:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--blue520 04:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This was a rumour in 2003. If it still hasn't happened, then it is not notable. Kevin 04:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 05:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The author should write this again if it ever comes into existence. --Dakart 05:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, Wikipedia is not someone's personal blog either. JIP | Talk 08:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 10:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Daron Malakian, where there's already a section dealing with this possible article. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:23, 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 Keep -- Mostly Rainy 07:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of contemporary classical ensembles

Namrevlis 03:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC) I have proposed deletion of this page for two reasons. 1.) It is simply a listing page, the topic of which would be better as a category, and 2). Many of its entries are links to unrelated subjects or are dead links.

  • Strong Keep Lists and categories serve different functions. Lists are important because they can hold "dead links", unlike categories. I've removed the links which were mis-directs. This list is on a subject which is list-worthy as well, as such an important genre should have a list to itself. Mak (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This looks pretty worth keeping.--Dakart 05:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mak. I've reinstated the links which were mis-directs, for the sake of completeness, but they're not mis-directs anymore. TheMadBaron 12:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Ensure all members of list are in Category:Contemporary Classical Music (or a subcategory for groups?) then Delete. Kudos to User:TheMadBaron for cleaning it up, but per nom this would be more suitable as a category rather than a list. Paddles 13:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is what categories are for. Just zis Guy you know? 15:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mak, who said everything I would have said. -- JJay 20:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep – if and when a suitable category is created and populated, reconsider (although even then it may still be useful) – Gurch 21:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The category exists at Category:Contemporary classical music ensembles (darned capitalisation). However, I'd just like to reiterate that it's important to have lists because, at the moment, the category trees are a mess, and Lists are important in areas which are not complete, in order to give good ideas of new articles which are needed. Although a lot of good work has been done in classical music by a few good editors, it still is far from complete. I don't think the time for lists has passed, they just need good stewards. Mak (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This one is actually useful. Perhaps an extended introduction could be written to render this more than just a copy of a category. 23skidoo 15:16, 18 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.  RasputinAXP  c 03:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main moon productions

Delete - Textbook non-notable production company. Google search on "Main moon productions" brings back only *3* returns. Previously PRODed, removed by Mainmoon. MikeWazowski 03:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: non-notable production company. The pic at the beginning of the article shows how rediculous this is. --Hetar 03:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If they weren't picked up by the cable company, then they aren't notable. Kevin 04:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete just a bunch of randoms with a film camera.--Nydas 07:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. I haven't seen any of the things that they said, I "might have seen" them doing! --Dakart 08:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 10:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing related on Google; their website redirects to YouTube. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Mainmoon has decided to blank this dicussion. Kotepho 01:47, 18 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.  RasputinAXP  c 03:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Spirit

A former Michigan State University student with no claim to fame. This really is A7 material however the page's creator keeps on removing the speedy deletion tag so I am bringing it here. I am recommending delete. --Hetar 03:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete if this rediculous article doesn't want to be speedy deleted there, then speedy delete it here. Delete as a non-notable bio. Totally bogus. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 04:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If his identity is unknown, how can we verify the article? Kevin 04:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable JohnM4402 05:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn. Metamagician3000 06:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nowhere near notable per WP:BIO. Rockpocket (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete - agree with comments above. Trm3 10:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. At best worthy of a brief mention on the article for the college team/s he supports but npt worthy of standalone article under WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 10:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete no assertion of notabliity ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete prehaps a mention on UM's page, but nothing else. Yanksox 23:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete I would not like Johnny Spirit here or there. I would not like him anywhere. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete He is just an average guy who attended MSU. Not worth mentioning. --Jelligraze 06:57, 21 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.  RasputinAXP  c 03:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ziopedia

Seems to fail WP:WEB pretty substantially. Delete Mak (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - The site claims to be neutral, but I could find nothing but attack messages and messages against either Judaism, Isreal, or the Zionist movement. It's an attack site. --Walter Görlitz 04:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply The site doesn't make any claims other than aiming to be a one-stop repository for info on Zionism, its history, supporters and opponents. It doesn't contain any messages either. It's a news site and a Wikipedia style encyclopedia on Zionism and related topics. --Andrewwinkler 02:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete "Nothing but attack messages" is an unsubstiated accusation of someone who obviously doesn't share the views expressed in the articles on the Ziopedia site. Mak is making unsubstantiated non-compliance allegations. -- --Andrewwinkler 04:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Whether the site is blatantly anti-semitic garbage or not is not at issue here. The issue is notability and verifiability. It seems to fail Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, thus it should be deleted. Can you give outside verifiable sources for the information in your article, and somehow show its larger importance? Mak (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply I'll provide 'verifyability proof of notability', no worries. Interesting though how quickly you guys mobbed up like a flock of seagulls on a bag of chips and smeared the Ziopedia site as beeing antisemitic and/or neonazi... but as they say, in the olden days an antisemite was someone who hated Jews, these days it's someone whom the Jews hate
Reply I know you really want to believe we're a Zionist conspiracy, but the simple fact is that we "mob up like a flock of seagulls" whenever somebody tries to use Wikipedia to publicize an unknown website, like this one, for example. Fan1967 14:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment While I may not share the views of the site, the statement is substiated and not an accusation. Show one page on the site that is pro-Zionist, pro-Isreal, or pro-Jewish. I am neutral on the topic and I believe that point of view is essential to any rational debate. The issue at hand, however, is not the site's content as has been noted, but the fact it's not notable and we could just as easily link to a pro-Zionist, pro-Zionist, pro-Isreal, and pro-Jewish site that is non-notable to balance the extremism, but if it's an unimporant site, there's not need. --Walter Görlitz 20:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply While the ZioPedia site might not contain any article supportive of Israel/Zionism - which is not a reflection of the editor/publishing policy of the site, but the mere result of the views of the people posting article on the site - that doesn't make the statement of my Wikipedia contribution incorrect that the site contains information on Zionism, its history, supporters and opponenents, does it? What you guys are doing is mobbing up against an entry on a site that contains views that you dislike. This is nothing but blatant censureship. No wonder Wikipedia is frequently referred to as 'Ziopedia' itself. You should be glad that the ZioPedia site is 'repositioning' the 'Ziopedia' brand and show a bit more tolerance to diverse views. -- Andrewwinkler 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Alexa rank is 5,594,489, and I can find very few references to it anywhere else. Fan1967 04:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply see above... I'll provide proof of notability, no worries
  • Delete But only because it is not notable.--Dakart 05:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dakart, reserve comment on purpose. Rockpocket (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with above -- Samir धर्म 07:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia covers nutty sites all the time (FreeRepublic comes immediately to mind), but we do have standards on which nutty sites it covers. Since this site fails those standards miserably, we don't need an article on it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply funny how you guys are scrambling to make up some 'intelligent' excuse for blatant, good old fashion censureship.
      • Aw, I didn't get accused of being a tool of the Zionist establishment. How disappointing. (And, for the record, this is getting less comments than AFDs on MySpace sites used to before CSD A7 allowed admins to speedily delete them.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Vizjim 09:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete, is on number one position on Google search, and is mentioned on 6 out of first 10 entries on page one, NineMsn it's mentioned on the first 3 entries on page one. Hardly a case of non-notability, is it?!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.86.237 (talk • contribs)
    • Damn those international Jewish conspiracy lizards, for forcing me to point out that searching for a made-up word and finding that the site that made it up is top of the google list, isn't exactly a winning argument. Damn them all to hell. Vizjim 11:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact remains though that it's been mentioned on a number of occasion, thus the excuse of 'non-notability' or irrelevance doesn't work here. The fact alone, how you guys scramble to get rid of those two contributions shows how relevant the Ziopedia site is.
      • So if it's deleted from Wikipedia, that's a reason not to delete it from Wikipedia? That's...beautiful. Google search shows no independent mainstream media mentions. I've been "mentioned" on a number of occasions - I seem to remember our vicar mentioning me at my wedding, for example - but nobody's yet written a Wikipedia article about me. Vizjim 12:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You have to admit that's some incredible Chutzpah (sorry, couldn't resist) to argue that a google search for Ziopedia will turn up this website, and that counts as notability. Nice try, guys, really. Fan1967 13:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 10:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 12:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't care what the site is about. It has a mercilessly low Alexa rank and only 36 unique Google hits. That's enough non-notability for me. -- Kicking222 13:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete absent any evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Seems to meet WP:VSCA, though... Just zis Guy you know? 16:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable. Advertising. Vanity. Whatever. IrishGuy 17:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Ziocruft. Beno1000 18:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete attack site. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete what? the alexa rank is more than 5 milllion. WTF? M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Chutzpah indeed. Obviously fails WP:WEB. Shalom. Grandmasterka 02:42, 18 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.  RasputinAXP  c 03:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebel Media Group

Seems to fail WP:WEB substantially. Delete Mak (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't delete - unsubstiated non-compliance claim by Mak --Andrewwinkler 04:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Note - Andrew Winkler is apparently the editor/publisher of The Rebel Media Group Kevin 04:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment What do you mean? It does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. Would you like me to spell it out more specifically? I can't find any instances of it being covered in any outside, unaffiliated media. It doesn't seem to have won any awards. It is not distributed by a well known media group. The onus is on the creator of the article to provide evidence of such things. Substantiate your own claims. Mak (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply not covered by outside, unaffiliated media? how long did that take you to work out? It's obviously wrong. And how is a web site supposed to be distributed by a 'well known media group' (you probably mean kosher)?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwinkler (talk • contribs)
  • Delete nn forum, about six months old, Alexa rank 587,498. Fan1967 04:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply nn site? Typical Zio smear. Being critical of Israel, Zionism and the Holocaust industry doesn't make you a nn. Or would you call Gideo Levy, Finkelstein or Chomsky nn, too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrewwinkler (talk
    • Comment: the abbreviation "nn" means "non-notable" or "not notable", in case that was unclear. -- Kjkolb 09:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:WEB asks for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". I see no evidence of that. Kevin 04:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply I can provide that, no worries... Anything else required?
Yes. Rewrite it so that it doesn't sound like advertising. And please sign your comments. Paddles 14:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply Zio smear—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwinkler (talk • contribs)
Reply It must be a very sad, sad world you live in, where everyone who disagrees with you is part of the "Zio" conspiracy. Fan1967 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply unsubstantiated—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwinkler (talk • contribs)
Comment. You keep saying that. If you read WP:WEB you will notice that it is sufficient for an AfD voter to assert that it fails WP:WEB. It is up to the editors of the article in question to disprove the claim that it fails WP:WEB by proving (i.e. supplying, in the article) suitable references of the type described in WP:WEB. To date, you have not done this. Paddles 14:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply So what you are saying is that the accused has to prove his innocence?! You got to be kidding.--Andrewwinkler 02:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia does not follow the US Constitution, because it's not actually the US Government. You do not have the right to bear arms on Wikipedia. And you are not on trial. As the person who wants to keep the article, and presumably the one who knows the most about the subject since you are the founder and author of the article, you need to find verifiable and notable sources for your article. A Google search is not a reliable source. If, however, this website has been mentioned somewhere like the New York Times, the Guardian, or even something like Salon.com, that would be good. I doubt it has been. Mak (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply This is not about the US Constitution. Requiring the accuser to prove the guilt rather than the accused having to prove his innocence in a universal legal principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwinkler (talk • contribs)
Actually, the accuser having to prove guilt is not a universal legal principle, but either way it's irrevelant to the point. You need to (a) stop taking this so personally and (b) stop thinking about this within the guilt/innocence paradigm and instead read what people are saying (oh, and sign your comments! Just add four tildes at the end). There are two questions being discussed...
The question being discussed is not about whether the RMG exists or not, or whether it is a worthwhile company or not, or whether the people there are decent or not, but whether RMG is notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedia. Among the criteria for notability is whether there is at least one but preferable several non-trivial references to the subject in question in verifiable sources that are independent of the group in question. For example, if an independent magazine had written an article about something interesting the group was doing, that would most likely meet the criteria for notability. If it was an advertorial then it probably wouldn't. Provide some references like this, and the notability question will be resolved.
The second question being discussed is the style of the article. At the moment, it reads like a marketing piece, not an encyclopaedia article. WP is not for marketing and publicity, even of notable entities. If Bono, George W Bush and Fidel Castro formed a punk band, it would be worthy of an entry - but a WP article advertising their current world tour would be deleted. Paddles 08:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like they are trying to use Wikipedia to promote themselves. This is too new and small to be considered notable. --Dakart 08:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't really care whether it's a tool of Time-Warner or the Zionist or whatever, but there's no evidence that anyone is actually reading this. No coverage in outside news sources plus an awful Alexa rating adds up to nn site. (By the way, it would totally make my day if the original author called me a tool of the Zionists or something; I haven't been accused of serving my Jewish conspiratorial masters enough lately. ¬_¬) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A secret cabal of bankers and industrialists are ordering me to vote Delete on grounds of complete un-notability. But they can't make me like it. Vizjim 09:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete, I disagree on the notability thing: rebel media group is listed on the first two positions of page one on google search and on 1st and 9th position on yahoo serach. [Rebel Media Group] is mentioned on [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], all in the first 10 pages on Google. I didnt' have any problems finding mentioning on other search engines either. I wonder how all the previous posters came up with this non-notability finding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.86.237 (talk • contribs) .
Comment. In case you are a different person to the above, please sign your comments. It's very easy - just add four tilde characters at the end of your comment. Paddles 14:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's an open-and-shut case, with no right of appeal. --Agamemnon2 10:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Being found by Google does not make you notable. TheMadBaron 12:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per secret cabal of Zionist bankers, hairdressers, and interior decorators. AnonEMouse 13:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertising for an nn site = byebye. Also, I greatly enjoy AnonEMouse's deletion vote. -- Kicking222 13:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kicking222. Paddles 14:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Incredibly non notable. As for the links provided above, one is for a webforum, one is an article written by the founder of the site about the site, one is a links page, and the other two are passing mentions on non notable websites. IrishGuy 17:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete typical attack site ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete just like ziopedia. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and AnonEMouse. Grandmasterka 02:49, 18 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.  RasputinAXP  c 03:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AKBG Productions

Fails WP:WEB, doesn't have productions yet, ghits few and are from a geocities site and one webforum. Delete Mak (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rklawton 04:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Too new. The author should try again once they release a couple films. --Dakart 08:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Ydam 09:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 10:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 13:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Cool3 20:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete as copyvio. No prejudice to the creation of a non-copyvio article.  RasputinAXP  c 03:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Simpsons Couch Gags

This information should be contained in the individual episode page

  • Delete Couch Gags should be listed individually in the specific episode's page. ShizuokaSensei 04:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Simpsons couch gags are listed individually in each episode's page. There is specific provision in the exisode infobox. -- saberwyn 06:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • That being the case, along with the potential copyright issues below, this page should certainly be lost. ShizuokaSensei 02:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is noteworthy enough to have its own page. It might well be that someone wants to refer to them. There's a bit of a vendetta going on here on AfD against gags from various shows (eg Charlie Murphy's Rick James sketch; Ling Bouvier). - Richardcavell 05:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the nominator of the Charlie Murphy's Rick James sketch that was deleted the other day, and as I already advised you on your talk page, there is no conspiracy. Vizjim 09:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I recommend that the author create a spot in Couch gag for this list.--Dakart 05:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Couch gags are notable, but we already have an article on that. This one has no context. Reccomend a redirect to allow anyone interested to go through the history and merge a few if they see fit. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listing them individually in episode articles is enough. This list doesn't even mention which episode which gag is in. JIP | Talk 08:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JIP. I also suspect that this list is a copyvio from a Simpson fansite. --Maitch 08:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: no information will be lost, this is fanlistcruft. Vizjim 09:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge into Couch gag. It's fancruft, but it's notable fancruft. (If it's a copyvio, per Maitch, speedy delete for that reason.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, does meet the verifiability policy as it cites no published sources for any of the material in it. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. List is useless. Couch gags are in the episode articles. --Optichan 17:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. somewhat notable and fairly amusing. Rjm656s 17:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. This list is definitely noteworthy and should exist. However, as it currently exists, most (but not all) of the entries are taken verbatim from "The Simpsons Archive website. If this list is to stay, it should be rewritten and sourced (even if to that website). — Michael J 19:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is clearly a copy and paste of prose from http://www.snpp.com/guides/couch.openings.html. As best as I can tell from http://www.snpp.com/about.html, this text is not released under any free liscense. So this incarnation of the list needs to go. I am going to flag it as a copyvio but leave the AfD open... maybe someone will rewrite. I personally am not opposed to a list of couch gags, it's just that this one is unacceptable. --W.marsh 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete – if, as the presence of {{copyvio}} on the article seems to suggest, it is a copyright violation. If not, then keep it – Gurch 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per ShizuokaSensei ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if it isn't a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The couch gags are very notable and having a list is more convenient to users of Wikipedia than requiring them to flip thorugh 200+ episode articles, especially when they're looking for a particular couch gag. Quick, which episode featured The Flintstones sitting on the couch? The most efficient way is to go to this list and do a "Find" in your browser. Otherwise it'll take ages to go through the episodes. All that said, if there's a copyvio issue here that will need to be addressed. But I support the existence of the article. 23skidoo 15:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The current list doesn't have episode titles assigned to them, so you can't do what you are describing. --Maitch 15:26, 18 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.  RasputinAXP  c 03:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godzilla effect

Google knows nothing[10] about this supposed correlation between Godzilla movies and the Japanese stock market. -- Scott eiπ 05:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The author shows no proof that this even exists.--Dakart 06:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete probable hoax --MarsRover 06:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sounds like someone got the idea from Ding Hai Effect Ydam 09:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Pretty funny. DarthVader 10:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, WP:BALLS, and Japanese investors everywhere. RGTraynor 15:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You have absolutely right. Google does not show any result. This is the reason why i post this "article". My sources was a funny article in a greek newspaper "Eleutherotipia".

  • Delete looks like a hoax. Rjm656s 17:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable unless a source meeting WP:RS is provided before end of AfD discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious hoax, and the guy even admits it above. Beno1000 18:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but BJAODNify. If Google knows nothing, I don't see why we should. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Probably a hoax


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

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_Michael_Savage_neologisms

A list of personal attacks. Not encyclopedic, doesn't belong on Wikepedia JohnM4402 05:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This is not the type of information that should be part of wikipediaTsnav 19:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (merge and redirect would be alright, although I'm not certain there's much to merge), though not per nom, which fails to state a good reason for which deletion is appropriate. I've been considering AfDing this for a while, principally because I think it's likely largely unverifiable (at least inasmuch as many of the neologisms ostensibly come from the radio show and are not aggregated elsewhere), and in any event because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information and is not a dictionary. That the neologisms are personal attacks is irrelevant (see, e.g., List of ethnic slurs and Wikipedia is not censored); that the neologisms (which term may be largely inaccurate) are (in part) unverifiable and unencyclopedic cruft is. Many participants in the previous AfD also offered excellent reasons for deletion, and those views should be incorporated by reference here. Joe 05:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the first page I have nominated for deletion... I hope I got it right. I think a Delete is justified just based on what you have stated above about not being able to verify the majority of the terms mentioned in the article since they supposedly were mentioned on his radio show. JohnM4402 05:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Never heard of this chap, but God I feel sorry for you Americans. Anyway, as a list of quotes, an indiscriminate collection of information, an unsourced, unverified, and frankly rather boring page, it deserves a Delete. The information should probably be merged back into the guy's main article, and pruned down to only the interesting and unusual bits, not just the boring hackwork. Vizjim 09:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll concur with the above. It's not like they're particularly good slurs, either. None of them have the Je ne sais quoi of, for example, "cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" or "Shatner-stealing Mexico-touchers". --Agamemnon2 10:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This stuff belongs at somebody's Michael Savage fan site, not Wikipedia. Nor would I support a "List of Howard Stern bits" or just an article on the "List of Nat King Cole songs". In fact, I'm not a fan of "Great Foo Lists" of any type. -- SeanO 11:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote. AnonEMouse 13:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Joe. Quite aside from being meretricious nonsense deserving of caning at the hands of Singapore longshoremen, it's unencyclopedic as hell. When I was a kid they called this stuff graffiti, and scrubbed it off walls. RGTraynor 15:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:RGTraynor. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per SeanO. BTW, here's the previous AfD discussion, if anyone is interested. Result was no consensus, leaning towards delete. ergot 19:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism(s) M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - None of the listed neologisms have made it into use enough as to become notable. Ironically, the only notable neologism he created (Santorum, which has gained some usage) isn't even listed on the list. -- Zawersh 08:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow! It looks like the Savage-hating douchebags are coming out of the woodwork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.15.107 (talk • contribs) 14:08, May 18, 2006
One doesn't have to hate Savage in order to think that this article should be deleted. In fact, I like many of his columns and enjoyed his book Skipping Towards Gomorrah. There's no need to demean other editors. -- Zawersh 18:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know anything about him, other than that he's got a radio show and likes to call people silly names. I just don't think that this belongs in an encyclopedia. I feel the same way about most "List of X" articles. ergot 23:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Parasitic number (N-parasitic number redirects to this article). Deathphoenix ʕ 14:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 105263157894736842 (number)

non-notable LARGE number — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Originally PRODded by me, deproded with a comment that notability was asserted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've never been convinced that numbers are not notable. If we're going to have obscure insect species, why not obscure numbers? - Richardcavell 06:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Because there's an infinite number of obscure numbers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I replied to this on the talk page. Mangojuicetalk 13:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I still say that one could write reams about any number between 1 and 10,000. - Richardcavell 22:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - for the record, I'm voting keep. - Richardcavell 22:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable number MarsRover 06:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't infinite, and this number isn't particularly interesting mathematically. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Wikipedia is not paper, and I thought the article was interesting. This is clearly a large number of some significance, since it has so many unusual properties. --Hyperbole 07:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia isn't wastepaper, either. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 15:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the "N-parasitic number" for N=2 (sequence A092697 in OEIS), introduced by Clifford A. Pickover in Wonders of Numbers, Oxford University Press, 2000. See also http://www.michael-kreil.de/html/mathematik.html. Create an article N-parasitic number and make this into a redirect. --LambiamTalk 07:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, or merge' per Lambiam. bbx 07:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is clearly a semi-notable number, being 2-parasitic and all. — SteveRwanda 07:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge by creating N-parasitic number article per Lambian. I was approached by Lambian about this article (since I created it) and he suggested that I create the article about N-parasitic number and merge this and others to it. I agreed to it and contacted Arthur Rubin (the nominator who {{prod}}ed it initially) to ask if he agreed to the notability of N-parasitic numbers. I intended to create the article as soon as I got his reply, but unfortunately he hasn't replied to my message left since yesterday and started the AfD today. I believe this should be an acceptable solution to all, and if it is, I can start working on it today itself. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability isint that great. If we include this one then there's bound to be tons of other numbers with obscure mathamatical properties. All numbers are going to have something special about them if you look hard enough Ydam 09:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reckon that Ambuj Saxena's solution works rather well. Delete without redirect, and encourage author to begin what sounds like a tremendously useful article. Vizjim 10:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Delete and place the article on the userpage, also encourage the user to perhaps create N-parasitic number per Ambuj Saxena Navou talk 11:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I have not created the article to push any agenda or personal wishes and hence in no case is there any need to move the article to my sub-page. Even I have agreed to the page being deleted (actually redirecting to N-parasitic number article) where all such numbers can be dealt in a framework of notability. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment To clarify, I think it is a good idea, rather then straight deletion. It looks like someone put a good effort into the article. I would hate to see it deleted without preserving it for inclusion to somewhere else.Navou talk 12:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I started the article 3 days back with only other major change beig the addition of table (doucan table) by Anton Mravcek. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to N-parasitic number, but leave the large number category on this number. Redirects are cheap. I have created N-parasitic number. Mangojuicetalk 13:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've renamed it to Parasitic number, as the prefix "n" is sometimes "j" or "k" in the literature. If there's any objection, discuss in that article's talk page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, given that the creator is happy with this and that there's obviously notability to some degree. (I'[m still cheesed off that nobody recognises the subtle allure of 11542915415662, but I guess that's just me.) Colonel Tom 13:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have absolutely no idea what Colonel Tom just said. But anyway, this seems to be the most accepted solution. If there are no other objections in the coming two days, I think we can make the article redirect to Parasitic number and close this AfD. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Nparasitic number ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, while the article is interesting, it would be best served to be merged to Parasitic numbering. Falphin 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge for reasons stated above. "What links here" indicates the only articles linking to this number are user pages and lists of articles. It's doubtful anyone is likely to find this using Wikipedia's search engine, so if it's part of a larger article it stands a better chance of being useful. 23skidoo 15:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as indicated above into parasitic numbering. Although I doubt that anyone will ever type the number into Wikipedia, we've got plenty of space for redirects. However, the article definitely should not be kept. Any one who spends much time on AfD quickly encounters the interesting number paradox, if we let numbers like this stand, then we'll soon be clogged up with an infinity of number articles. Cool3 20:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. --Ixfd64 22:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Reyk YO! 12:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a mathematician, I say its properties aren't interesting at all.  Grue  14:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect, merge, whatever it takes. Melchoir 06:50, 23 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. Rje 12:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Beans

This article and the language used in it suggest that it is a localized place and not notable. Dakart 05:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This doesn't look worthy of a Wikipedia page to me. --Dakart 06:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mr. Bean. It's easier than deleting it. Kevin 06:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • But it's two completely different things...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakart (talk • contribs)
      • I realise that, but it is a reasonable mis-spelling of Mr. Bean. Kevin 09:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails to show notability to the levels outlined by WP:CORP--blue520 07:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, from this link it seems to be just a college coffee stand. hateless 07:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mr. Bean, which is way more notable than this. JIP | Talk 08:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mr. Bean per above. DarthVader 10:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 13:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Non-notable. --Optichan 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-Notable and "Best coffee on campus" is POV. Beno1000 18:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per JIP --Zoz (t) 22:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect and delete this content - Richardcavell 22:58, 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, unverifiable. Praise Bob!  RasputinAXP  c 03:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia

I smell a hoax.

As a religion or a website, this fails miserably. Apparently it's a sect of Discordianism practiced by a small circle of followers, and the website isn't even rated on Alexa, and has only one incoming link.[11].

Well, okay, if it's not a notable religion or notable website, is it a notable criminal case? I'd say yes, but I can't find any evidence whatsoever that the child pornography or terrorism allegations exist. Google searches only turn up forum/blog posts obviously made by Loveshade/Ek-sen-trik-kuh posters.

I wouldn't mind keeping this if some real evidence of the criminal charges could be offered, but I'm betting this one's a hoax. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this article with Gerina, and while you're entitled to your opinion, I don't think Wikipedia's policy encourages you to say that a religion or website "fails miserably." Whether you like the religion or the website is your own opinion, but isn't reason to call for deletion of an article.
I don't know much about an Alexa rating, but the site http://discordia.loveshade.org hasn't been there very long. The beginnings of the work Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, though, has been around since 1994 and online since 1995. Read the sources I link to in the article--there are references going back to the 1990s. Check the index of the BloodStar site at http://www.geocities.com/bloodstar84 (it was last updated in 2001); or groups.yahoo.com/groups/illuminatusinnersanctum; or http://appendix.23ae.com/apocrypha/; or http://www.23ae.com; or http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/7971/panpleasant/apocrypha.html (check the index--it was last updated in 1997).
Also the Alexa search engine you mentioned gave 388 hits for rev loveshade and 549 for reverend loveshade. Check it out yourself if you don't believe me. And check any version of the published Rev. DrJon Swabey's version of Apocrypha Discordia and you'll find Reverend Loveshade and BloodStar in it. You can also find this has been translated into German.
While it's a joke site, Reverend Loveshade is popular enough that there's an article about him at http://en.uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Reverend_Loveshade that's been there for months. If an article there isn't about something important enough for people to get the jokes about, it's deleted. Do a search on Uncyclopedia for Reverend Loveshade and see how many references you can find. I got 22.
As for the legal parts, the sites are there that show that too. "Stripping Away American Freedom: A Call to Action" which deals with the terrorism is on both BloodStar's site and the new Loveshade site. Check the index of the BloodStar site and you'll see it was posted in December 2001 just like it says. Check my article for the links to the legal problems in Illuminatus Inner Sanctum posted in 2003, or the profile of 2002. Check the links!
I know I'm not supposed to take comments personally, but Gerina and I worked on this article for a month. If you don't believe that, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Discordianism and look at the section for Apocrypha and Ek-sen-trik-kuh. We were encouraged to write the article by DrJon and even by DenisMoskowitz. Denis was against it at first until he realized that Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia was originally called "the non-existent Apocrypha Discordia," and had been around and well-know for years. And DrJon compiled the 2001 Apocrypha Discordia, and also encouraged us.
Please check the links and you can see there are references to this all over. Gerina and I worked very hard on verifying what we posted. Check the links! Binky The WonderSkull 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Er. It fails the respective notability standards miserably. I'm not passing judgement regarding quality, merely noting that the following is extremely small.
Do you have any evidence from a reliable source that this is a religion with a large following, a popular website, or a major legal case? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
These are from the page you quoted.
"When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources." We site several primary and secondary sources, as Wikipedia suggests.
"An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." We site primary and secondary sources verifying opinions, which makes it a fact that they hold that opinion.
"Find another one and cross-check. If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased, or their biases are at cross purposes, then you may have a reliable account." We have done this, as explained above.
"A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source." That's why we didn't use just the http://discordia.loveshade.org site. We used several. I have a list of others I could have included, but I thought a dozen or so would be enough. Should I add another dozen?
"Widely acknowledged extremist political, religious, anti-religious and other websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, the Aryan Nations website or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is, in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source." Again, we didn't use just the one site, although it is acceptable as a primary source. It was not our sole source by any means.
"Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be provided whenever possible...." We only used English-language sources, even though we have a couple in other languages. Should we use those?
"Historical research involves the collection of original or “primary” documents (the job of libraries and archives), the close reading of the documents, and their interpretation in terms of larger historical issues. To be verifiable, research must be based on the primary documents." This is why we did a search of the index of some of the sites, to learn when items were posted and last updated. You can check these yourself if you want--they're in the article.


"Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on. Therefore, the most reliable material available is expected, but sources for these topics should not be held to as strict a standard. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes,_Wyss_and_Onefortyone#Sources_for_popular_culture." Feel free to check that out. I think you'll find it backs us up. Binky The WonderSkull 07:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete - per article creator. Geocities and Yahoo profile links have never helped anyone's cause. Less than 50 unique hits for "Reverend Loveshade" many of which are irrelevant and are, at best, non-credible sources. Wickethewok 07:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I borrowed this from Weregerbil's comments on Apocrypha Discordia. It fits here. If this work has a third as many unique hits as Microsoft, I think it belongs here. JennyGirl 08:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As to google hits, it's not that simple: see how many unique hits you get for Microsoft (I get 136, YMMV.) If google's "of about N for TheSubject" is greater than 1000 then the unique page count can't be interpreted directly. Weregerbil 08:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - First you say that unique Google hits are an inaccurate measurement, and then you say that its amount of unique Google hits is the reason it should be kept. Makes no sense.... 08:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - That's what is known as a circular argument. The point is that unique google hits isn't reliable. But is that really the point of this discussion? MRN 08:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Please read more carefully: If google's ... is greater than 1000. 50 is not greater than 1000. Weregerbil 12:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable joke, mixed with what appear to be hoax claims of FBI arrests and whatnot. Article title gets 15 google hits [12], the claimed older name "non-existent Apocrypha Discordia" two hits [13]; all on blogs and geocities and such. No notability established per WP:WEB or any other way I can think of. Every spin-off of a joke religion isn't automatially notable. Weregerbil 07:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Do a search for Apocrypha Discordia. It was called that since 1995. It hasn't been called Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia very long, and wasn't usually called "non-existent Apocrypha Discordia." Binky The WonderSkull 07:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I have put up Apocrypha Discordia for deletion in addition to this. I also find it interesting to note that when editors write paragraphs and paragraphs about why an article should be kept, its deleted more often than not. Wickethewok 07:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - So because Binky has a lot of support for his position, that's a reason to delete it? Binky's arguments sound good to me. JennyGirl 08:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No offense, but I think some of you are mixing apples with oranges. So the book's had a lot of different titles, so why judge it based on one? And I don't know why nobody's mentioned it, but there's a really long article about the whole legal thing at http://www.logicalreality.com . There's even a link to it on the article. Maybe nobody's checked it out because it's a totally controversial site. But is controversy a reason to not use it? JennyGirl 08:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Where on that site is this really long article? Nobody's checked it out because nobody has linked it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Welcome to WP editing, JennyGirl. Enjoy your stay! Wickethewok 08:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep I think it is notable enough to keep... If only for the criminal charges. I think it should be merged into Apocrypha Discordia, though.--Dakart 08:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, if the criminal charges are real, then sure, that's notable enough. I just can't find a reliable source that confirms that they're not a hoax. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment If it's a hoax then it's been going on since 2001 because that's when the links about criminal stuff date from. If it's been a continuing hoax for five years, that in itself makes it notable! --MRN 09:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Forget about the criminal stuff that's icing on the cake. Hasn't anybody here mentioned that Greg Hill who wrote Principia Discordia praised Loveshade's work before he died? And that Mark Steele/Icarus who worked on the Illuminatus! comic book for Robert Anton Wilson who popularized Discordianism contributed to Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, and so did S. John Ross who created Warehouse 23 that was Steve Jackson Games organ for Discordian and other weird stuff? Remember the Steve Jackson Games edition that made Discordianism famous? Check your history, folks! --MRN 08:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So the claim of notability is that the founder of the sect knew a handful of marginally notable authors and game designers? Or am I missing something here?
      Incidentally, this is MRN's fifth edit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as per all delete votes above. No truly independent sources used that I can see. Vizjim 10:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Miserably fails on verifiability and notability and nothing posted by any of its supporters remotely changes that. Fan1967 14:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to fall short on everything, in fact - WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:WEB, WP:VSCA... Just zis Guy you know? 16:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable unless good source citations meeting WP:RS is provided. Currently the sole source is the "official online version of Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia," which does not qualify. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or if you must Merge with Discordianism. Discordianism and its subcomponents are a notable religion and/or cultural phenomenon. - CNichols 21:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just because Discordianism is notable does not mean some small, unverifiable offshoot inherits that notability. Fan1967 21:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or if you must Merge with Apocrypha Discordia. The work itself is notable with selections from it on lots of websites--the entire book is "evolving" as they say, but pieces from it are all over the web. It includes the long-missing and famous "The Myth of Starbuck" by Greg Hill which DrJohn found, and also "Five Blind Men and an Elephant" which is well-known in Discordian circles--it was even translated into German, which I think is notable. Some of the links do show the history of the work and the group's legal hassles. I think the only real problem here is that the article on LogicalReality that verifies the FBI stuff can't be accessed by non-members. If there's a way a copy of that article could be posted where everyone could see it, I'd say Definitely Keep it. IamthatIam 03:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - strange how there are all these users on WP who have never contributed before except to this single article subject. Wickethewok 03:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Damn Straight! All of these other commenters are members of those Sinister Ministers the Bavarian Illuminati. I know some of them and have had to face off with them over a number of issues. They are trying to infiltrate Wikipedia, you must stop them and their mad dash to get people to think that just because many Discordians are aware of Rev Loveshade, his work, his legal issues and the correctness of his facts, that somehow its actually worthy of the Grand Wikipedia. I warn you, if you do not delete this entry soon, the Illuminati will overtake Wikipedia and all will be lost. The next thing you know servers will get hit with golden apples dunked in fire and brimstone (like carmel but more spicy!). I urge to to stop this madness before all is lost! - Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord, Muncher of the ChaoAcorn, Chatterer of the Words of Eris, POEE of The Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.72.211.132 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment - Like who? IamthatIam 03:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - like you, sir, with less than 20 edits, most of which are to talk pages. Like MRN, who has less than 10 edits. Like JennyGirl, who has never contributed to an article. And Binky, who has been here about a month and only contributed to the couple articles in question. Wickethewok 03:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment - Wickethewok said "strange how there are all these users on WP who have never contributed before except to this single article." Then when I questioned him, he completely contradicted himself. Now instead of me contributing 0 edits, it's less than 20. And instead of MRN contributing 0, it's less than 10. And what the f*** are you talking about Binky? Check Binky The WonderSkull again--he's only been here a month and has already made about 75 edits!Is this the way you work, Wickethewok by making up facts to support your position? Isn't that what you're accusing Binky of? Talk about calling the kettle black... IamthatIam 04:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Response - What I meant to say was that you hadn't contributed to anything except contributing information about the SUBJECT in question, and only a few edits at that (I have edited my comment to be more specific). And I never said that anyone had contributed "0 edits". Please don't put words in my mouth or text in my edit. I am merely pointing about how you and your friends have only contributed to this single article's subject, so you might not realize the fuller scope of Wikipedia, that is all. Other editors helped point me in the right direction when I started, too, so please don't take offense. Wickethewok 04:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Response - I'm going to assume you really are as ignorant as you're acting (my ohter option is to assume you're lying). "I never said that anyone had contributed '0 edits'" You're right, you didn't. You said, more or less (I see you'd edited your own comment) there are "all these users on WP who have never contributed before except to this single article subject." To enlighten you, if you've done something zero times, you've never done it. You might want to look it up. Maybe you'd learn something. IamthatIam 05:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Response - Please note the "except" section of this sentence of mine you have become so fond of. "Except" is used to modify the previous clause of a sentence. Wickethewok 05:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Response - Yes, I know basic English. So let me explain. If, with the exception of this article, you've done something zero times, then, with the exception of this article, you've never done it. You're focusing on semantics instead of the fact that you made a bold assertion that was verifiably not true. Why don't you just admit you made a statement that was utterly wrong and stop arguing about my use of English. IamthatIam 05:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Response - Siiigh. How about instead of attacking me and MY use of English, you focus your efforts on the deletion of this article? I believe this discussion is over. Please present any additional evidence of notability you have. Though I must say, you are rather enjoyable to argue with :). Wickethewok 05:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per SwatJester. Naconkantari 03:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: despite all the talk from this articles strident defenders, none of them have been able to provide any reliable sources. --Hetar 05:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Indeed, Hetar. In fact, according to WP:RS, We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. All of the sources cited most certainly fall under this category. Wickethewok 05:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of all this, as I am obviously biased. Just for my posting a comment here, some of you may be motivated to rip me to shreds. Go ahead, rip. I've had a lot of life experience and I've been ripped to shreds before. I've learned to lick my wounds, heal, and move on.

But you've torn not only into me and the work of myself and other Discordians, but into Binky The WonderSkull and Gerina who wrote this article. That is completely uncalled for. Call my work crap, call me crap, say I deserve to burn in Hell. But please don't hurt them. Maybe they're hoaxers, maybe they're lying. But if they are at least attempting to tell the truth, this is both of their first article on Wikipedia. They worked on it very hard for a month together.

Binky is very hurt, as I think you can tell from her posts. And Gerina, who is fresh out of high school and was very excited about this, is now afraid to even post comments here for fear she'll be torn to pieces. Both of them had been encouraged to write this article by active posters and administrators (see the Apocrypha and Ek-sen-trik-kuh discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Discordianism). Now, I don't know if either one of them will feel comfortable ever posting here again. Maybe some of you don't care. But I'm hoping some of you do.

Please look at your comments again, and see if you might want to consider an apology to them. They are people, they are human beings, they have feelings. Please consider that.  :-) Reverend Loveshade 05:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Indeed, if I have hurt any feelings, I apologize. However, feelings aside, I stand by recommendation for deletion - Wikipedia is not compromised for people's feelings, whether that is a good or a bad thing. Wickethewok 05:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Just to add to that, the people you mention have been asked repeatedly to come up with evidence of notability and verification, and haven't done so to the satisfaction of any independent person contributing to this discussion. Nobody has been deliberately insulting, and feelings hurt by process are very, very irrelevant. Vizjim 10:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep or at most Merge with Apocrypha Discordia~~ Brother William 13:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete – unless credible sources are found, as possible hoax – Gurch 13:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoaxy and missing reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or if you must merge with Apocrypha Discordia; been called that for a while, and verifiable with some searching. Notable enough in its own right. Voretus the Benevolent 18:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Revrend Loveshade is a heretical follower of the Bavarian Illuminati and has long been known as a Discordian Triple Agent (He was a double agent but converted). He has worked closely with Cecil Weishaupt (Great Great Grandson of Adam Weishaupt) in the development of this work. We cannot allow these false groups to overtake the sacred works of Eris K. Discordia. We know that She speaks only to those that have a pineal gland (and we have medical proof that Rev. Loveshade's pineal gland was removed in a secret Masonic rite on the 20th of last month). Therefore, this no-ledge could not have come from Eris, but instead from the False Non-Prophet, known as Auntie Kryst. Could one imagine granting a Wikipedia entry to The Gospel of Judas?!!! Surely not, for Judas' gospel is little known and (until it became popularized by the media) would have turned up few Google entries. This obviously is the same. Revrend Loveshade's apocryphal work sould not only be removed from Wikipedia, but all copies should be found, burned and his additional works banned! - Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord, Muncher of the ChaoAcorn, Chatterer of The Words of Eris, POEE of The Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.72.211.132 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as unsourced (WP:V, WP:RS), also rambling nonsense concerning a very non-notable sect. Sandstein 16:50, 21 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.  RasputinAXP  c 03:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Hunt

non-notable software engineer, Google search turns up message board postings and industry press releases. Ckessler 07:34, 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 03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic lobsters

Seems to be an intramural team from UC Riverside. No claims ot notability, and a complete lack of reliable sources. --Hetar 06:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non notable amateur sports team, fails WP:N. Love that the creating editor links to a 'history' article though! Rockpocket (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable intramural team -- Samir धर्म 07:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete They look like they are doing really good, but are still not notable --Dakart 08:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per NN Ydam 09:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 10:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As above ChaosAkita 01:23, 18 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 03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TheGrooveJunkies

vanity page for unremarkable musical group Mrmctorso 06:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete can not see that it asserts the notability of the subject WP:MUSIC, possibly could be speedy deleted (CSD A7).--blue520 07:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per (CSD A7). Rockpocket (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanispamcruftisment Ydam 09:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 10:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Navou (talk • contribs)
  • Delete probably can't be A7 speedied as there is a vague claim of notability, but it's unsubstantiated and in any case they appear to fall well short of WP:NMG. Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Does "the band plays all over the state and beyond" really count as a claim of notability? Rockpocket (talk) 17:13, 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 03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De La Guerra Dining Commons (better known as DLG)

I created this to replace a Proposed Deletion... I feel that this should be discussed Dakart 07:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I think this is notable. Especially due to "Bubble Toes." It does need to be re-written, though and I think it needs to be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakart (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Plenty of songs make obscure local / personal references, that doesn't qualify their subjects as article-worthy in and of themselves. Mrmctorso 07:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - campuscruft. Non-notable cafeteria complete with in-references. Wickethewok 07:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Very crufty Ydam 09:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is so crufty... I can't think of a joke. But it's cruftyrific. -- Kicking222 13:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete One mention in a song is not really enough for a separate article. Just zis Guy you know? 16:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would also vote to delete an article about the Burberry jacket referenced in Leonard Cohen's Famous Blue Raincoat. ergot 20:11, 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 04:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FNK.ca

  • Leave - The FNK message board is notable to 1000's of people in Vancouver and beyond, as it is the only online credible source for the Vancouver rave scene, as well as the media etc. AGROculture
  • Leave - I build this site from no knowledge and a lot of heart. I would hate to re-wiki it when it's in the lime of lights. Would that not put egg on some faces.sNyx 02:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - if there is any way on earth to speedy this, please do so. Non-notable message board. Wickethewok 07:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No one on Wikipedia cares about this because it is not-notable. --Dakart 07:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As non-notable as local electronica message boards can be. Rockpocket (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unquestionably non-notable. Mrmctorso 07:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn website, fails WP:WEB Kcordina Talk 10:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 10:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • LEAVE*- Leave it on there, FNK is a community as well as a resource for many people to see what is going on in the vancouver area.play-it-hard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.53.157.130 (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 KEEP. Rje 12:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dungeons & Dragons pop culture references

This is an arbitrary list of trivia, in the form "List of times object has been mentioned in fiction." In this case, it's merely a mention of every time D&D has been mentioned in fiction, generally with little context. It illustrates no trend and doesn't serve as a navigational aid. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, I see no particular problems with it. JIP | Talk 08:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see any problems with this or any other list entry.Wyatt Riot 08:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The POINT of the list is the effect D&D has had on popular culture. You haven't set up the Society and Star Trek or Notable lines in the Star Wars series, or other articles of the sort. Leave it alone, it's not like it's a stub list. Coyote42 09:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and encourage A Man In Bl♟ck to follow up Coyote42's excellent suggestions for future AfD's. Pointless fanlistcruft that fails to establish notability. Vizjim 10:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I hate to argue with someone who agrees with me, but notability isn't really at issue here. D&D is eminently notable; I'm simply arguing that this article has no subject but is instead a list of facts with a common attribute. Since there's no subject, there's no way to decide if the subject is notable or not. (If someone could demonstrate to me that there's a trend illustrated here or some other similar subject, then I'd probably withdraw the nom.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair enough: do we at least agree that in its current form this is "pointless fanlistcruft"? (I'll alter it to "notable pointless fanlistcruft" if you prefer.) Vizjim 10:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
        • You realize I was being sarcastic, right, Viz?Coyote42 18:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the less is mentioned on popular culture about D&D, the better. It makes life vastly easier for those of us who play it, without having to "defend" it at every turn. --Agamemnon2 10:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. It also lacks sources. No doubt other lists on the Wiki have similar issues and should all eventually find their way here. Incidentally, I have nothing against D&D even though a pompous DM or two cooled my desire play, way back when. PJM 12:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Apparently, this was taken out of the main Dungeons & Dragons article as it was becoming too long. Seems reasonable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I despise D&D... a lot... but this article is a worthy addition to WP. It's also a very well-written article. -- Kicking222 13:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Heck, as to that, the article presumes that all these pop references mean D&D. There are plenty of other RPGs out there those cinematic characters could be playing; that's like a Poker Pop Culture References article presuming that every card game played on the screen must be poker. RGTraynor 15:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep articles forked from parent due to length; needs citations. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The parent article is only 45K long. The 32K limit is just a guideline. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not meeting the verifiability policy. The number of entries for which published sources meeting WP:RS can be found is probably much smaller than this list and these entries can go into the article. There's no reason to have a completely unselective list of pop culture references to D&D; only the important ones need to be in the main article, and you'll never convince me that all of these entries are important. The verifiability policy is probably sufficient to trim them down in an objective way.Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if only to prevent this list from being rebuilt over time in the main article. I can see the value in having an article about D&D in pop culture, but information like this does not belong in the main article. BreathingMeat 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable, per others. - CNichols 21:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per BreathingMeat ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and well-written. --Sir Ophiuchus 23:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pop Will Eat Itself, and this is evidence that it threw up afterwards. Enumeration is not information. Information is not knowledge. -- GWO
  • Keep – per Starblind, it has sufficient material, if it was taken out of the main article to keep the size down, that's fine – Gurch 13:16, 18 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 - the verifiable third-party print references are in David Gerard 11:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apocrypha Discordia

Delete - <200 google hits, none of which can be considered reliable or noteworthy sources. Started as a non-notable usenet thing and never became more important. No claims of notability. Wickethewok 07:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment This actually might be somewhat notable in the Discordianism joke but I'm not sure. As to google hits, it's not that simple: see how many unique hits you get for Microsoft (I get 136, YMMV.) If google's "of about N for TheSubject" is greater than 1000 then the unique page count can't be interpreted directly. Weregerbil 08:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because Discordian Works now covers this. I said Keep before, but I think the combined article is a better way to go.JennyGirl 03:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, somebody's done his research! I think I'll add that comment to the discussion about Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia too. Apocrypha has a history, it's been around in Loveshade's form since the mid 1990s which is now the Ek-sen-trik-kuh, and in DrJon's form since 2001 or so. And really, Wickethewok, do you really feel you have the authority to declare a work as non-notable? That sounds like an opinion to me. Some people think Barbie is stupid, so should we delete her article too? JennyGirl 08:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I have yet to see any reliable sources that state the importance of this subject. Wikipedia has notability guidelines. And indeed I alone do not decide these guidelines, which is why there is the AFD process. Also, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing your first article when that happens. Wickethewok 08:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; if "stupid" was a criterion for deletion, possibly, but it isn't. Non-notability is, however, a criterion for deletion, and this isn't notable. RGTraynor 15:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia.--Dakart 08:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This has been done as Discordian Works. JennyGirl 03:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - My two cents: The Apocrypha Discordia was created and evolved as a separate work to what's now known as the Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia. The title was influenced by the mention by Steve Jackson, not by the subsequent Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, and the research for the work itself stretched back to the 1970s. Although one of the extant three short pieces from Rev.Loveshade's work was included, that piece shares space with over a hundred other works - the primary ones being "apocryphal" but genuine passages omitted from the Principia Discordia. The Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia (although no doubt a worthy work) is entirely incidental to this Apocrypha Discordia. Keep or Delete the entry as you will (I would argue that it seems to have become rather beloved of modern Discordians--I receive fan emails at a slow but steady pace--and it is in the Library of Congress), but the work is wholly separate to the Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, and if the wikipedia cares about accuracy at all, it will not merge the entries for two uniquely different works. Drjon 09:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, with compliments to Wickethewok's arguments. Vizjim 10:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wickethewok, though I can accept Dakart's argument of merging with Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, if the merge takes place just before that article gets deleted. Fan1967 14:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if we're going to be calling religions 'non-notable' and deleting holy texts, we might as well be deleting things like the Tattvartha Sutra and that ilk. I have never even heard of the religion that the sutra belongs to before, but I don't think we should go around deleting it! Voretus the Benevolent 18:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The fact that you've never heard of a major religion like Jainism, which has millions of followers, does not justify keeping articles for every group with a few dozen. Fan1967 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I was making a point, anyway. We even have articles on hypothetical religions! Amounts of followers do not make a religion any more important. Things like this should be especially true for any religion, too, since I would imagine a lot of people would take offense to a part of their beliefs (or somewhat-beliefs in this case maybe) being called non-notable. Voretus the Benevolent 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Notability is not the same as importance. Fan1967 18:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Many would take offense to their beliefs being called non-notable, but to date the fact that people might be offended at the deletion of articles based around their own pet causes is significantly absent from the AfD criteria or process, and thank whatever god we might worship for that. RGTraynor 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I was commenting on Fan1967's comment at 18:27, not trying to make another argument towards keeping the article; I was saying that amounts of followers aren't directly correlated to notability, as demonstrated by the invisible pink unicorn and flying spaghetti monster, which both have approximately 0 real followers. Voretus the Benevolent 19:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The fundamental definition of "notability," as we use it here, is "a lot of people care/know about it." Wikipedia standards of notability involve being in a bunch of libraries (for a book), receiving significant media coverage and/or sales rankings (for a company), reached a significant number of album sales or radio airplay (for a band), or with high Google and Alexa rankings (for a website). That there is not one shred more verifiable, NPOV evidence of the existence of Allah than there is of the Lint God that lives in my navel doesn't remotely make the latter an equivalent faith to the former. RGTraynor 19:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was saying. Voretus the Benevolent 19:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Notability isn't based on the number of followers. It's based on how many people are aware of it (which of course does include the followers themselves). Heaven's Gate had very few followers but became, poshumously, quite notable. FSM is a pretty famous joke, and qualifies based on that. This, on the other hand, seems to have few members, and is all but unknown outside the group. Fan1967 19:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is this non-notable if Discoridianism itself is notable? Why would it be less notable, than, say the Church of the Sub-Genius, which also has "sacred texts"? There are religious dissenters in all religious groups, even seemingly bogus ones. KEEP unless new criteria for religions are developled; then you can delete FSM and the Church of Bob as well. Rlquall 21:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Except the "sacred texts" for Discordianism are the Principia Discordia, which are not being challenged. This is some additional stuff that some (how many?) believe in and some (how many?) dispute, according to the article itself. Fan1967 21:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That sounds remarkably like saying that the Apocrypha should not have a page of their own because it's "additional stuff that some...believe in and some...dispute". If you're happy to keep Discordianism why the problem with pages relating to its texts? ~~ Brother William 13:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or if you must Merge with Discordianism. Discordianism and its subcomponents are a notable religion and/or cultural phenomenon. - CNichols 21:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Spinoffs of notable things are not always notable - fanfic for example. Wickethewok 03:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or if you must Merge with Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia. Both these works were called Apocrypha Discordia at one time, both have parts of them posted on a lot of websites, and both of them have parts translated into different languages. If it's notable enough to translate, it's notable enough to keep - IamthatIam 03:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Umm, anyone can translate something. The fact that something has been translated does not make it notable. Additionally, parts of them have been posted on a couple non-notable websites. Not notable at all... Wickethewok 03:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I certainly wouldn't call it "non-notable". It's probably a more viable form of belief than the Church of the SubGenius and I don't see anyone calling for that to be deleted. While Discordianism is relatively small it is still a valid and notable topic, and the Apocrypha Discordia form a part of that topic. ~~ Brother William 12:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Invalid comparison; no one is calling for the main Discordian article to be deleted either. This, by contrast, is non-notable. RGTraynor 13:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In your own humble opinion.~~ Brother William 15:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep Despite not being as well known as the Principia, mainly because Illuminatus was written before its creation, the Apocrypha is still an important text in the Discordian canon. In my view for wiki to give an accurate and clear picture of Discordianism it should have pages on the most important texts. Discordianism has grown beyond the many versions of the Principia and to ignore the Apocrypha would be ignoring a notable part of the religion. References to the text have been around since 1994 and some have even referred to it as "The New Testament" of Discordia (Konton magazine Autumnal Equinox 2005). -Prenna 16:11, 18 May 2006

  • Comment - This is another aspect of the confusion over the two Apocrypha Discordias (the first now called Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia--see the deletion proposal for that entry). The 1994 reference to Apocrypha Discordia was to a possible work that Steve Jackson Games was considering, but never did. The first works to claim to be part of Apocrypha Discordia were written by Reverend Loveshade, and appeared online in 1995. (As proof, the dates on the index of both http://www.geocities.com/bloodstar84/pd_links.html and http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/7971/panpleasant/apocrypha.html will show these works were posted in the 1990s). While DrJon wrote that he had been collecting Discordian works for over 20 years, he didn't publicly use the title Apocrypha Discordia until he published his collection using that name in 2001. I think we should keep the articles on both works, or at least Merge them. But realize that some of the arguments here for DrJon's Apocrypha Discordia actually refer to Reverend Loveshade's work, Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia. 207.67.146.218 03:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Egads, you all keep putting up those links to geocities sites - give it a rest. Geocities could not possible be less of a reliable and notable source, so please try a notable source, such as CNN, Newsweek or online sources similar to Slashdot or CNET. I'm tired of these weak arguments backed up with Geocities. If this really was notable, you could come up with a convincing set of sources that didn't involve Geocities. Wickethewok 04:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Response - I came up with an international print magazine as a source that refers to the importance of the Apocrypha, not exactly Geocities, eh?. Prenna 08:28, 19 May 2006
    • Comment - I believe the point the poster was making was that the Date Stamp on the article verified when it was posted. The Date Stamp is set by clocks based on International Standards, and can't be changed by a Yahoo!, Geocities, Angelfire, or whatever user. In fact, they have been used as evidence in court, and falsifying them is a violation of international law. The whole structure of the Internet is based on that--determining who first registers a domain name, for example. It's possible with the right program to fake the date stamp on an email; it's almost impossible to fake one on a website. IamthatIam 06:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Response - Ok... thats nice.... I don't think how old this hoax is in under questioning or if anyone asked for proof regarding that. What we want is proof of notability, not age. Something can be a few years old and still be non-notable. Wickethewok 06:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Response - So is that your problem: you think it's a hoax and are needing people to justify its inclusion? It's a pity you can't show some impartiality.~~ Brother William 12:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Response - Ermm... yes. That is the long and short of it. We need evidence that this is notable. I don't know how I'm being not being impartial. The editors of Wikipedia are requesting verifiable information about this subject being notable, and no one has provided it. Thats the bottom line. Wickethewok 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment - Sorry to stick my nose in again. References to the work as a "Discordian New Testament" in print magazines, as cited about (off the top of my head, it's also cited in Kristin Buxton's the lifecycle of the principia discordia), general familiarity with the work by most Discordians (ask one), the fact that copies of the work are hosted by at least four major, separate Discordian websites (1 2 3 4), the fact that two different editions are in print (albeit small-press editions [www.cafepress.com/discordianist.16077076 1]2)... There's some stuff that's verifiable for you, and I think notable as well. Enjoy your bottom line. Drjon 02:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Response I was pointing out the history of the concept of the Apocrypha which, particularly in something like Discordianism, is an important thing. The fact that Steve Jackson created the idea in 1994 shows that the concept has been in the consciousness of Discordians, and non-Discordians, for 12 years. I was not attempting to write Rev Loveshade out of history or anything. Prenna 08:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge with Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia I don't think they each need their own article. DoggyGirl 06:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep Subpage of discordiansm, WP not paper, etc. Suspecion that some delete votes are themselves jokes. But maybe Im a pink, or maybe I cant tell my postmodernist religions apart. JeffBurdges 16:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into Discordian Works. I think that should be a good compromise. —204.42.20.4 01:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discordian Works

  • Merge - with Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia. While it might be premature, this has already been done. IamthatIam wrote the article Discordian Works and I added my bit. It leaves room for other Discordian Works. When one of them get enough to warrant a separate article, it can be taken out and made into a separate article. MRN 04:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bottom line

There have been no secondary sources presented to prove notability. By the rules of Wikipedia's verifiable sources, non-primary sources are the only ones that can provide proof of notability. All information presented here in favor of keep have been primary sources. There have been ZERO secondary sources presented. ZERO! ZILCH! NONE! Thus, there has been no verifiable evidence of notability. Thus, there is no way any rule-abiding member of Wikipedia could possibly vote to keep this. Lets go through all presented links one by one...

I concur, but then I did not use this as a Notability claim
I concur, but then I did not use this as a Notability claim
This site believes the book notable enough to host
I concur, but then I did not use this as a Notability claim
This is a translation into German, not original research (and not a machine translation). It's not notable that someone has translated 100 pages into another language? Nor that they believe it notable enough to host?
This site believes the book notable enough to host
Non-trivial publishing company which has published the book
I concur, but then I did not use this as a Notability claim
This article cites the work. That's notable.
This site believes the book notable enough to host
This site believes the book notable enough to host
This site believes the book notable enough to host. This is the main repository of Discordian works. Your insinuation can be safely ignored
This site believes the book notable enough to host
  • www.cafepress.com/discordianist.16077076 - Trivial listing where anyone can publish whatever they want.
Non-trivial rework of the book into publishable format, which has been printed using Cafepress by a publisher
Non-trivial small-press publisher, using eBay to sell their quality hard-cover books. A Hard-cover and a soft-cover edition in print is not notable?
  • See? Every source of proof you have provided does not qualify under Wikipedia guidelines as proof of notability. If you wish, you may provide additional sources and I will tell you why those are also don't work. Wickethewok 04:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You challenge the statement earlier on that you are not impartial, but then you say "you may provide additional sources and I will tell you why those are also don't work". That seems to say that, whatever the evidence, you will deny it. Interesting. You also ignore the reference to published, non-internet works. Also interesting. Drjon 06:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Still ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit your opinion on this then eh? As I've referenced previously, international print magazine, Konton, has referred to this book as "the new testament of Discordianism" (Autumnal Quinox 2005). Perhaps you are unaware that life exists outside the internet as well. From what I can see you have decided that you will delete this and nothing will shake you from this decision. Fortunately other people are seeing this too. Prenna 08:37, 23/5/06 (UTC)
Wow. I must say I'm impressed at the lengths you will go to in order to justify your bias. What ever happened to Wiki's NPOV? You don't think it's notable. Fine. You also seem to be under the delusion it's a hoax. You're also selectively ignoring the non-internet evidence that has been referenced. You'd make a great Press Secretary if you ever get into politics.~~ Brother William 10:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Your initial statement that the work "Started as a non-notable usenet thing" is an error of fact. It demonstrably did not start as a "usenet" thing, but as an internet thing. Your additional statement "and never became more important" is easily countered with the fact that it has been wholeheartedly adopted by Discordians around the globe, as demonstrated by the many different Discordian groups which have adopted the work.Drjon 06:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any earthly reason not to speedy close this as a keep? The references are in and they're third-party - David Gerard 11:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And note that I don't question Wickethewok's sincerity in nomination, but he does appear to be manifesting something resembling a slight case of WP:OWN on the deletion debate - David Gerard 11:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this is over five days old. Closing - David Gerard 11:25, 23 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 by Jni. --Rory096 08:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ask Mz

Non-notable website. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 08:22, 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.  RasputinAXP  c 03:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  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}}

[edit] Anime pulse

Non-notable podcast Skysmith 09:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per NN Ydam 09:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 10:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 13:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice per nom. Oh boy, a whole 3500 DLs per cast? I'd get that many hits in the next ninety seconds with an "Alexis Bledel Nude Sunbathing" article, never mind the sheer power of a podcast with the following adline: "Rukia, the awesome girlfriend-san, adds the female point of view with commentary and reviews." I believe I shall adopt the article's own rating system and give it a "burn it and [urinate] on the ashes" ranking. (Plainly I need more tea.) RGTraynor 14:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as far as I can tell this falls below WP:WEB... and I want to see the source for RGTraynor's "Alexis Bledel Nude Sunbathing" article.--Isotope23 17:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment; well, if you hit my PayPal account ... RGTraynor 18:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, As far as WP:WEB #1, it may not be multiple at this point, but the write-up on Anime.com was neither trivial nor instigated internally.--Psiclopz 20:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Keep, There is obviously some hatred toward podcasts here and their reasons are not pollicy just opinion. I will also point out that comparing anything's hits to porn is futile, as we all know that's 90% of the internet. RGTraynor Your personal opinion of someones title doesn't change the notability. It seems that the only reason anyone considers it NN is because it is a podcast. Weltall42 23:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Because the only way anyone could possibly find a podcast non-notable is if he has a personal axe to grind? That being said, the inevitable forum post about the AfD is out on their BB [14], and the only contributions of the previous two editors are on the article, its talk page and this AfD. RGTraynor 05:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Oh no! Someone has never bothered to edit an article before now. That must mean that they are just tooting their own horn. That being said, your condescending attitude is not useful to this discussion. - Psiclopz 14:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sorry I don't know my previous user name and don't have hundreds of edits, I have have contributed to more and will be for some time Weltall42 21:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Due to precedence. The Dawn and Drew show http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_and_Drew do not meet any of the Notable criteria required but yet I don't see you trying to delete their entry. Ichigo 15:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment What precedent are you referring to? Dawn and Drew already underwent 2 AfD's, one ended in Keep on fairly low vote numbers and the second was withdrawn (incorrectly formated nom; appears nominator mistook the first AfD's votes for a quick tally of keeps and withdrew the nomination). Dawn and Drew is arguably one of the most popular podcasts out there. Personally, I don't know why anyone bothers with the mindless drivel that is D&D, but it is obviously quite popular. Are you suggesting that Anime pulse is on the same level of popularity as D&D? Can you provide some evidence of this? Where does it rank on some of the Podcast ranking sites (Podcast Alley for instance)?--Isotope23 13:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per all above. 3500 downloads per cast may seem small to you, but it's 3499 more than is needed for a fan-base. Just because it's small doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the wiki. I don't understand the _need_ for the deletion. If you don't find the podcast or this associated wiki page interesting, that's grand, everyone is obviously entitled to an opinion, but why remove a wiki page that other people may be interested in ? Zerophyte 16:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Because Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, has standards for admission, and those standards rest upon verifiability and notability; I commend WP:WEB to you in this particular case. As it happens, the Dawn & Drew podcast cited above has an Alexa rank of 10,924, which is decent. By contrast, Anime Pulse's website has an Alexa rank of 1,051,956, which is downright horrible, and has so little traffic that it doesn't even rank in the top hundred thousand of websites for daily traffic. Comparing the two podcasts is like comparing apple trees with apple seeds. When your cast become notable, then you should feel free to have an article written about your site. It is certainly not so now. (And beyond that, as long as you folks rank other people's works with the phrase ""burn it and piss on the ashes", you really don't have much of a leg to stand on to claim insult.) RGTraynor 17:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: 1. Last I checked, WP:WEB doesn't have Alexa listed as a valid way to determine notability, and 2. 10924 is the rank for www.podshow.com, of which Dawn and Drew are 1 subdomain. Their site itself is not near that high, so get your own facts straight before trying to look cool. Psiclopz 18:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: notability not established despite claims by other users and sock puppets. Come back when you have several reliable sources. --Hetar 19:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You've just gotta love the way sock/meat puppets never seem to vote Keep properly. It makes them so much easier to spot.Ydam 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Your face is stupid. That the equivilant of your last argument, since wikipedia has standards for admission, facts beeing wrong and calling people sock puppets means many of your comments and opinions here should be deleted. Weltall42 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That was not an argument, mearly an observation based on experiance. The arguments here carry exactly the same validity weather they come from an experianced user with a long edit history or from someone who's just signed up. As it happens a satisfactory reason as to why this fulfill wiki notability guidelines has yet to be presented. If one can be presented then I and I'm sure others will happily change their opinions Ydam 22:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed... I wholly open to considering any good logical argument as to why this should be kept or evidence of this meeting WP:WEB (or even why this should be considered important/popular withing the context of the podcast genre).--Isotope23 13:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 06:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn --Alphachimp talk 06:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Why delete it? Wikipedia exists to provide information to any and every user. If a rigid doctrine on restricting what is or isn't admissable is going to be enforced, then I strongly suggest people look at the "unnecessary" pages that are already here. The page is harmless, constructive even, providing information for the podcast's growing fanbase. Yes, I said growing. Got it memorised? Because while the fanbase isn't the strongest, it is increasing weekly. Look at the podcast's site and forum for proof. Lunatic raveV 00:08, 22 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.  RasputinAXP  c 03:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fields Data Recovery

Advertisement in article form, apparrently edited by the company, inserting links to the article in the Data recovery article to drum up business, etc --Nnp 09:32, 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 patent nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 20:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bikarity

Looks like Patent nonsense. No Ghits at all. But I'm bringing it up at AFD for an outside opinion. If confirmed, should be speedied. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 09:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Kevin 10:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete .Bharatveer 10:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax / lame joke. PJM 11:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. So bad, it's too bad to be included in BJAODN. -- Kicking222 13:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above and WP:BALLS. What hath God wrought? RGTraynor 14:46, 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.  RasputinAXP  c 04:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ess copy services

I'm not exactly sure what this is selling, but I recognize marketingspeak when I see it. This is an ad for services, and thus inappropriate and unencyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertising Kevin 10:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have no idea what's going on in this article, but I'm pretty sure it's not notable. -- Kicking222 13:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It appears the original author works for the company who graciously gave permission for material from their website to be used. Paddles 14:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; set this adspam on fire. RGTraynor 14:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is a subuset of IBM's Enterprise Storage Services architecture, it's an add-on that provides real-time data asecurity, I think (that's from memory, I no longer work for an IBM Business Partner). Not independently notable, I think. Actually it might well be (i.e. it might just be justifiable to have an article separate from ESS), but this is just copy & paste adcrap, so no loss. Just zis Guy you know? 20:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Marketing rubbish, though what it's trying to sell I'm not sure. - Richardcavell 23:03, 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 the truthiness to those in power.  RasputinAXP  c 04:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

OK, now a few things to mention first. One: the editors who have put this page together have done a good job, and should be congratualted for it. It is nicely laid out, and well referenced. But please do not consider the quality of the article; at AFD we must consider whether or not the subject of the article is encyclopaedic with regards only to the deletion policy. Two: this is not a "bad faith nom"; I said I would do this when it was at WP:FAC because I want to see what other people think. I think this page is an important example of what is currently happening a lot on Wikipedia: short-term (often US-centric) phenomenon that get extensive pages, with almost all web-based sources, because they are recent and well-covered. However, I think we should resort to ten year test (I would prefer one hundred, but I am willing to be disagreed with). Will anyone remember - or want to remember - this event in ten years? It was a comedian, doing a comedy routine. That happens all the time. It is not anything special, not notable and in a few years no-one will care. Thus I urge a delete. This could act as a litmus for a whole lot of other pages, so please think hard, vote wisely (whichever way you vote), and let's have a nice, harmonious discussion. Batmanand | Talk 09:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Tricky one this. A well put argument from Batmanand which goes to the heart of what wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and from that definition this type of article doesn't fit, this is a news article and not a encyclopedia entry. However, perhaps part of the joy of wikipedia is that the articles can go beyond what is normal strict encyclopedia content, the impact of a slightly out-of-place article may be felt insignificant due to the format of wikipedia. But, then where do you draw the line? There have to be firm rules. So, after much consideration, I vote delete. This is an event which gives a good news story, but it is not an encyclopedic article. I know there are lots of other comparable topics on here that have not been deleted, but that is not an argument to keep this one. As Batmanand states, each article must be considered only against the deletion policy. Well done Batmanand, you've raised a good topic. Kcordina Talk 10:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I repect Batmanand's argument, but I think this is a well written and well referenced article on a verifiable and notable topic. It's a keeper -- Samir धर्म 10:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, the topic is notable, but information about it is already given on the Stephen Colbert page, which is where researchers would ordinarily go to. Would any significant information be lost if this article were to go? Vizjim 11:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or it should be merged to Stephen Cobert page. This was an important event considering the current political climate. Vegalo 10:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a WikiNews story, not an encyclopedia entry. It's a news event in one country out of over 200, and the precedent that articles like this set is difficult. I appreciate that Wikipedia is not paper, and can accomodate a near-infinite amount of information. However, at some point editors have to exercise judgement and selectivity. This raw mass of citations and data should have been placed within the Stephen Colbert article, and pruned down massively to take account of the ten year test. I agree with Batmanand where he says "It is not anything special, not notable and in a few years no-one will care." A record could still be kept, but on the Colbert pages (and maybe on the Bush page, as a small footnote, and as an anecdote on the White House Correspondents Association Dinner article).Vizjim 10:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Normally I would vote merge but given the length and detail of this article I support spinning it off in to it's own article. As for Batmanand's argument, I agree that in future peeople will be less interested in it but I'm not sure that should be a reason to delete it. It is a notable subject now but in the future it won't cease to have been a notable event it will just cease being a notable event. Pretty much the same as any current event. Ydam 10:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with applause. Well put. For one thing, keeping articles like this for extended periods of time is US-centric bias, and should not be allowed to flourish unfettered. To be frank, from where I'm sitting, topical jokes based on individual heads of state are nowhere near worthy of inclusion.--Agamemnon2 11:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notible and interesting subject. --ShaunMacPherson 11:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep various reasons - obviously notable event, at very least in the context of the colbert report because that one event shot up, at least initially, its ratings by 30%. Please do not delete. It is as it always was T | @ | C 11:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If it is any consolation I think Batmanand gives the best arguement one could give for deleting this, but the fact remains that we have a very well referenced and written article on an encyclopedic featured article-quality article here. It is as it always was T | @ | C 11:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep - interesting event, notability established, could make a good Featured Article. --Sunfazer | Talk 11:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
By point of fact, it just failed its first FAC. Batmanand | Talk 11:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Even the best articles here often fail FAC. This one was quite close. It is as it always was T | @ | C 12:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As can be seen here, it was not close at all. It did not receive one non-nom, non-anon support vote. Batmanand | Talk 12:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not think that this performance will be very notable in a few months. Once the "OMG DID YOU SEE THAT?!" factor dies out in a bit, it will be memorable each correpondents' dinner as a litimus test: "Oh, he was funny, but not on the Colbert scale." It's just like the opening monologue of the Oscars or something, we don't have individual articles on each performance by an Oscars host, just mentions of it in their own articles. See Chris Rock and Jon Stewart. Metros232 12:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this is the type of incident that would have merited a yearbook entry in the former World Book Encyclopedia. DL77 12:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The nub of the argument in favour of deletion is that, in the future, it will be non-notable. Clearly, the article on White House Correspondents' Associations contradicts this. If the event will be non-notable ten years after the event, why is it that the article notes that Al Fraken presented it ten years ago? Why, indeed, does it have more than just a name for Bill Clinton's bit in 2000 or Richard Nixon's in 1969? Surely, if it is non-notable, nobody would remember. That editors do remember (or have evidence of it) proves that it is notable, and will remain so into the future. Why it has a long article is quite another matter, but an article it must definitely should have. Bastin8 12:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the fact that Stephen Colbert was the speaker at this particular occasion is notable. The question is: why does this particular appearance deserve a separate article, instead of the usual few lines at White House Correspondents' Association, and a mention in his own article? Your examples, on this basis, surely only support my argument? Batmanand | Talk 12:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
My comparison to Nixon/Clinton/Franken was not a necessary condition of it deserving an article. However, you asked the question, "Will anyone remember - or want to remember - this event in ten years?" Perhaps people won't remember - or want to remember - the ratings boost to the Colbert Report or to its Google ranking, but they will want to remember that he did the gig, and the approximate content of it. Hence, in my opinion, it fits the notability criterion. As long as the WHCA holds a dinner and invites comedians to perform, people will want to remember Stephen Colbert's performance. Perhaps that's because (as an inclusionist), I believe that each and every WHCAD performance should have an article (if it has enough information), or maybe it's because Colbert's was one of the most notable in the history of the event. Bastin8 12:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Great, so Al Franken hosted this dinner ten years ago. That's a factoid deserving of about as many words as I just used. Deciding that this particular comic's routine at some minor event is worthy of a full scale article? That's like writing an article based around Nixon's post-Watergate resignation speech -- something which surely has an order of magnitude more historical significance -- for which I'm sure I could dredge up five hundred contemporary quotes parsing every particular, and which surely is remembered. (No such article exists, needless to say.) Great, so the blogosphere went mental in the forty-eight hours after the act, but the only difference between Colbert's gig and Jay Leno is that the President was present and Leno does it every night. The nom is exactly right; this is pop culture ephemera no one will remember six months from now. I like the "ten year" rule myself. RGTraynor 13:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Even now, I had to go and read the article to remind myself what this was about. In 6 months I am sure noone will remember at all. This does not deserve its own article. Should either be merged to Stephen Colbert, or a general article about the White House Correspondent's dinner. If it cannot be merged, it should be deleted. Mrjeff 13:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete per Mrjeff. Humourous political commentary happens frequently; while this may have been a good sample (and acknowleding the effort the editor/s have put into writing the article), I don't see what makes it so notable beyond that of other similar events as to warrant its own entry in an encyclopedia. Paddles 14:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I don't buy this whole "US-centric bias" argument. If it's notable in the U.S., it's notable period, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. This is a demonstrably notable and highly-publicized event, and articles like these are precisely what make Wikipedia great. If you were to hear about this event, where else would you go to get such an in-depth description of it other than Wikipedia? Aplomado talk 14:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Is something that is notable in any other country thus automatically notable? Because if not, then by definition Wikipedia would be US-centric. Batmanand | Talk 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
So even if an event is notable in a country of 250 million people, it's all null and void because Brits don't find it notable? C'mon. Aplomado talk 04:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
That is not what I said. I said that, unless one considers all events that are notable in any country to be automatically notable enough for Wikipedia (to which I suppose I should perhaps ad the caveat that the country has to be of a sufficient size to make it notable to lots of people - say a country of more than ten million people or something like that), then one is automatically being US-centric. I am not some sort of US-phobe. I am simply saying that it is clear double standards to give the US a lower burden of "notability" proof. Batmanand | Talk 08:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge per nom. This may well be notable enough to mentioned in Stephen Colbert and White House Correspondents' Association, but not an article of its own. If it does end up with it's own article, I would suggest at least moving it to simply 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. JPD (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ydam. Mangojuicetalk 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete per User:Mrjeff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Patrick-br msg 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable event, high-quality article. This isn't just another night at the comedy club, as demonstrated by the press coverage. Would swamp Stephen Colbert if merged back to parent. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. This is a notable event per many of the arguments given. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 16:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It was friggin' hilarious, but I don't think it warrants a separate article from the correspondents dinner. ScottW 17:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a very interesting discussion from my point of view, and I can understand both sides to a certain extent. Personally, I believe that the core question (as it has been pointed out) restated is: will be this speech important in the course of the history?. Well, in my opinion, we can't possibly know at the moment. In order to answer to this question we should look back on it in the far future, we don't have now enough context to judge the historical impact of the speech. However, we can say it has been a remarkable event at the moment and, given the quality of the article is relatively high, why don't we leave it and let the future contributors (with enough context) judge the importance of it?. Pafmon 17:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a tough one, but it's notable now. If in a year or ten its non-notable then we can delete it then. Rjm656s 17:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anything less amounts to censorship. 2.7 million downloads in 4 days according to the New York Times, 50,000+ signatures at thankyoustephencolbert.org, I'd say this is a pretty significant event. Bastin8 says it probably the best out of any of us. --kizzle 18:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, not an encyclopedia article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is a former featured article candidate; Stephen was voted one of the top 100 most influential people, and this is in my mind a historical document a-la Edward R. Murrows work. It will still be in my mind in 10 years. The video Clinton did 6 years ago is too, and if only I could see that again. It is comedy, but has value as a record of what this president would probably not put in any history books he writes. The REAL question is if it will be referenced by the George W. Bush library... - please tell me this article has more value than Homestar
  • Keep. Uvaduck 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is a combination of a review of a single performance and a distillation of news stories. It is, as Btamanand says, a single comedy routine, and they happen all the time. It is not as notable as, say, Happy Birthday, Mr. President, a much smaller article. I'm not sure about a ten year test, this probably fails a ten minute test for me. As Batmanand says, this is a high quality article on an unencyclopaedic topic. Take it to Wikinews, perhaps. Just zis Guy you know? 20:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete - This is the very definition of an invented news story. Remember when Jon Stewart delivered that blistering attack on Crossfire last year? Me neither. That's why it only merits a section on the Jon Stewart article. Just as this only deserves a section in the Colbert article. This story gained traction because the blogging community (a lot of whom happen to be in Colbert's target demographic) made a stink over it. The increase in ratings his show got is nice, but I would remind people that if his show aired on a non-cable network its low ratings would've led to it being cancelled a long time ago. --cholmes75 20:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Seems like you remember Jon Stewart's performance well enough to make it an example. --kizzle 20:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a rather disingenuous arguement, since you obviously do remember Stewart's Crossfire incident. - CNichols 21:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Ummm, the article makes mention of it. --cholmes75 19:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I must have missed the part in policies in guidelines where it says articles should be deleted if Cholmes75 didn't remember them, regardless whether other people did. --kizzle 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Massive news coverage. Important story that should be included here. Great treatment of subject. Editors deserve praise not deletion. -- JJay 20:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Important cultural and political news story, as per others who stated it more eloquently. - CNichols 21:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep If Times says it's the political news story of the year, then it's worth keeping. Genuine satire of the presidency with him present is a rare thing indeed - I've learnt much from this article. 84.97.156.17 22:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename it to 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner and merge in to it stuff about the Bush/Bridges routine. I think that the dinner as an event is notable, given the tradition of Presidents attending and the usual element of satirical presentations. I consider this particular dinner to be notable because of the two incidents with Bridges and Colbert which were reported widely, not just in the United States (it was covered several days in a row in Australia), and which seem to be regarded as extraordinary even in the context of the dinner. --bainer (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep high quality and complete article. --Rob 22:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - but I also suggest renaming it 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, in which case it becomes notable beyond doubt regardless. - Richardcavell 23:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the most significant political satires in recent memory. -- Phil Welch (t) (c) 23:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikinews M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. If there exists wikipolicy that would encourage this article to be deleted I think said policy needs to be reconsidered. The event is past, analysis of the event is not likely to change dramatically, if it once belonged in wikinews in no longer does. Mathiastck 00:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep well-referenced IMO. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The event did garner a decent amount of press coverage and this article is (mostly) well done. Note that we cannot transwiki this to wikinews though, even if I think it should be there; They use creative commons and we use GFDL. Kotepho 01:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - This is certainly a noteable event, it does not happen all the time. Furthermore, the ability of Wikipedia to churn out many articles on new phenomenons should be considered a strength. Traditional encyclopedias simply cannot create enough articles to cover things of this nature because of a shortage of man power. Wikipedia must instead leverage its strengths: man power, etc. That Nate Guy 01:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - What doesn't happen all the time? Comedians dissing the President? Sheesh, it's 11:35 PM Eastern right now, Leno and Letterman are probably doing it right this very instant. RGTraynor 03:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah but are they doing it right to his face? --kizzle 03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - This is an important event in the history of US and from that record qualifies as a wikipedia entry.
  • Very strong keep. This is an obviously notable event, arousing well-cited critical reaction and becoming an internet sensation. The article is well-written and is much too long to be merged into Stephen Colbert. (It looks as though it was created as a fork.) And besides... How many times has someone dissed the POTUS like this in his presence?? That's right... Never. Until now. (I can't think of one time anyway.) That takes "Muchos... Huevos Grandes." Grandmasterka 04:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Naconkantari 04:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep
  • TIME magazine's TV critic called the event a "political-cultural touchstone issue of 2006."[1]. It’s significant.
  • Nothing that I read under "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" seems an applicable reason to delete. The item on "news reports" says, "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that)." This article is not a "first-hand news report" from someone at the scene of a "breaking story".
-- Brian.fsm 04:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You are my hero. I couldn't have said it better. --kizzle 05:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
To just refect on your examples, IMHO, Tropical Storm Zeta (2005) is notable due to its participation in a Atlantic Hurricane season, which is itself notable due to its immense and lasting impact on the lives of peoples of an entire continent. All Eurovisions are notable, because they are enormously popular (and we are talking more than a few million downloads - somthing like 100 million people watch the show). Simpsons episodes, such as Bart on the Road, are tough ones. In the future, once the Simpsons has finshed, maybe they should not have their own pages, but for now, their cultural impact is being felt over many years. The drafts are notable, due to their part in every NFL season, which are themselves notable due to their enormous and lasting cultural impact. Elvis sightings is an important part of culture for a significant minority; it is practically a subculture in itself. Freedom fries should, in due course, perhaps be moved to a page that contains lots of stuff about US reactions to the War in Iraq; in a few years, this will be non-notable enough to not deserve its own article.
I just write all that, not so much as a soapbox, but because I think it is important that people see my and the other deleters' thinking. The ten year test is not policy, I agree, but it is surely implied by such ideas as notablity and importance, which are important parts of WP:NOT et al. Batmanand | Talk 07:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
So you want to delete a page not based upon any specific criteria within the deletion policy but what you imply from it? That's pretty irresponsible. --kizzle 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
There is currently no policy on notability. Please do not accuse me of misuing policy. Batmanand | Talk 20:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're justifying deleting a page because it violates WP:N, which is "not a policy or guideline" but an "essay", rather than specifically citing where it violates deletion policy, than I am indeed accusing you of misusing policy. --kizzle 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
There are only three cardinal content policies of deletion -- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Which of these does this article violate?
You claim that "notablity and importance" are important parts of WP:NOT. Please back this up with relevant quotes from the policy so we have something a bit more concrete to discuss. -- Brian.fsm 20:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Two things. Firstly, in answer to the point made by Kizzle, we delete things all the time as non-notable, even though there is no policy on notability. Unless you advocate not deleting anything for the reason non-notable, I suggest you rethink your accusations. To Brian.fsm, I quote from WP:NOT: "News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news" (my emphasis). Please explain to me how this is an event of historical significance. If not, then by your own terms you should surely vote to delete. Oh, and as for this idea that WP:NOT has no bearing on deletion, that is plainly absurd. WP:NOT specifies what is not meant for Wikipedia; deletion debates are about determing what is not meant for Wikipedia! Batmanand | Talk 21:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Is Colbert's speech of more "historical signifance" than, say, Donut Run, the 11th episode of season 2 of Veronica Mars? Is it more notable than Thirty-Eight Minutes, the fourth episode of Stargate Atlantis?
The sentence "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance..." is not the same as saying, "Wikipedia should only include articles of historical significance." If you think that "Wikipedia should only include articles of historical significance," propose changing WP:NOT to say exactly that. -- Brian.fsm 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Justifying deletion because "we delete things all the time as non-notable" is a fallacy; just because it happens doesn't mean it's right. If you want to delete a page, it is incumbant on you to provide why this page fits criteria within the deletion policy, not your subjective implications based upon things that aren't policy. I re-assert my stance that you are misusing policy by not providing the specific criteria within the deletion policy that this applies to (and no, it's not a "breaking news story"). Finally, for those people who say that comedic routines like this happen all the time, you're entirely missing the point. How many of those examples given on this page, Jay Leno, David Letterman, and other stand-up comedians, say such commentary with the president sitting 10 feet away? This is why its notable, not because it's just another comedic routine, but that it was right in front of the president. --kizzle 22:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, you have misrepresented what I said. You seemed to be saying that, because we do not currently have a policy on notability, I should not be using notability as an argument for the deletion of this page. I said that that is patently ridiculous, because a) it does say in WP:DP that "They [participants in the deletion process] should bear in mind what Wikipedia is not"; and that in WP:NOT, the guidelines on news stories say that only ones on events of historical significance should be kept; and b) that if we never deleted anything on the basis of notability, at least half of all deletions would not happen. I am unsure how familiar you are with AfD, so I will assume you are unfamiliar, because if you look at any random day, the number of "Delete, nn"-type comments is enormous. Unless you believe that they are all invalid - in which case I fear you will find yourself in a very small minority - then you surely have to accept that the principle of notability is central to AfD, even if the policy is not yet fully formed. Then this argument becomes about whether or not this event is notable enough, which is an argument I am more than willing to have. Batmanand | Talk 08:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Arguing whether this page should be kept based upon other pages, whether its all the random pages such as television episodes that get kept or the pages that get deleted because of notability, is a bad argument. You're correct in saying that I'm not familliar with AfD, but I am familliar with WP:DP, and so far you haven't shown this page to fit any criteria within that policy. One cannot gauge historical significance from an event only 3 weeks ago, and just because you seem to think the event is trivial, the sheer amount of keeps on this page seem to imply this event has a little bit more significance than you'd like to believe. --kizzle 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, you are right that my opinion on this matter appears to not be the consensus opinion. As such, unless something funny happens (or I whip out ten dozen sockpuppets... hmm... now there's an idea :D), this article will porbably stay. I appreciate, though, that we have finally agreed that it is the notability of the subject that is the real cause for debate in this AfD; even in defeat, some agreement has been reached, and for that I am thankful. Batmanand | Talk 09:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Lets wage a sockpuppet war :) ... by the way re-read my last comment, the real cause for debate in this AfD is not notability but whether the page fits criteria within the deletion policy. My comment about the event's significance was just for shooting the breeze :) --kizzle 18:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so it's not like we have to worry about saving space here. This is notable enough at present that it is reasonable to expect that someone would come here looking for the information. If in ten years it becomes non-notable, then it can be merged or deleted at that time. -- Zawersh 08:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. It's a notable event, and became a hit across the internet. The Kids Aren't Alright 13:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Daughter articles don't need to be independently notable because they are in spirit part of the notable parent article, split off only because of its length. If the comedian is notable, information about the comedian is notable irrespective of which page they are in. Loom91 13:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure you really mean this? Are the names of Stephen Colbert's children, dog, golf partner or whatever notable just because he is? Batmanand | Talk 14:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
If it's verifiable, all of that information is potentially interesting and useful. If someone wants a thumbnail sketch of Stephen Colbert, they can look at Stephen Colbert. If they want details like the ones you cite, why not spin off a Personal Life of Stephen Colbert so they can find what they're looking for? It doesn't hurt the parent article to link to a more specific spinoff... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Batmanand -- above, in response to my comment, you argue that every tropical storm in the Atlantic and every episode of the Simpsons is notable because it's related to something notable. Stephen Colbert was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people of the year.[2] Surely, the biggest speech of his career is also notable. -- Brian.fsm 21:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a big difference between hurricanes and a speech. Hurricanes are individual, unique, touch millions of people in many countries. The Atlantic Hurricane season, under any conception of notability, is a keeper. An individual member of it deserves its own article because each event in the whole season also has substantial long-term effects. Each speech that a comedian makes does not have this effect. Again, I beg the question: should everyone that Time magazine rates as the 100 most influential people of the year (who obviously all deserve articles) have every detail that can be acquired about them be added? Of course not. There is some material that is not needed or wanted on Wikipedia. The colour of George W Bush's underwear is one of them. A minor speech by a comedian, that is effectively one of many that happen every day, that will be forgotten in a few weeks, is another. Batmanand | Talk 21:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Tropical Storm Zeta (2005) was a tropical storm, not a hurricane. Zeta didn't impact millions of lives -- the only impact I noted from the article was causing heavy seas and "adverse winds" for a rowing competition. Pretty tame stuff. -- Brian.fsm 22:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This article is not about the color of Stephen Colbert's underwear (red, white, & blue, BTW). It's not about some insignificant detail, like the subway he takes to work. It's about the biggest speech he's given in his career. TIME's TV critic, James Poniewozik, called it "the political-cultural touchstone issue of 2006."[1] (emphasis added) -- Brian.fsm
  • Keep, because it's historically significant. --68.192.186.32 14:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, this degree of political dissent is notable, even in 10 years. If not kept as a notable political moment, keep as an internet meme, which we have billions of on wikipediaSpencerk 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Quotes in, weak keep... quotes out, keep. Quotes have no place in the article, unless actually analysed individually in some manner. -- Zanimum 15:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a news source, that's what Wikinews is for. --Nick Boalch 19:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The exact quote from [[WP::NOT]] reads, "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that)." This article is not a first-hand report from a breaking story. -- Brian.fsm
      • As ever we need to invoke the spirit of the rule rather than the exact, pedantic wording. This is self-evidently not an event of great historical significance. It's news, and should be on Wikinews. --Nick Boalch 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because it is a non-notable comedian routine and unencyclopedic. Johntex\talk 21:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable. JonMoore 22:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete — per nom. (well argued BTW), Mrjeff, and cholmes75. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the most useful things about the Wikipedia is that it contains random and interesting details that would not be kept in a paper encyclopedia due to space constraints, but are nevertheless historical, notable, or just interesting. I would also suspect that the bias toward covering US-centric topics has something to do with the distribution of internet access in the world at the moment, and will rectify itself without policing as internet access increases worldwide. -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flamingjune (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep It's significant, notable, and encyclopedic. The references have already been made. If you want to apply "will anyone care in 50 years" tests, apply them to professional and college sports, then come back to this. Removing an actual event that affects politics and news, and puts people like Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame in the same room with the current president that is presently trying to reconstruct the CIA and the power of the president is more than just a news headline, much less one that for sports "writers" to jabber about for a week or 2 because someone might win a championship of uselessness. You really need a priority system in here to put things in perspective.In1984 00:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't believe there's serious disagreement on this. As much as I hate the "As long we have article X, we have to have article Y" argument, we have articles on individual episodes of television shows. Everyone accepts this. This is very nearly the same thing, and, as folks have pointed out above, it's gotten serious media attention. This is as verifiable as it gets. Yeah, it's really just news, but so are a lot of things. This is a clear keeper. Friday (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting point about the TV shows. I'd probably be in favor of keeping the article if it were 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. ScottW 02:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm, in that case, if I were you, I'd support keeping this article. Then you can try to change the subject of it slightly, or make a new article and merge this into there. This happens all the time- if you think one subject is too small a detail for an independant article, merge it into the article on the broader topic. Friday (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
        • If I thought it would make a difference I'd probably support merging. But as it is, I think it's apparent that consensus is that the article should be kept in its current state. So, I'll let the active editors of the article work out what happens from here. ScottW 14:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Would be difficult to merge this with the articles on the dinner or Colbert. Keep articles small (under 50kb) --Ted 02:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep, but do not delete. --Ted 19:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • After reading your point on Wikipedia's focus on US-centric articles, I am getting the funny idea that you are calling for affirmative action. A balance between U.S. and non-U.S. articles would be healthy, but it doesn't seem necessary. Hard drive storage capacity in the long run will grow and become less expensive, so I don't feel that we should put every single article to a ten-year litmus test, not yet. --Ted 08:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I am calling for a form of affiramtive action, in that I think we should delete this (and other) articles that I believe do not conform to Wikipedia's historical notability criteria. I am not calling for the standards for US articles to be artificially made higher, or for other countries to get artificially lower standards; the two are the same thing in the end. I am just seeking a consistency across the encyclopaedia. Alas, it appears I am in a (sizeable but nonetheless) minority. Batmanand | Talk 09:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think Colbert's delivery at this dinner was such a magnificent event that it is a good idea for it to have a page of its own on wikipedia. Demolition Man 15:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Notable event, got a HUGE amount of buzz.
  • Keep. DS 02:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete or Merge and Redirect with the Stephen Colbert article per nom. --TorriTorri 06:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I think this caused enough controversy that it is worth of its own separate article. Fox News reported that Colbert's viewership rose 30% the following week because of the publicity. Let's keep it.--Grebrook 12:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • (This was added above by User:67.172.189.194. I am adding it to the bottom Batmanand | Talk 20:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)) I think he was great He had the courage to stand tho the bush it should not be deletered.
This is this anonymous user's first and so far only contribution to Wikipedia. Batmanand | Talk 20:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, renominate in a year when I'll happily vote Merge (if it hasn't already been). Ewlyahoocom 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it has way too much information to simply be merged. Briememory 01:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I worked on this article a bit and suggested a Move/Merge to "2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner" previously. My take on it is that this article isn't really about a comic performance (which would perhaps be a bit trivial for Wikipedia) but about a political and media event, which happened to involve a comedian. Since currently there's no article on the dinner itself, and this article seemingly wouldn't have to be edited very heavily to suit that purpose, expanding the topic seems like the least controversial way to handle the issue. --Lee Bailey 05:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a good, interesting, well-researched article. I can't see any obvious places where it breaches any of the rules in the AfD criteria. As for notability, I'm an inclusionist. David L Rattigan 07:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete non-article about non-news.  Grue  14:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge with Stephen Colbert article as a very newsworthy event of perhaps even historical importance (let history decide this), but not article content itself per se. THEPROMENADER 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Well-made, but belongs on Wikinews. An encyclopedia article on one performance by one comedian? Come on. Sandstein 16:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a well-researched, in-depth article depicting a notable event, for not only the performance itself, but the reaction illustrating the U.S. political climate and the accusations of self-censorship against the U.S. print media, as well as the internet phenomenon it became. It is also well used in the irony article to illustrate Roman irony in a modern context. A merge into the 'Stephen Colbert' article would simply force the article to split due to size.
Furthermore, I argue against the apparent belief that something is 'US-centric' simply because it documents an event within the U.S., and believe that simply attempting to deny notable events in the U.S. because other countries do not feature comparable coverage, and to test notability by the number of people who know about it, is fallacious. One must remember that conditions besides just population affect internet coverage of a country, such as the sizes and types of groups with internet access. If more coverage of events in countries besides the U.S. is wanted, then more people with knowledge of such events should contribute. I am well aware of the technical constraints of inclusionist policy, but these must be balanced against the informational constraints of deletionism. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 22:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
US-centricism works two ways. Of course, the US has more coverage than most countries simply because (in percentage terms and in also in raw numbers) the US has more people with internet access, and as such more Wikipedians (it helps that the Government doesn't block or censor the site either...). But if the criteria that we compare things against for notability are lower - either explicitly or implicity - for the US than for other countries, then we are compounding the problem. IMO we fail this second part of the test; although it appears that I do not share the consensus view. Batmanand | Talk 22:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as its pretty clear what the concensus is, can we close it to get the deletion message off of the article page? --kizzle 23:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b "Stephen Colbert and the Death of "The Room"". Retrieved on 2006-05-08. 
  2. ^ "The TIME 100", TIME. Retrieved on 2006-05-18. 


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. If it really is a hoax, this article should definitely be re-AfDed (or speedied). Deathphoenix ʕ 14:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Behzad Ghorbani

This half-year old article was tagged as a possible {{hoax}} yesterday by Yuckfoo, and I too am unable to find anything which confirms any of its contents. If it cannot be reliably sourced by the close of this discussion I suggest that it be deleted without prejudice. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmmmm. The guy seems to exist, but not to be notable according to verifiable sources. I'll vote Delete without prejudice for now. If someone comes up with evidence, do poke me to change my vote. Vizjim 11:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. PJM 11:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment See [15] and [16] There seems to be truth here though article has been messed with in the past. (Don't know how Iranian names work - would Behzad be his last name from English-speaker's point of view?) --HJMG 11:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I can add a similar link for dugesia iranica and I even found his home page (unless there are two people with the same name born on the same year in the same city) ... but, from the long list of dugesia here, I don't think finding two more species is enough to merit an encyclopedia article; there seem to be quite a few of them, it's not like finding a coelacanth or something. Will change to keep if a more knowledgeable planarialogist says finding two new species is rare enough. AnonEMouse 13:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not a knowledgeable planarialogist but I reckon discovering a species of animal merits an article, however icky the animal. Let's not go down the "if creating a species of Pokemon..." angle, though). Vizjim 13:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete While I'm certainly no planarialogist, doing a quick search reveals this gentleman to be relatively obscure. While I'd be a bit more forgiving of an article on an obscure person if the article was well written and informative, this isn't, and so seems somewhat unecessary. Cerealkiller13 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I found this paper about Iranian Planarian and Dr Ghorbani. Apparently there is no doubt about the truth of the article, nevertheless the article in the encyclopedia is not informative. In order to show some references including the following scientific paper :

© 1998 The Japan Mendel Society Cytologia 63: 441—445, 1998 Cytomorphological Studies in Dugesia Species of Iran Ghorbani Behzad1, Sheidai Masoud2* and Khazab Mahmood3 Biological Department, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran 2 Biological Department, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran Genetic Section, Razi Research Institute, Karaj, Iran Accepted September 2, 1998 Summary Dugesia species of Karaj river in Iran were investigated from cytologial, and morphoanatomical point of view. Two different populations were studied. Individuals from Gajereh region possessed 2n=25 and those of Gachsar possessed 2n—26. They varied in details of karyotypes, GBanding pattern and morpho-anatomical features. Cluster analysis separated the two populations of Duge.cia in different clusters. Two new species of Dugesia with new chromosome number having complete asexual reproduction are reported. The fresh water planarians belong to the phylum Platyhelminthes, an old monophyletic group which branched from the rest of metazoans at an early stage and can be considered as the sister group of the other bilateral triploblastic organisms (Riutort et a!. 1992, Addoutte and Philippe 1993). They possess a great morphological plasticity and regeneration power and are remarkable for the occurrence of local polyploid populations and the occasional presence of mixoploidy and mosaics having both diploid and triploid tissues (Hoshino eta!. 1991, Benazzi and Lentati 1976, Oki et al. 1981). Although there have been extensive cytological studies on planarian species in many countries (Hoshino ci a!. 1991, Benazzi and Lentati 1976, Oki ci a!. 1981, Tamura ci a!. 1988, Ribas et a!. 1988), there has been no report from Iran. The present article is the first report on cytotaxonomy of Dugesia species from Iran.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali123456 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 May 2006, moved down and formatted by AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

  • Keep - I've been swayed from neutral because this discovery is not ephemeral - BG will always be the person who first brought these dugesia into the scientific record. --HJMG 11:42, 22 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 at author's request. It should have been tagged {{db-author}} rather than bringing it to AfD.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deidenheim

The town is called Deidesheim not Deidenheim. I followed a wrong link from Meckenheim and created this page without noticing the spelling error. The link is corrected and the right article already exists. Please remove the article! Cattleyard 11:45, 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 06:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Chad's College Cricket Club

A Durham University college cricket team, that means it plays inter-collegiate sport (so this is not a university level team). This is not notable; its equivalent of giving a school sports team an article. Robdurbar 12:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - much as I like to read about my alma mater on Wikipedia, I do not think this is notable or encyclopaedic. :) DWaterson 13:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 13:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Searching "St. Chad's College" "Cricket Club" gets 116 hits only.--Jusjih 14:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Much of the content is current (e.g. current standings table) and hence news (albeit non-notable) not knowledge. Should be on the club's home page, not in Wikipedia. Paddles 14:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page does give useful information on inter-collegiate sport in Durham and I therefore think it is relevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.62.187 (talk • contribs)
  • Warning to User:82.2.62.187. Please do not delete other peoples' comments, even if you disagree with them. Also, please sign your comments by adding four tildes after them. Thank you. Paddles 03:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Something that is relevant to such a small group of people (inter-collegiate cricket fans in Durham) is not notable enough to be included in WP. There's a whole WWW out there that this information could be hosted on. Paddles 03:18, 21 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 06:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spludge

Unverifiable neologism, Hit bull, win steak's prod disputed by Skell6. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • A neologism, however onomatopoeic onmontoapoic onamatopaeiouoic nice sounding, remains a neologism. Vizjim 12:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unverifiable ramblings Mrjeff 12:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neovocabcruft.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 13:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only 799 Google hits would not yet be good to keep it.--Jusjih 14:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax, neologism. TheMadBaron 14:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Paddles 14:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all non-notable protologisms, including this one. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. Aplomado talk 17:35, 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 Transwiki to Wikiquotes, there seem to be a few quotes that aren't mentioned in the Wikiquotes article. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable lines in the Star Wars series

Notable lines belong on Wikiquote. This is little more than a list, with some spurious addendums about appearances in popular culture which belong within the main Star Wars article. I absolutely think these lines should be kept for posterity, but that's Wikiquote's job, not Wikipedia's. Vizjim 13:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Metros232 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete little more than a list which needs to be constantly cleaned up as people add their favourite but not notable line. (Gnevin 13:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote per nom. RGTraynor 13:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, should have been clearer - all these quotes are already on Wikiquote, so there's no need to transwiki. Vizjim 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Ugh. Delete delete delete. -- Kicking222 13:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Also... this article leads off with "I have a bad feeling about this." Are you kidding me? As if that's never been said by anyone else, at any point, ever? -- Kicking222 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As the article states, it's used in every Star Wars film. It's a huge in-joke for the EU and LucasArts. -LtNOWIS 12:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote.--Jusjih 14:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This should be an obvious transwiki. —CuiviénenT|C, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 @ 14:16 UTC
  • Transwiki as above.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. --Optichan 18:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as StarWarscruft but I would settle for a Transwiki. Beno1000 19:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per above - Vizjim beat me to it with this one! Just zis Guy you know? 20:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and... The list is not just about the lines in and of themselves, but also their impact. Now, they could certainly go into the main Star Wars Article, but it would probably inflate the article too much.
I propose a compromise. Keep the Article, and Rename it to something like: Cultural Impact of the Star Wars Series, and add any additional relevant information. -- SAMAS 17 May, 2006
  • Comment: We actually already have a Cultural impact of Star Wars article, although it's rather short right now. BryanG 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Wowl, that was easy! :) Well then, let's get Merging, shall we? - SAMAS
  • Keep and Rename as proposed above. The article is not merely a list of quotes from Star Wars, but also deals with their impact and appearence in other media, which is beyond scope of Wikiquote. - CNichols 21:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. I'm torn between whether this should exist as a seperate article or as part of Cultural impact of Star Wars. However, I do think that these lines have had enough cultural impact to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. BryanG 22:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep. With a couple exceptions, these are all very important to the culture. For example, "May the force be with you" was #8 on the AFI's list of greatest movie quotes ever. -LtNOWIS 12:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This isn't fancruft, many of these lines have become cultural memes. Gamaliel 01:58, 21 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 Just zis Guy you know? 20:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admiral Leahy

This article is a duplicate entry for William D. Leahy that someone accidently created. Some of the biography information was more extensive but I've moved it all to the William Leahy page. This article should be deleted now. Cornell Rockey 13:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It already has a redirect tag on it, and should stay that way, IMEO. RGTraynor 13:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That was me put it on there. I've reverted it as it should go through proper process. Sorry.Vizjim 13:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Redirect - this shouldn't really have gone to AfD. Vizjim 13:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Redirect per Vizjim. DarthVader 13:45, 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 Copyvio (not relevant to AFD). Rob 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghyll Royd School

A school for boys aged 2 to 11. I have no idea how far the "all schools are notable" crowd has gotten, so I'll let the community decide whether preschooling counts. BanyanTree 13:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. If this were a person, group of people, band, or club it would be a valid candidate for speedy deletion under A7, "Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Ydam 14:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's a copyvio from here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Oh, this is just absurd. Next thing you know the crazies will claim that day care centers are notable. RGTraynor 16:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and as copyvio. Somehow I see this being kept though...--Isotope23 17:25, 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 as patent nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 14:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real time weapon changing

Stupid unreliable source. Based on a one-minute web video where sentences have been clipped to create a statement: "based on history" + snip + "giant crabs" = "the Samurai battled giant crabs in feudal Japan". See also Japanese spider crab. Contested prod. Weregerbil 13:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. While I feel that most articles involving crabs deal with a seriously interesting topic and should have consensus, the Crab content of this article is minimal and seems to be mostly speculation about an upcoming game. ForbiddenWord 13:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because... eh, I don't even have to explain this. -- Kicking222 13:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kicking222's intelligent and cogent expositions on the subject. Vizjim 14:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense. TheMadBaron 14:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is a vital new technology in Computer\Video Gaming, to delete it now would be a travesty, and all those who want it deleted will be shamed. This article will be much improved, when this technology becomes more widespread in usage.Macktheknifeau 14:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. It looks as if the default action is to redirect to Navjot Singh Sidhu. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Siddhu

A common and usual nickname. Non-encyclopedic value. Jay 13:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not encylopaedic. DarthVader 13:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. How many articles do we have on people whose first names are Siddhu? Could this be a reasonable disambig page? —CuiviénenT|C, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 @ 14:18 UTC
  • Comment I double that. It should be a disambig page. Beno1000 19:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I couldn't find any articles with first name Siddhu. There is only 1 person with a surname of Sidhu (not Siddhu) and he is a famous Indian cricketer named Navjot Singh Sidhu. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since we don't have an article on Siddart either (otherwise it'd be redirect). Just zis Guy you know? 14:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above ChaosAkita 01:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a reasonably common Sikh surname... could redirect to Siddhu (surname) somewhat like Smith (surname) if anyone cares to make an article along those lines. Or just disambiguate as it can apparently be a first name/nickname as well. The present form of the article is , no offense to the author, pretty worthless in my opinion.--Isotope23 17:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sidhu. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment – if it is redirected to Sidhu, bear in mind that that article is itself a bit of a mess, and in need of cleanup – Gurch 13:22, 18 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 Al Noor Academy, there is no content to merge that isn't already mentioned in the target article. Merge and redirect to Al Noor Academy, correction, there is one piece of information that can be merged: that the ceremony was held in the "Tang Center" at MIT. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Procession of Light

Not notable graduation ceremony of Al Noor Academy. DarthVader 14:07, 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, but this is a temporary proposed page, so please note that it should not be kept like this for long. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UniModal/proposed

This is a copy of Personal rapid transit/UniModal (see deletion debate, endorsed at WP:DRV) which has been worked on to try to fix the major problems with that article. In my view the fundamental problem remains that this does not exist. It is a concept for personal rapid transit (PRT), which is in turn a concept for a mode of transit. No system of this scale or with many of these parameters has even been prototyped, and the system as described does not exist even in mockup form. To my mind this is a fork of PRT without the balancing effect of the few real-world trials which have been undertaken. There is no evidence presented that the proponent of this system is viewed as sufficiently influential as to make implementation a realistic prospect in the short to medium term, as the UniModal website acknowledged before the damaging admission was removed, "there ain't no such thing" - but Malewicki is certainly pitching hard for money and I guess this article helps him to establish credibility. The article starts by saying this proposal is different from other forms of PRT, but that is a rather naughty claim since at present there pretty much are no other forms. Two small-scale trials of systems nothing like this are planned, one long-term small scale trial ran for a while and was wound up, another small scale trial is no longer considered PRT due to its having increased the capacity to 12 passengers per pod, and so on. Fan fiction is all very well, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. This subject is best covered (as it already is) in personal rapid transit. Take a look at those running costs! Just zis Guy you know? 14:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • No patents attached + no contracts awarded = speculation. Delete. Vizjim 14:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete – any useful information can be integrated with personal rapid transit – Gurch 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - sadly, given the amount of love and attention which has been lavished on the article. The article is very readable, but I feel that without a concrete plan to actually make the system, the system itself fails on notability. As an untested concept with niche interest on WP, the article cannot sustain NPOV over time. The merge with PRT was severe, but allows the section on Unimodal to be expanded with extra references as these become available, and also provides a wider audience within WP. If it is built (almost certainly in a modified form), WP will be a good place to record this fact and provide a neutral analysis, and it will no doubt get a good article of its own. Stephen B Streater 18:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - First: Malewicki has not been involved in editing this article, so the statement that "this article helps him to establish credibility" is misleading and irrelevant. Second: SkyTran is a novel variation of PRT with several important differences from most other PRT designs (i.e. very small vehicles, high speed, vehicles suspended below the track, maglev, ADA compliance provided via an external mechanism). Third: the claims about cost are clearly speculative, but can easily be qualified by a statement that those cost projections rely on untested concepts. Fourth: on the notability debate, SkyTran is certainly not a household word, but (a) the design has been out there for several years now, (b) Malewicki has presented technical papers on it, and (c) it's even received some treatment in the mainstream media (i.e. New York Times Magazine, Popular Science). I think SkyTran, even as an unproven design concept, merits a small article. A Transportation Enthusiast 20:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - First of all, the article is not a copy of anything. It is a very scaled down version of the aformentioned article that was at Personal rapid transit/UniModal. JzG's points seem quite irrelevant, as Malewiki has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Although I disagree with Stephen Streater, he brings up *valid* points. However, the article (as a subpage) is meant to be a proposal, not an actual page (I hope thats obvious). I think that SkyTran has received enough media recognition to at least be its own very small page. I've tried to scale it down, but others are welcome to scale further. Fresheneesz 10:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mista Mushroom

Fails WP:BAND. The music contest that they won is extremely minor (second-largest on the Isle of Wight) and they are unsigned. --M@rēino 14:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete {{db-band}} candidates - unsigned, no albums, singles, chart positions, notable members or national tours. WP:Music refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Just a small band. --Dakart 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:BAND. 56 Google results. --Slgrandson 16:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Since nobody bothered to contact the creator during PROD or AfD to explain to them why this article is not suitable or which guidelines it doesn't meet, I withhold my opinion at this time. People need to start reading Before nominating an AfD and try to follow it.--Isotope23 17:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't contact the creator b/c the creator saw the PROD. Also, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD says nothing about contacting the creator.--M@rēino 17:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Funny, I could have sworn that "Before nominating a recently-created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a template such as {{importance}}." was one of the bullet points...--Isotope23 18:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The section you quote says nothing about contacting the creator. I did share my concerns with the creator by posting WP:BAND in the PROD. Anyway, I routinely contact the creator in cases where I think that the article can be saved; in fact, I created one of the templates used to facilitate that process. I refuse to do it in situations where I can tell myself that there is no hope of saving the article and where the creator is aware that the article is up for deletion. --M@rēino 19:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
        • sharing your concerns with a new editor by referencing a wiki guideline shortcut like WP:BAND doesn't really meet the spirit of the text in my opinion. Think about this... If you were a new user and created a new article, then someone tagged it for PROD with a reason WP:BAND, would you have the faintest idea what they were talking about? It's obscure and doesn't really tell someone who is not familiar with the arcana of Wikipedia anything at all. I'm not trying to pick on you specifically Mareino, because this is a fairly widespread problem with AfD and PROD nominations.--Isotope23 19:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Alright, Isotope, you have a point. In the future, I promise to write more detailed explanations when dealing with non-vandals. --M@rēino 19:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks Mareino... it is appreciated. Hopefully everyone will take the time to do this in the future!--Isotope23 13:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless they can expand on the references to the popularity of their live shows and demonstate that they are a regular national touring act. If they can do that, they would be a keepie. Ac@osr 18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm the creater of the mista mushroom page. Mista Mushroom are unsigned. Thus, if the necessary criteria for a band to be on this website is to be signed then they must sadly be removed. However, if this is not so clearly defined then I would like to argue for its presence to remain. Firstly, the Bestival is not such a small festival as mentioned by someone: Broadcasted on Radio1, voted second best music festival by the guardian last summer, and with names such as fatboy slim, basement jaxx and lee scratch perry. The band toured last Summer accross the South West and the Midlands. They've had airplay on the Radio1 twice and are preparing a tour for this summer. As I said above they aren't signed so this post might be pointless, but given the difficulty it is to be a 'successful band' without being signed, I think that the festival playing alone is a factor that sets them apart from most other bands. I don't really know how a band can be 'successful' before being signed with achievements such as this band already have. What do you think?
  • Comment - as I stated above, we need evidence that they are a regular national touring act; just saying that they are is no use when it's the only part of WP:MUSIC that appears to be passed. Playing a festival doesn't entail immediately notability - it's just one gig, regardless of the numbers involved - that said, if you can show that the BBC broadcast included the band's set then you might be onto something. There are artists on Wiki who have never been "signed" in the ordinary sense, working with various lables or even exclusively their own so it's not an immediate bar to an entry.Ac@osr 17:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I also want to add that, unlike with most other articles, being deleted is not the end of the world for a band. A band that is non-notable today could secure a couple of reviews in newspapers and magazines or land a major-label record deal, and suddenly they would qualify for an article. In the interim, you may copy the contents of the page over to your user page. User pages are a good place to store material that you hope to spin into an article, because bascially the only things that can ever be deleted from user pages are things that break the law, like threats and copyright violations. --M@rēino 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am the author of this page. Having just discovered the criteria for putting a band onto this website I would like to dispute the deletion of this band due to the following criteria: "A musician or ensemble...is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria...Has won or placed in a major music competition". The Bestival auditions clearly qualify as a major music competition - for the reasons noted above - and they won this. Therefore as only one criteria needs to be satisfied I see no reason for deleting this and will remove the 'to be deleted' headnote. --tolfree 11:42, 20 May 2006
  • Comment - "Bestival Auditions" brings up a grand total of 4 Google hits, one of which is this page. Ac@osr 10:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Are you sure you didn't make a typo? I just ran a search for it and it came up with a lot more. Secondly, how can an audition for a festival that triggures 362,000 results in google, and which has such major names as mentioned above, not be considered a major music competition? And if this is the case, what sort of music competitions that cater for this genre are any bigger? This is to my knowledge the biggest British music festival that holds auditions - Glastonbury, Leeds & Reading and global gathering don't! --tolfree 11:42, 20 May 2006
  • Comment - finally, I've been searching for other bands that are unsigned to see what credentials they hold. One example, [InVersion], is a band that has had airplay on phoenix fm (unknown to me) and the only credible competition they have won is a battle of the bands. Incidentally, Mista Mushroom have won two separate botb competitions: Isle of Wight and Central South England. Why therefore has this band been allowed to remain with apparently smaller achievements than mista mushroom? I guess if you go on your 'google hits' criteria then they win, but that's because they name has other meanings, unlike mista mushroom. It just seems rather unfair that's all.--tolfree 11:42, 20 May 2006
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 12:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as nonsense.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Okinawa

Nonsense page; user has about 4 of them and keeps removing speedy tags w/o explanationNawlinWiki 15:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish. Slowmover 15:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What about a block on the editor User:Jtbelliott, someone without one constructive edit on WP. Pure vandal. Slowmover 15:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as CSD G1: patent nonsense, along with Oileritus (no Google hits, obvious hoax) from the same editor. Gwernol 15:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, Oileritus was already speedied by the time I'd finished writing the above comment. Good work :-) Gwernol 15:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, G!, and I'm with Slowmover; cut down deliberate vandals at the root. RGTraynor 15:48, 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 Deleted by RobertG.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quatete

Another nonsense article NawlinWiki 15:00, 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.
GNAA AfD Nominations

1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | 10th

11th | 12th | 13th | 14th | 15th | 16th | 17th | 18th

10 GNAA AfD nominations pool | MfD of pool | 2nd MfD of pool | TfD of this template

Deletion review | 2nd | Jimbo on GNAA deletion | Comment by the GNAA itself
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Please don't nominate GNAA for deletion, as it has been nominated many times before with no consensus and further nominations are unlikely to end in deletion. -- Kjkolb 21:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Nigger Association of America

Delete. This is a nonnotable organization that Wikipedia should not recognize. 64.12.117.5 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad "Carnevil" Carney

Proposed for deletion, but I feel we should debate it. Prod concern was "Lack of noteriety, flamebait hotspot (see history)," and prod was applied to an essentially wiped version of the article. I've restored the article so we can see the problems during this debate; I agree the tone is inappropriate and it might in some ways be an attack page, but calling it a "hotspot" doesn't seem right to me. I think this comes down to whether or not this cracker is notable, and whether anyone will bother cleaning up the article. I say delete, because I doubt it on both fronts, but perhaps someone who knows more about Skulltag would disagree. Mangojuicetalk 15:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a petition AND this person isn't notable. Vizjim 15:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not Speedy Delete it as A6? Whatever works. RGTraynor 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT or WP:BIO... both apply here.--Isotope23 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete My main concern is that, while he is prominant in the Doom community, he's not prominant anywhere else. His article at the Doom Wiki is more than adequite, and if there are any serious allegations against him or Skulltag, they can be brought up for discussion there. --AlexMax 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I actually know the guy, but come on. Danny Lilithborne 01:15, 18 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 06:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Dog Eat Child

I deprodded to bring here. Concern was that this is a non-notable comedy troupe. I agree, and say delete, but I wanted to expose this to more debate, just in case. Mangojuicetalk 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • With a mighty 46 unique G-hits, Big Delete Eat Article as NN. RGTraynor 15:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete then go see a show As the original {{prod}}-er. ^demon[yell at me] /16:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable. Their own website documents the media exposure they've had (minor local coverage), and one of those articles here contains these quotes, which satisfy NN from my perspective:
Last year, the group auditioned to be a part of Chicago Sketchfest. When the group didn't get in, its members protested outside the event.
As most of the members are in college or have full-time jobs, BDEC mostly performs over the summer...
Slowmover 18:24, 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 Speedily deleted How this made it through to AfD, I'll never know.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig kindred

I prodded this with the following rationale: Vanity article. Not speedy A7 as it asserts notability. Only 5 Ghits, none relevant, on "Craig Kindred". Prod tag was removed by an anon with no explanation, so I'm taking it to AfD for the reason stated. -- Tonywalton  | Talk 15:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. A7. DOB says he's 17, and article says he's "considered to be one of the greatest living philosophers by a select few on the Internet." I don't see that as a reasonable assertion of notability. Fan1967 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 redirect. Sango123 (e) 23:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sino-Christian Theology Movement

Not notable Ezeu 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Institute of Sino-Christian Studies --M@rēino 16:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. Beno1000 19:08, 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 redirect. Sango123 (e) 23:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sino-Christian Theology

Non-notable neologism. Ezeu 15:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Institute of Sino-Christian Studies --M@rēino 16:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect I agree with Mareino. Sent it to [[Institute of Sino-Christian Studies.--Dakart 16:18, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 12:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christina Noir

When scanning the newly created articles, I saw this sharp-looking article, but something didn't seem right. I polled a few opinions at the reference desk/miscellaneous and it appears there's consensus that it's nn. I initially stamped it with a Prod (reason: appears to be a non-notable porn starlet, article sure looks pretty though); however a "mysterious" anon user went in and removed the prod tag here. Needless to say, this appears to be a vanity page (or possibly even an attack page) but it boils down to one simple thing: Non-Notablity. If an article looks sharp, it doesn't get a free pass. Bobak 16:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. --Dakart 16:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN and vanity, no verification of claims or notability. The creator of the article admits to being her husband in the comment on the image creation. There's a bar for adult performers to reach, and I can't see that this gal approaches it. So she's a groupie at industry cons who lets the horny fanboys grope her, but that doesn't confer notability. RGTraynor 16:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait - Are we sure this is vanity? Why don't we ask people who are involved with this article to provide verifiable links that show that this is not just self promotion? I have a big problem with prodding articles without posting other requests for article change first. What about placing Template:Cleanup-spam, Template:Citations_missing, or some other notification that there might be a problem before jumping to a prod. And when it comes to notability, it is subjective and purely POV. I've never heard of her. However, maybe she has a large fan base. I notice there is absolutely nothing on this articles talk page. Why not start discussions there, post a warning that there may be issues, prod if nothing is done, then go to AfD. DanielZimmerman 16:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Even if it isn't a vanity page, is she notable enough to have a page?--Dakart 18:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Appears to falls well short of WP:BIO, but I agree with DanielZimmerman... contacting the originator and posting on their talk page or the article talk page before PROD or AfD would have been a preferable course of action. No evidence this is WP:VAIN and if the contention is that this is an attack page that should be supported by links, etc. No opinion on deletion/retention at this time.--Isotope23 16:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Err, gentlefolk, kindly read my above comment. If you follow the contribution history for the editor who created this, you get the following: "Image:ChristinaNoir.jpg (Source of File: I made this file (I'm her husband)." Already asked and answered. RGTraynor 18:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -That's a good point, RGTraynor, I had indeed noticed that when I first saw the article, but I should have mentioned it. -- Bobak 18:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Geez, you expect me to read your comments RGTraynor? Point taken... Still, an effort should have been made to contact the article creator.--Isotope23 19:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't seem to appear on either IAFD or IMDB. In other words, she's a woman with a website. Even by the rather murky standards for porn stars, she isn't one. Fan1967 16:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Yanksox 17:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Next. PJM 17:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has all the hallmarks of a vanity posting, and no verification of notability. I see no policy consideration or common sense bases for thinking this article invited any extra effort by nominator to inform prior to prodding or afd. Note: 80 and change unique google hits. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Herein lies is the problem... everyone thinks it is "extra effort by nominator to inform prior to prodding or afd" when it is a courtesy that should be done on every AfD that isn't a Speedy of blatent vandalism (and it takes all of 3-5 minutes to post something on the article talk page or creator talk page). Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD doesn't mandate it, but it does suggest it. The "Common Sense basis" is that it avoids biting new users who may not be aware of guidelines like WP:BIO & WP:VAIN.--Isotope23 19:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a pretty broad brush. I wrote that nothing in this article... which quickly became "everyone thinks." The implication of that language was that other articles may be appropriate for pre-notice while this one is not. I approach awarding for deletion on a case-by-case basis. As for biting, you're suggesting that the act of nominating an article for deletion is itself a form of biting in the absence of pre-notice and always shows a lack of courtesy. We'll just have to disagree on that score. --Fuhghettaboutit 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
No, the implication is that every article brought to AfD/PROD should start with a good faith attempt to contact the creator (or in the case of articles with a large number of editors, comment on the Talk page) and this article is no exception. This should not be seen as extra effort; this should be seen a common courtesy and an extention of WP:AGF. You are correct; I am of the opinion that AfD/PROD of an article that has existed for less than 1 day and was created by an editor who has been around for 2 days without an attempt to contact him/her and explain the issues with the article does show a distinct lack of courtesy and runs counter to the spirit of WP:BITE (unless of course the article is an obvious and blatent case of vandalism/hoax). You are free to disagree with me onthat count though.--Isotope23 13:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait - For me this does not read like a vanity page, but your milage may vary. Also, when I Google her name I turned up about 800 references many of which appear unconnected to her site, so while she appears to be a lesser known porn actress, I'm not sure she qualifies as not-notable. I agree about placing Template:Cleanup-spam, Template:Citations_missing to address community concerns before deletion. PetePrkr 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentTry doing a search for a few of the names at Category:American porn stars. The first name there, Paizley Adams, whose article is barely a stub, draws almost 80,000 GHits. The second name, Sunrise Adams, draws over a million. For porn, which involves huge number of sites promoting each other and linkspam distributed all over the place, 800 is a very low number. Fan1967 20:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Fair enough - I searched on Brutus Black and found about 17,000, and then Googled "Rose Agree" who has an entry and found only about 600, so I'm not sure what to say - not nearly a million either, but also not 800. So, while your point is well taken, but I'm still on the fence about deleting out of hand before placing Template:Citations_missing. PetePrkr 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Might not be the best example. I was about to suggest that maybe Rose Agree doesn't belong either, but then I looked at her article. If you look it, you'll see that her work would appeal to somewhat, uh, specialized tastes, with a rather limited viwership. Fan1967 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Um... yeah, I'd agree with that - I'd say Rose is notable...! PetePrkr 20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. You don't look at the number of search results found through google, you look at the number of unique hits, by scrolling to the end of the pages. Christina Noir in quotes returns exactly 76 unique pages [17]. This means that of the 799 listed in the intitial search (the amount listed as total found before scrolling to the end), 723 were mirrors, internal pages of the same sites, etc. Not that google is the ultimate authority. Some subjects do not lend themselves to lots of webpage listings while still being notable. Porn actress notability on the other hand, appears to me to be a perfect subject for a "google notability test."--Fuhghettaboutit 21:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Then by this method the Paizley Adams example above would return only 423 entries than the 80,000 cited above? I guess the problem I'm having with this is she seems about as notable as several of the other entries on the list - not that that's a justification for inclusion. I agree that Google is not and should not be the ultimate authority however. PetePrkr 23:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Someone (don't remember who) pointed out in another AfD that the "unique" hits only looks at the first 1000 total returned, so in this case, with only 800 total, it's valid, but once the totals go over 1000 the unique hits aren't really meaningful. Fan1967 23:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 800 ghits for a porn person? Yeah, right. Just zis Guy you know? 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. She doesn't appear to be notable enough with less than 1,000 Google hits and nothing implying verifiability. The fact that the article knows how many pets she has had suggests vanity as well. Capitalistroadster 22:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Article creator is admittedly her husband. Fan1967 22:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. self-promotion --DavidGC 02:15, 20 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. No matter how anyone closes this AfD, there's bound to be some people who disagree, so I'd better clarify my analysis of this AfD:

I count four valid delete comments and two valid keep comments. That is insufficient consensus to delete.

  • All delete comments are valid except for Teflon carmichel (a new user with only one contrib: to this AfD), which means there are four comments to delete.
  • Only the following keep comments are valid, which means there are two comments to keep:
  • The following keep comments are invalid:
    • Jeffleeds, a user with just 19 edits, all of which are solely on the subject of Travis MacRae.
    • Jennifer C, a new user (created 20 May 2006) with six edits to her (or his) user page and one edit to this AfD
    • Williamgay, a user with just six edits, all of which are solely on the subject of Travis MacRae.

--Deathphoenix ʕ 15:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travis MacRae

  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}}

No evidence in the article that seems to claim notability corresponds to any of Wikipedia's notability standards. For example, while the artist has released several albums, none were on a significant label (those mentioned lack articles themselves). Again, while the artist has been featured in a publish work, that work was not demonstrated as non-trivial. Furthermore, parts, if not much, of the article is POV and appears to be original research. Shadow box 17:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No real notability established in the article, no major (or semi-major) labels, and no AllMusic entry. -- Kicking222 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep AllMusic is no Bible and although he hasn't published in a major or semi-major label he has indeed published 4 (FOUR!) albums in a record label, and I don't think it's fair to only consider major labels as the ones that publish good or important records. --Joanberenguer 20:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not on allmusic, states he's on iTunes but not (or at least not the UK store I connect to). Notability not established. Just zis Guy you know? 21:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe he's in the iTunes Music Store from Canada (not ALL albums are available in ALL iTunes Music Stores). --Joanberenguer 00:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kicking222. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I recently saw Travis' interview in "Sing Out!" Magazine. This article goes on to discuss MacRae's huge following in the folk music scene and his significant relevance in "carrying the torch" of folk & folk-blues music. Other artists who are covered in this magazine, but at a time were not on major labels are Pete Seeger, Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie and Son House. I have verified that his music is on iTunes and feel his rapidly growing popularity makes this article highly relevant.

Jeff Leeds 03:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

    • See my comment to William below, shadow box 07:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article adheres to Wikipedia's notability as follows:

1) He has four albums over the past six years on an independent label. With a large label debut scheduled for this year. 2) Many performers on his previous albums have been more than notable in the independent music scene. He has also collaborated with notable blues musicians and had his songs covered by many. 3) He has been featured in multiple journals, magazines and television programs; the most recent of which was an article in "Sing Out!" magazine. 4) He has become known as a figure head in the resurgance of the folk and folk-blues style. 5) He has been nominaed for several east coast awards for his albums, and won several music competitions. 6) He has had his music in rotation on major radio networks. 7) He is frequently referenced or covered in publications devoted to the folk and folk-blues sub culture. William Gay 04:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment Wonderful! This article, if not deserving of deletion, sorely needs an expert to clean it up and demonstrate the artist's notability (remembering, of course, to cite sources). However, as it stands, none of the qualities you mentioned are in the article. shadow box 07:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I recently picked up Travis' CD at NYCD in Manhattan and was pleased to stumble on this page. After listening through his CD once, I am confident that this site will continue to garner interest and grow as he rises to what I'm certain will be a bright star.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jennifer C (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete only 385 hits on Google—many of which may be for other travis macraes—the top result being the Wikipedia entry. Notability not established. Teflon carmichel 01:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per William Gay and expand on the qualities being mentioned by this user. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radiclib (2nd nomination)

Neologism. Transwikied. Google hits all appear to come from Wikipedia or mirrors. Survived previous AfD in October 2005. TheProject 17:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not just a neologism, but stated as such in the first sentence of the article. The article can never be expanded beyond what it is now. If it's already transwikied, then there's nothing else to do with the word but kill its WP page. -- Kicking222 17:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary Ydam 17:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kicking. RGTraynor 18:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that this is a dicdef, and agree that dicdefs are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. But can something that's been in use since 1970 really be considered a neologism? ergot 15:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Removed adjective. I'm just a little used to calling any constructed portmanteau a neologism. :-) TheProject 15:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preventing work-related stress

Wikipedia isn't a heath guide...this article is not about work-related stress in general, just stress teachers face. The article creator, User:Rosser1954, has filled his/her user page and talk page with the same material, too; and User:Rosser1954's article Work-related stress is the same thing (I will also list it for deletetion). I'm not against an article about the sources, symptoms and treatments for stess, but I think that's covered moderately well in Stress (medicine). This looks like WP:OR to me. Scientizzle 17:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Stress management. PJM 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced original research, non-encyclopedic view of the broader topic of (work-related) stress, and possibly simple advertizing of a site (see end of article). LjL 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unsalvageable amount of OR, no need to keep the title as a redirect because we are not a howto guide. --Hetar 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and then redirect to stress management (redirects are cheap). Just zis Guy you know? 18:36, 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 & REDIRECT. Rje 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Work-related stress

Wikipedia isn't a heath guide...this article is not about work-related stress in general, just stress teachers face. The article creator, User:Rosser1954, has filled his/her user page and talk page with the same material, too. I'm not against an article about the sources, symptoms and treatments for stess, but I think that's covered moderately well in Stress (medicine). This looks like WP:OR to me. -- Scientizzle 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding: Teachers and Recovery from Work-related Stress, substantially similar from the same editor. Just zis Guy you know? 18:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Stress (medicine). PJM 17:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Preventing work-related stress, but in this case consider a redirect. Might contain some useful content to be merged somewhere. LjL 18:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

user Rosser - the article only appears more than once becuase I am a new user and didn't understand what was what

  • Delete and then redirect to Stress (medicine). This article is 100% OR. --Hetar 18:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect, per others. Original research and promotion of the linked website. Just zis Guy you know? 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, no redirect. It requires a complete rewrite using non-original research material, as work-related stress is a discipline of management studies (more specifically organisational behaviour), and is only secondarily related to medicin. olki 21:53, 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 12:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teria

Advert for a non-notable web game, article written by the game's author. --Hughcharlesparker 17:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete NN Ydam 17:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, considering I prodded the article in the first place. Let's see... a vanity article (by someone who lists his home page as his DeviantArt page) "is mainly to do" a web game that isn't yet playable and won't be released for 15 months. Hmm... -- Kicking222 17:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, and without a website yet, even. Delete this puppy, fails WP:WEB and WP:VAIN. RGTraynor 18:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kicking222. Gwernol 18:10, 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 12:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Slightly Warped Website

Deprodded by me. This website has an Alexa rank of 494K, but comes up highly on google searches for both "warped" and "slightly" and has apparently been around for years. I think the community should decide. Neutral, myself. Mangojuicetalk 17:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: An alexa rank that low for a supposedly popular community site like this really worries me. Also, no evidence of any reliable sources. --Hetar 18:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per very low Alexa rank, and lack of evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Some mentions in mainstream press could of course change that. Just zis Guy you know? 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. No sources and a low Alexa rank doom this article. -- Kicking222 19:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romulan Star Command

Advertisement for a gaming clan. Gets less than 200 Google hits altogether and no Wikipedia articles link it so I don't think it's notable enough. Zoz (t) 18:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom--Kalsermar 19:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE ALL CLANS! -- Kicking222 19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Gods, yes; how tiny bunches of gamers fancy themselves notable I have no idea. Strong Delete per nom. RGTraynor 20:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all gaming clans. Just zis Guy you know? 21:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can drastically turn it in to an article about the Romulan Star Empire. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, there's no such thing in canon as the "Romulan Star Command". Vashti 11:13, 18 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. -- ( drini ☎ ) 22:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quazer Beast

This seems a perfectly normal article, and I hesitate to disturb its existence. However, I fear that it might be a hoax, as it contains no references, and Google turns up no hits other than Wikipedia and its mirrors. Mackensen (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • No verifiability = delete -- ( drini ☎ ) 18:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Good find... unless some verification can be found, and none seems apparent, this is probably a hoax. --W.marsh 18:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I googled it and found: http://today.answers.com/topic/quazer-beast Whoever wrote this article plagiarized Answers.com, but didn't make this up.--Dakart 18:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - No. This is not a case of plagiarism. The link that you have provided at Anwers.com is a copy of the wikipedia article and not the other way round. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Oops... I feel stupid now. Thanks for pointing that out. --Dakart 19:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as either original research or hoax. --Zoz (t) 18:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Almost certainly a hoax. Only 8 unique G-hits, and pretty much all of them are WP and mirrors (note: I just realized the nomination already said this). Well, if it can't be verified, it's deleted, pure and simple. -- Kicking222 19:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research or a hoax. --Quintin3265 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gerard Foley 21:49, 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 by RadioKirk as a nn-bio (CSD A7). --Hetar 21:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Lynch

Bio about a highschool musician who's played for a year and "is single and not looking". Draeco 18:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • speedy delete Mr Stephen 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Why was this even brought to AfD? There was no contested deletion tag- it could have just been speedied in the first place. -- Kicking222 19:22, 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. Rje 12:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Fry family tree

Someone tagged this article several months ago, but never created this page. Personally I feel it violates Wikipedia:No original research and should be deleted. Robmods 18:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. In addition to no sourcing, the article itself admits that it is inaccurate. — Michael J 19:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Futuramacruft! Beno1000 19:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain This isn't an encyclopedia article, but I just cna't bring myself to vote delete, because I love it so much. The speculation, the footnotes, the "31x"... it's even in the Futurama box! -- Kicking222 19:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (maybe merge). If anyone who knows anything abut this show thinks it's accurate, the chart could be merged in the Futurama article. But too fannish to be it's own artle, so delete.--Esprit15d 20:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Is a cleanup and merge a bit far fetched? Yanksox 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Fry it soonest. Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Philip J Fry, after verification and clean up. - CNichols 22:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete overly fannish to no end - post it on some fan site, not an encyclopedia. Dan, the CowMan 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least edit it. --Jebusman 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikitree. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 18 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.  RasputinAXP  c 14:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avdy Andresson

Either non-notable or just non-existant. One of the referenced sources doesn't mention him, the other just mentions an "Audy Andresson" buried in a cemetery. This is what Google turns up.[18] Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nod Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 19:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & Comment --- Firstly, Andresson may not be "well known" to most Americans, but he certainly is to most Estonians. He was a significant member of the Estonian Government in Exile during the Soviet years. As for my comment, I can assure you, as creator of the article, I am not in the habit of "making people up" for Wiki entries - as my other contributions will show. And he is indeed included in the link you claiim he isn't. ExRat 20:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[19] NOTE: Inscribed on Audy Andresson's Headstone is the following,

"Colonel of Cavelry and Tanks War Minister and Commander In Chief of Estonian Goverment in Exile 1972-1990, WW I Czars Cavalry 1914-1918, Estonian War of Independance - Cavalry 1918-1920, WW II German Cavalry and Tanks 1941-1945"

  • keep I'm inclined to trust ExRat here although it would be nice if ExRat could give us some other sources. JoshuaZ 21:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN; I'm sorry, but I'd dispute the premise that he's "well known" to Estonians. (For one thing, he doesn't have an entry on the Estonian Wikipedia [20]) Probably very few editors could name, without looking it up, the contemporaneous US Secretaries of Defense in those same years. The degree to which 90-year-old WWI veterans are active, meaningful members of "government" would also be in question, I'm sure. RGTraynor 03:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per ExRat. The degree to which anyone needs to be active or meaningful as the War Minister of a government in exile for 50 years, and without an army, is probably the answer to RGTraynor's question; I imagine it was a completely ceremonial duty. However, I have to say, I couldn't find him in http://worldstatesmen.org/Estonia.html either. It's a big page: ExRat, what section is he in, or how is his name spelled there? AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I have two things to add to this. Firstly, I have little doubt that this article I created was listed for deletion by Mad Jack O'Lantern as retaliation for for reverting one of his edits and finding an internet source which proved him to be wrong. It just so happened, the following day, my article came up for deletion by him. I think it is exceptionally poor form to not be able to work well with others. I generally try to work well with others and certainly never stoop so low in a pedantic war with someone as a revenge tactic. I am finding the whole thing petty and deplorable. I have been a member of Wikipedia for nearly a year now and have never had such a problem with another individual. I tended to use Wikipedia as as a personal hobby and rarely interacted with others (for good or bad). This really sours my experience.
Secondly, on Avdy Andresson - I would think (obviously, just my opinion) that someone who served with distinction in two world wars, was a government official, organized the Estonian Defence League in the 1970s and was the oldest living member of the Estonian Government in Exile (and from March 1, 1990 to June 20, 1990 techinically acting as Prime Minister) would be worthy of at least a stub article. I find it extraordinary that there are individual articles on each contestant (yes, even every losing contestant) of America's Next Top Model, yet my article on Andresson is considered "non-notable". ExRat 21:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Rather than getting into the personal conflict, can you tell us what you used for your sources? Just the gravestone? Did you know him personally? I still can't find Andresson in the page from that first link, can you help? AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I did not know the man personally - I had however heard of him. Apparently I am not the only one, considering someone else had left information on his talk page. I am currently unable to find the links that I had used to gather information on him. If this results in the article being deleted, then so be it. This is the only other link I could find currently, however it is not one of the links I had used prior: [21]. That is just for the verification that he is not an individual I "made up". I am not involved in a "personal confilct" with anyone, nor have I been. There is only one individual who is involved in a personal conflict, and that is the individual who listed the article for deletion in retaliation for another matter. If it's that big of a deal, just delete the thing, since I am unable to currently find the internet sources I used for the article. I look forward to all those "notable" articles on such contemporary greats as Alex Breckenridge, Ashley Black, Ebony Taylor and Diane Hernandez. ExRat 22:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Alex Breckenridge, which I created, shows up on Google searches. All the info on it can be confirmed via a reliable first-hand source. That's why, for example, there's no question that page is notable. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Y'know ... I'm really wanting now to see some sourcing, any sourcing, on this guy. First we're supposed to think he's notable because he served in two World Wars (like, oh, about ten million other people) and that he was a minister of a government-in-exile that wasn't internationally recognized (like, oh, many other such bodies). He doesn't show up on that Estonian website, he doesn't appear in the Estonian Wikipedia, and he has only eight Google hits, every single one which is either this article or a Wikimirror. Right now this article has no verifiability, and fails per WP:V. RGTraynor 00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. Almost any dispute or discussion on Wikipedia can be settled with the presentation of a reliable source. This should be no different. Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Following that link ExRat gave, it says that Avdy Andressen was active in this particular Estonian refugee community, serving as a leader in a couple civic organizations. No mention of being a government minister was made. RGTraynor 04:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's a source. [22] It's just a post on a message board, so wouldn't be enough to write an article by itself, but I think the statements on his gravestone are credible. Maybe we should bug this Erki Kangro person more for where there sources came from, but it's enough for me to keep my keep vote, above. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:25, 19 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. Rje 12:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Moneypenny's Glamorous One Party

(This is what I get for clicking on 'Random Article'.) Far fringe "party" that contested a single small constituency in a single British election nine years ago. It received 128 votes (just a dozen more than the "Lord Byro versus the Scallywag Tories" party) and received one-third of one percent of the vote. Nothing more has been heard of this non-notable party that has a whopping total of 18 unique hits on the UK Google [23], the lead hit of which is this Wikipedia article. Miss Moneypenny's fifteen minutes has been up so long, it's been interred in a shallow grave. RGTraynor 19:52, 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. Rje 12:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of albums which include 20 or more tracks

Listcruft with little or no encyclopedic value. cholmes75 20:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. Practically infinite, with no clear value.--Esprit15d 20:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: more useless listcruft. --Hetar 20:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep perfectly encyclopedic list. No reason why this one is worse than the other lists is provided.  Grue  20:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That is not a reason to keep this, it's a reason to delete the worse lists. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete It's worse because it has no use whatsoever. Even a list as ludicrous as "List of songs that are longer than 15 minutes" could theoretically have some use, such as "Man, I love me some epic songs, but I don't know where to find them." What could this list give you? "Man, I love me some... albums with a lot of tracks." Um, no. This is listcruft at its finest. -- Kicking222 23:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Esprit15d. If there is actually any value in tracking albums by track count, then perhaps it could be accomplished better by categories. -- Zawersh 08:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or also create List of albums which include 17 or more tracks, List of albums which include 23 or more tracks, since 20 is not a Magic Number. -- GWO
From the article you linked to, "The seven known magic numbers as of 2005 are: 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126." Cedars 13:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as arbitrary list with arbitrary standards for inclusion, unlikely to ever be completed, apparently created solely for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unmaintainable. 23skidoo 15:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable. ergot 15:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Grue. Well-maintained list that covers a frequently discussed aspect of recordings. I remember when some of these albums were released how the reviews emphasized the exceptional number of tracks. Wikipedia is well within its encyclopedic role when it gives the exact track number for people who need the info. -- JJay 18:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Grue/JJay Spearhead 21:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Most things that start with "List of" are not encyclopedia articles. Trivia for the sake of trivia is not helpful to the project. Friday (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unmaintainable listcruft. Zaxem 12:27, 22 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. Rje 12:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vatican Pornography Conspiracy

Delete. Previously proposed for deletion in April, but was thwarted. Basically, this is a supposed urban legend with references that don't appear to be reliable and the term only pulls up 4 hits on Google. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 20:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN; look at the talk page, and the original author now believes it should be deleted. RGTraynor 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a nonsupported claim. --Quintin3265 20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This urban legend is discussed at both Snopes and Straight Dope, both of which are reliable sources on the validity of urban legends. This topic is also mentioned in the Vatican Library article, and a Google search on "Vatican pornography collection" indicates this is a fairly common meme. Given that the Vatican Library is also supposed to house the world's largest collection of occult texts, perhaps the article could be renamed Vatican Library urban legends or Catholic Church urban legends, combining similar urban legends and conspiracy theories. Also, I'm sure there are references to this concept in various fictional works, which should be added to the article, with references. - CNichols 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Snopes.com. For rumors, go there. Fan1967 23:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I may bear some responsibility for this, having created a redlink in jest after someone else used the phrase. Still, the references are reliable IMO and could possibly be added to the mention in the short article Vatican Library of their alleged collection. Шизомби 23:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Excommunicate (delete). Bucketsofg✐ 00:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable urban legend. I don't see why there can't be some overlap between Wikipedia and snopes. The two are still different. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per CanadianCaesar. Quite notable. bikeable (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WesBro. Notable legend. WesBro (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - there's another variation which is often repeated; the Vatican keeps a massive library of many rare books from history in multiple languages (this is no conspiracy theory; this is true) so therefore, it contains books that have been considered pornographic by past social mores and times. - Richardcavell 02:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. All the relevant information, including a description of the urban legend and its debunking, is already included in the article Vatican Library. It is unlikely that anyone would look for this information under the title "Vatican Pornography Conspiracy"; there are no Google hits for that phrase outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. --Metropolitan90 03:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per richardcavell --User:poechalkdust 02:07. 18 May 2006
  • Delete and Merge with Vatican Library Ydam 13:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Yeah, it's an urban legend, but it's a very well known one. The article makes it clear that it's a conspiracy, not the truth. --Dakart 06:04, 20 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. -- Drini 03:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ilhaan

This is a nonsense article. Richardwooding 20:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as {{nonsense}}. I don't know why it wasn't just tagged for sd before. -- Kicking222 23:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - patent nonsense. - Richardcavell 23:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - I actually went to the trouble of tagging it. Grandmasterka 03:09, 18 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.  RasputinAXP  c 23:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English Ponies

Prod removed by IP w/no comment. Spam - it isn't about English ponies, it's about a company that sells them. Jamoche 20:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete - non notable.--Esprit15d 20:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OMG Ponies (delete). -- GWO
  • Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 18 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.  RasputinAXP  c 23:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How does Evidence Code Sec. 664 apply to DMV Hearings

Darren@nocuffs (talk • contribs) removed {{prod}} tag. WP is not a publisher of original thought or original research J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This is an essay.--Esprit15d 20:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the lot. OR. Just zis Guy you know? 21:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with the lot. NPOV, OR, essay, and apparently an ad for a DUI lawyer. Fan1967 21:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - might I also add that this essay assumes that the audience is in the United States and covered by US law? - Richardcavell 23:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. No, it's worse. The essay assumes that the audience is in California and covered by California law. Each US state has its own laws in this area. Fan1967 23:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR and Wikipedia is not limited to California. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why don't we collect all these DUI articles and transwiki them to WikiBooks as a guide or something? TheProject 15:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Topic itself could fit in wikipedia I think. If cleaned up and sourced. However they are all copyvio's from [24]. Unless it's the author himself who posted it. Garion96 (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Misread the WikiEN-I e-mail. See also http://www.gotadui.com/
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 06:43, 21 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.  RasputinAXP  c 23:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Smash Bros. Melee Tiers

Fancruft, that is, not suitable for Wikipedia. Several Times 20:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. Totally fannish opinion and not encylopedic.--Esprit15d 20:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:CVG: "if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable." Nifboy 22:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is the cruftiest fancruft in the crufty history of gamecruft. -- Kicking222
  • Delete - Richardcavell 00:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons above. Mihoshi 00:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Along with all the other articles from Darren@nocuffs Ydam 13:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. Thanos6 11:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. --Sparky Lurkdragon 16:49, 20 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.  RasputinAXP  c 23:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How does Evidence Code Sec. 1280 Apply to DMV Hearings

Darren@nocuffs (talk • contribs) removed {{prod}} tag. WP is not a publisher of original thought or original research J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  20:29, 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.  RasputinAXP  c 23:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burden in DMV Hearings

Darren@nocuffs (talk • contribs) removed {{prod}} tag. WP is not a publisher of original thought or original research J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  20:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete OR Just zis Guy you know? 21:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The author has created a whole flood of similar articles. I vote delete for all of them (at least judging by the ones that I had a glimpse at). olki 21:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. The title is generic but the article is clearly jurisdiction specific. Finally, I highly suspect this is partially advertising, given the tag line at the end of the article and that a quick google search shows there is a crimial defence lawyer in California by the same name of the original author at the same domain of "nocuffs". Fluit 21:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with the lot. NPOV, OR, essay, and apparently an ad for a DUI lawyer. Fan1967 22:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:OWN. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 18 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.  RasputinAXP  c 23:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DUI Arrests: DMV Hearings

Darren@nocuffs (talk • contribs) removed {{prod}} tag. WP is not a publisher of original thought or original research J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  20:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete OR Just zis Guy you know? 21:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with the lot. NPOV, OR, essay, and apparently an ad for a DUI lawyer. Fan1967 22:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, essay. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: The writer is an attorney and (hold onto your chair) he didn't add his website to any of the numerous articles he created on this subject, which is his speciality. I would like to explore the possibility of savng this content somehow, perhaps as a smaller number of combined articles on the California penal code and DUI. There is a core of encyclopaedic klnowledge in here somewhere, if we can get to it... Just zis Guy you know? 14:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment He didn't add his website, put he did put his name, in boldface, at the top. Fan1967 14:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was CSD. -- ( drini ☎ ) 22:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tuesday Scedule Hero Tv

Television program schedules are not encyclopedic. This appears too unstable to make an article. Esprit15d 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, author blanked it. --Rory096 21:22, 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.  RasputinAXP  c 23:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ditched magazine

Delete Non-notable publication. According to myspace site, has only published four issues. Typos 20:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, minor magazine. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditch it - per nom. Zaxem 12:33, 22 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.  RasputinAXP  c 23:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trilliscience

Non-notable neologism. 401 Google hits, first one being this article. Haakon 20:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable, unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 12:33, 22 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.  RasputinAXP  c 23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DMV and Court

Darren@nocuffs (talk • contribs) removed {{prod}} tag. WP is not a publisher of original thought or original research J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  20:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete original research and identified as such by the author. Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This guy is posting academia on wikipedia, too bad it's not the kind we need. Yanksox 21:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Additionally, the title is generic but the article is clearly jurisdiction specific. Finally, I highly suspect this is partially advertising, given the tag line at the end of the article and that a quick google search shows there is a crimial defence lawyer in California by the same name of the original author at the same domain of "nocuffs". Fluit 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with the rest. Fan1967 22:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, essay. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 18 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.  RasputinAXP  c 23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freeworldgroup

Delete - Not particularly notable flash games website. ~10k rank on Alexa. Possible spam/vanity... Wickethewok 20:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The site is ranked No. 32 for online games portals in the world - and is significantly larger than some other flash games sites listed on wikipedia - I don't see it as spam/vanity --Valzano 22:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - if there are less notable sites than this, they should be put up for deletion as well. I would say only a couple flash games sites are notable. Wickethewok 02:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per WP:WEB/WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Zaxem 12:31, 22 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.  RasputinAXP  c 23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monday Scedule Hero Tv

Unstable television schedule is not encyclopedic Esprit15d 20:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Yanksox 22:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Great article title, though. -- Kicking222 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • ^ lol... delete. --Howard the Duck | talk, 02:57, 20 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.  RasputinAXP  c 23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DUI Arrests: Alcoholic Beverage

Darren has posted yet another article after having been asked not to. Recommend temp-block of editing capabilities. --HubHikari 20:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

fixed afd nomination J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • agree that user is a nuiscance, but as far as the article goes it is an essay, delete J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and my previous comments on the other DUI articles by the same author nominated today. Fluit 21:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Yanksox 22:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with the rest for the same reasons. Fan1967 22:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think that some of this text is salvageable. If the article were retitled 'DUI: California' and linked from the appropriate main article, it could start an encyclopedia of local DUI laws. - Richardcavell 23:08, 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.  RasputinAXP  c 23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wednesday Scedule Hero Tv

A television schedule is not encyclopedic Esprit15d 20:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete per nom Yanksox 21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The fact that the title is misspelt is not in its favor. Gwernol 22:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeesh. Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 23:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not TV Guide. --Metropolitan90 03:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Howard the Duck | talk, 02:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. DVD+ R/W 02:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mostly Rainy 07:45, 22 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 and disambiguate.  RasputinAXP  c 23:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 24 Hour Lifestyle Pill

Redundant stub; a combination of Modafinil and CX717. Additionally, 24 Hour Lifestyle Pill is a poor discription of Eugeroics, Ampakines and similar, and is not a technical term for any. Smurrayinchester 21:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and recreate a disambiguation page with the above drug names. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stifle. Cool3 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 12:37, 22 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.  RasputinAXP  c 23:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArtRemains

Rather pretentious article about an art sharing website created last week. Written by Epiphyte, creator of the site. Currently has zero "citizens". Sorry Carlos, come back when it is notable. -- RHaworth 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • You would have a lot more credibility if you were able to give objective reasons why you consider the article "pretentious". Ageist disrimination defeats part of the beauty of wikipedia and we currently have 136 citizens. Sorry RHaworth, it's the first democratic art community (and please correct me if I'm wrong, the only democratic virtual community) and many people out there would consider that something worth noting. -- epiphyte 19:54, 17 May 2006 PST
(I think we treat the above as a keep vote!) What's pretentious? Virtually every sentence but mainly the use of "citizen" rather than a straightforward "user". Using your terminology, you have 143 "freeriders" and 1 "active citizen" who has popped up in the last few minutes. But if you want to say it's not pretentious, I won't press the point. But I would like to take you up on the "ageist" remark: who is being ageist and in which direction are you suggesting Wikipedia has an ageist slant? Personally I think WP has a systemic bias towards the young - witness stuff like Thomas the Tank Engine cruft and the non-notable bands of which we delete three or four every day. I try in a small way to offset that bias. -- RHaworth 09:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
A citizen is generally thought of as an individual who has certain inalienable rights, especially with regards to political participation. Nonetheless, I went through and changed "citizen" to "member" where appropriate. The term "freeriders" is what is used to refer to "members" who do not pay taxes. Just because a wikipedia member is not active or has not "donated to keep wikipedia running" does not mean that they are not members. You were being ageist when you criticized the article because it covered a subject that was "created last week". You may feel that WP has a bias towards the young but instead of saying something is not notable because it's too new it's more helpful if you offer objective criterion that define whether or not something is "notable". I've studied virtual communities fairly extensively and when compared to the sociopolitical and economic structures of other communities (past and present) I would say ArtRemains is quite "notable". Yes it is new, no, it doesn't get many hits on google or alexis, but I don't think media coverage should equal "notability". epiphyte 8:01, 18 May 2006 PST

I know that Wikipedia is drowned with bogus articles. I find ArtRemains to be different from any other community before it because of it's structure. I would argue that the way the site is set up is notable; it is extremely unique. I suggest you take a look before spraying weed killer. I understand if Wikipedia does not want the article at this time. I would like to know what exactly it is about the article that makes it deletable. I am curious as to how notability matters at this time. This article was put up early because the people on the site were thinking ahead. The site will likely be notable when it is operational. It is not out of beta yet and it is extremely interesting. Many things are going to happen in the near future. I would appreciate a "wait and see" approach to this deletion rather than a "start swinging your sword and ask questions later" approach. Sincerely, ZekiBaka.

  • Strong Delete Article fails WP:WEB, only 8 relevant google hits, no results on alexa. BigE1977 03:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Zaxem 12:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Andrevan.  RasputinAXP  c 23:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rudopoly (game)

Pure hoax. The article states that there is a culture of secrecy surrounding the game. So secret in fact that Google has never heard of it. -- RHaworth 22:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete is it maybe nonsensical enough to be speedy? This part is especially ridiculous: "Although the game certainly gained popularity in the 1970s, and most believe it did not exist before then, there exists evidence that it dates back to ancient times. One collector claims to own a Chinese rule set from the 2nd century BC, whilst other sources suggest that World War Two was actually entirely caused by Adolf Hitler attempting to play a game of Rudopoly; using the Earth and its inhabitants instead of the official board and pieces." JoshuaZ 22:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • deleteit is nonsence Whopper 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - patent nonsense. - Richardcavell 23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Patent nonsense; hoax; probably something made up at school one afternoon. Bucketsofg✐ 00:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but not speedy under how I've seen admins handle the "patent nonsense" speedy-delete criterion. A claim (utterly spurious) of notability is at least implied. My official delete reason is lack of verifiability, a core policy, but the WP:NFT essay also seems to apply. Barno 01:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT, WP:V, and so on. Not patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Bart133 19:52, 19 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. Rje 12:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joni Dourif

I have read this article twice and still can't see what this person is supposed to be notable for. If anyone can state which parts of WP:BIO this meets I'd be happy to hear it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete article was up for afd before, but the it still has no verifiable 3rd party sources to establish notability. BigE1977 03:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP and lack of reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stifle. Zaxem 12:38, 22 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. Rje 11:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Rees

Contested PROD. Nonnotable child actor. Appeared as "Child 2" in a yet-unreleased movie. Delete. Angr (t • c) 22:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete article is reposted material(G4), but an AFD discussion is needed to make a consesus decision J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  23:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, G4 doesn't apply because the current version is substantially different from the deleted version. Angr (t • c) 06:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
different? Yes. substantially? eh maybe, but needs a AFD discussion anyway J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  13:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a NN vanity article. BigE1977 03:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Very good actor now featured in Meatspin82.0.69.6 22:44, 13 April 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 REDIRECT. Rje 11:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joyce Gracie

My interest was piqued by a comment on the talk page here--I can't find any evidence of a Joyce Gracie playing baseball for the Yankees. Google searches for "Joyce Gracie" baseball & "Joyce Gracie" Yankees bring up no relevant hits, just Wiki mirrors. Additionally, Baseball-reference.com has no record of a Joyce Gracie, either...despite the claim that Gracie played in 4 major league games. I'm inclined to think this is a hoax--the author, User:Harpey, has only 1 edit (this article creation), and Joyce Gracie is apparently the name of a UFC fighter (as 66.189.236.47 pointed out). -- Scientizzle 22:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. Yanksox 22:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Gwernol 23:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Accurizer 23:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Change vote to Redirect per Alsayid and Stifle. Accurizer 13:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Brazilian mixed martial arts fighter is Royce Gracie, but it's pronounced "Hoyce" (or "Joyce," if you want to give the J an H sound). I'm guessing the article's author mixed this name up with whomever he meant to write about. --Alsayid 02:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clearing that up. -- Scientizzle 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, then, as a plausible search term. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 18 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. Kusma (討論) 02:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime Fiction

Yet unreleased student film hyped with fake press releases which "features" Rikki Lee Travolta (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rikki_Lee_Travolta. Delete, if it becomes notable we can recreate it. Arniep 22:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It does have a website here (it cites it's Wikipedia article in the press section [25]). Arniep 22:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It also has a trailer here which shows Rikki Lee in all his glory (the blonde bellhop) (note having a trailer on your own website doesn't make a film notable). Arniep 23:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As stupid as I think any movie is that quotes its own WP article as press, the film is notable. It's an indie film, not a student film, it has an IMDb page, and many notable actors are in it. That's good enough for me. -- Kicking222
It's also gotten considerable press in Chicago, including from Time Out. I honestly see no reason why this article could be deleted. --

Kicking222 23:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You say it's not a student film, on the press page it says:
"University of Chicago students take a stab at bringing filmmaking into focus at the institution with Crime Fiction"
"The film’s creators, who are students at the University of Chicago".
Arniep 23:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The TimeOut article seems to have been deleted. Arniep 00:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It needs to cite, expand, and clean up though. Yanksox 23:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice toward recreation when (if?) it gets released. IMDB is proven unreliable on projected movies, and I have to wonder about a movie that was listed as "Post-production" 8 months ago and hasn't had an update since. It's not exactly an A-list cast. Could get released and be a big hit, could go straight to video, could get dumped as not worth the expense of releasing. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Fan1967 23:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, we should not list any film that is not released as (i) it is just encouragement to use Wikipedia for promotion, and (ii) we cannot know whether a film will become notable or not until it is seen by the general population. Arniep 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's rather annoying that how the word "student film" is being thrown around. If you are a student and make a film, it's not immedially a "student film." It is a student film if made for a class, anything on your own is a "film." And if something is a student film that doesn't imply that it is bad or poor (i.e. THX1138). Sorry for my mini-rant. Yanksox 23:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a fair point. To my mind, if the film gets a distribution deal, it graduates from "student film" to "indie". That ok? Thatcher131 02:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that student film is restricted to class. Indie deals with an actual deal. You can actually make film for the love of it (i.e. Channel101.com and Channel102.net). Yanksox 02:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Another of the articles cited in the press section [26] states that it was directed by Will Slocombe of the award-winning student film “Stoke Mechanics”, but google shows no evidence that film existed or received any award. Arniep 00:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Despite the Rikki Lee Travolta connection, it seems like a valid film with known actors. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it normal to have articles for non released films that have had no reliable press coverage? Arniep 00:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fire Escape Films is a student filmmaking group at the University of Chicago.[27] They plan to submit their film to "every festival under the sun" and then hope for a distribution deal.[28] Regardless of how the article came to be here, a student film with no distribution agreement fails notability. Thatcher131 01:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thatcher131; article can be recreated if it does become notable -- Hirudo 03:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thatcher131. Notability has not been established. --Metropolitan90 03:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to crime fiction. -Sean Curtin 04:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanispamcruft Zzzzz 12:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The film score was recorded last night by the University of Chicago Symphony Orchestra. We wrapped up recording in one night and they're now going to edit it and put it to film. So things are progressing along. The film makers said it would be a "couple months" until it was released. 13:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.230.219 (talk • contribs)
Comment The question of a score seems less important than the question of whether in fact there is a distributor. Fan1967 15:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

*Keep. No convincing argument to delete other than very weak, subjective notability arguments. Any film project that has this many people involved deserves to be noted here. I have said many times that artists of all media a underrepresented here; I just don't see the issue with the article staying. Aguerriero (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Change to delete per Arniep. Aguerriero (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You don't think there's an issue with the fact that the movie hasn't been released and there's no way of knowing whether it will be? Fan1967 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't. I wouldn't expect a film that has apparantly just recently gone through post-production to be released at this time. The Web site for the production company says that it will premiere this fall, which is a reasonable schedule for any film. A film that has professional actors cast, has a score written and recorded by a symphony orchestra, and has all of the other necessary crew is not easily abandoned - it has a producer, an insurer (required by the Screen Actor's Guild and other unions) and most important, a contract dictating its release. Aguerriero (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
We see indy films here all the time that have been completed but never released. That's why they schedule all these festivals, looking for a distributor. Where do you see indication of a contract dictating its release? Fan1967 16:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
If you were familiar with the workings of the film industry, you would know that no actor in the Screen Actor's Guide can work on a movie without a contract. The contract ALWAYS stipulates the release of the film. In this case, the article cited in the comment below (strangely, Arniep alleges a hoax and then posts evidence disproving his allegation) indicates the use of an Experimental Contract which stipulates that the actors don't get paid until the film is distributed. You confuse the use of the terms released and distributed. A film is released when it is screened. This film will be screened barring extreme circumstances, and plenty. If a distributor decides to put the movie into theatres and/or DVD, that is another thing - and that decision is based on the potential commercial viability of the film. So what you are really arguing here is that art forms that are not deemed marketable by large corporate distributors are inherently non-notable and should therefore not be covered in Wikipedia. Am I correct? Aguerriero (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Art that is not seen by more than a few dozen people is not notable. That is correct. Fan1967 19:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, and I respect that opinion even if I disagree. I just wanted to clear the table of "to release or not release" and hoax discussions and get the real issue out there. If you can build a consensus that art has to be seen by a significant number of people to be notable, then so it shall be. Aguerriero (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if there was some confusion over terms. I suspect to most people, "release" means more than a few showings. The main point, I believe is that if a movie is not distributed, and 99% of the country will never even have a chance to hear of it, much less see it, it can't be regarded as notable. It's not a judgement on the quality of the work. Fan1967 20:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Look, there is good evidence that these students have deliberately conducted a hoax campaign of inserting a large amount of false information to Wikipedia and releasing false press releases as part of a hyping campaign. We shouldn't have any articles on anything minor that hasn't been released full stop as it's just an encouragement to use Wikipedia for that sort of manipulation. This article [29] states that the film was directed by Will Slocombe of the award-winning student film “Stoke Mechanics”. Google shows no results for any film of that name or any award it supposedly received (which would be expected if the film or award were of any significance). Arniep 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
What good evidence? Please provide sources and proof. Aguerriero (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Last month there was a lot of sockpuppetry over the AfD for Riki Lee Travolta, who is in this movie; and Arniep has found blog posts by the creators of the film that he believes shows they were using wikipedia to hype the film. I'm not (entirely) convinced but more importantly it's an ad hominem attack; judge the article on its own merits. There doesn't seem to be a specific notability guideline for films. So it comes down to whether you believe an unfinished independent film that has not (yet) been shown at a notable festival and does not (yet) have a distribution agreement should have an article here at the present time. If instead of notabilty you simply wish to consider verifiability, the film has no Lexis/Nexis hits (even in Illinois regional newspapers) and the only sources currently available are IMDB and the U of Chicago student newspaper. Thatcher131 19:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly-Wikipedia should not be used to market/hype unreleased products with no real proof of notability, especially when there is evidence that there is campaign of releasing false info to hype the product. Arniep 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This from an interview with local Chicago website the Chicagoist [30]:
"Were there any worries about posting up so many stories about conflicts on the set? Will: No. If Apocalypse Now, The Godfather, Gangs of New York, and Citizen Kane are any indication, breathless stories about actor-infighting (and insleeping), directorial egomania, and suit skepticism all sell newspapers, which in turn sell movies.".
All their hoax press releases are documented on their blog [31], [32], [33], many of which mention Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rikki_Lee_Travolta and the hoax book Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/My Fractured Life, here are a few bits of hype documented on their blog:
"Amazon.com is offering the specially priced package of "My Fractured Life" by actor Rikki Lee Travolta and "The Kennedy Curse: Why America's First Family Has Been Haunted by Tragedy for 150 Years" by best-selling author Edward Klein to provide a complete look at the United States version of royal families from Hollywood to Washington DC.".
"As for what else is transpiring, I can confirm that the producers are deathly scared of the "Bourne" films and their impact, and are hoping to emulate their style. That means: Young Bond. Look for an actor in his late-20s/early-30s, possibly Australian (Travolta is Australian)... and no, it ain't Alex O'Lachlan...".
"According to a source in the Screen Actors Guild, ponytailed actor Rikki Lee Travolta of the well known entertainment family was ushered from the Chicago set of 'Crime Fiction' and flown to London for a closed door screentest for what is only being described as 'a franchise action role.'"
"Long compared in the media for their long golden hair, athletic builds, and porcelain features, models Fabio and Rikki Lee Travolta appeared for photographers together during promotional launch of clothing line in Chicago."
"From the NY POST to Asian press, a rumor has been reported that George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have used digital technology to create a Computer Graphics Imaging (CGI) movie star named Rikki Lee Travolta. Rikki Lee Travolta, a real actor and best selling recording artist preparing to work on a movie directed by Michael Dorn, responds to the gossip in a live press conference."
"Holy crap. The Travolta-qua-Bond story has legs:"
Arniep 20:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I really appreciate the time spent and you've convinced me (and probably anyone else) that the filmmakers lack credibility. I will change my vote to delete because I think it's clear we can't take anything about the film at face value. Aguerriero (talk) 20:38, 18 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.  RasputinAXP  c 14:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Proletarian Union" Committee of the Portuguese Marxist-Leninist Communist Organization (in reorganization)

The title is too long. But seriously, this isn't verifiable and Google returns no hits other than Wikipedia and her mirrors. Mackensen (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and let someone else redo it if they want. - Richardcavell 23:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Bucketsofg✐ 00:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable. See [34], [35] --Soman 09:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no context and no verifiability in English. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, English language support for verifiability is necessary. The title is also too long (possible bad translation, I don't know). A complete redo might save the article, but only if it was verifiable in English. Cool3 20:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Where does it says that English language support for verifiability is necessary? Please tell me that, I would like to know. In WP:RS we can find ... foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources.. Don't create your own policies. This article is verifiable! It is a valid article, political parties are notable. And by the way, the title is perfectly translated. Cheers! Afonso Silva 21:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You are indeed right about the actual text of the official policy. However, when a topic has no verifiability in English that raises immediate notability flags in my mind. When a purported organization title gets no google hits, that probably means the organization isn't notable or someone has translated the title incorrectly. For that reason, I have stressed the need for English sources. If the title was translated perfectly (which I believe it probably was), doesn't it concern you that no one else in the English speaking world with an internet connection seems to know or care about the "Proletarian Union" Committee of the Portuguese Marxist-Leninist Communist Organization (in reorganization)? The other reason that I have asked for English language sources is that I, and probably most English language Wikipedia readers, can not read Portuguese. While I always try to assume good faith, believing an article solely on the basis of sources I can't understand is difficult for me. If several Portuguese speaking Wikipedians will independently confirm the content of the sources, I am willing to accept that the article is verifiable and concentrate solely on notability concerns. Cool3 17:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - what needs to be clarified is if this was the faction that took part in the 1979, 1980 and 1983 elections as OCMLP. I beleive its most probably so, since I can't find trace of any other OCMLP faction after 1976. --Soman 08:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This isn't the best place to have this discussion. But just to reply: this faction was never a legally recognized party, nonetheless it may have gained the control of the OCMLP. Afonso Silva 21:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
But the original OCMLP merged into PCP(R) in 1975. Thus this appears to be the only OCMLP faction retaining that name after 1975. --Soman 21:37, 20 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.  RasputinAXP  c 14:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three fish

This was listed as a CSD A7, for no assertion of notability, which seems reasonable except for one thing: one of the members is (according to our article) a founding member of Pearl Jam. Someone who knows more should look into this; No vote from me. SCZenz 23:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • That's actually a good point; I hadn't noticed that. The article is a mess, though - it looks as though it was copied and pasted from somewhere, as it talks about a 1999 tour as an ongoing event...
Yup. In fact, the entire article is a copyvio: the introduction and image are from here, the biography is from here (and that's probably from the CD insert). Unless someone can come forward to do a complete rewrite, delete. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that Jeff has gone ahead and rewritten, I'll amend that to a keep. The image is still questionably licensed, but that's fixable. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as copyvio. Bucketsofg✐ 00:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, stub it, move to Three Fish and remove the copyvio from the page history. Notable band, and I'll be glad to rewrite the article. I'll stub it right now, in fact, if another admin can clean the history. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. I'm hesitant to add more info as of yet, but they certainly meet at least three criteria from WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge to Jeff Ament. I don't see any real reason for notability here other than that a guy from a famous band played with them. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Actually, two of the members are from famous bands. It definitely needs to be expanded, but I can do some research on them and help out Badlydrawnjeff if we keep it. La Pizza11 21:18, 18 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: fork of Croatophobia. The content is preserved in Croatophobia/To merge for merging. `'mikka (t) 18:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Croatian sentiment

Relisting. Previously was tagged by a tag pointin to AFD of a different article, which is against rules: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia. My vote is to keep, cleanup: unlike "Croatophobia" (which I voted to merge), the title is not a neologism, neutral, and reflects the real, documented phenomenon. `'mikka (t) 23:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - this is pointless, we can write about Anti-"any nation" sentiment. --serbiana - talk 23:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is (very) POV right now and is bound to remain POV in my opinion. The title is made up of English words, yes, but you still get slightly more than 30 hits for "anti Croatian sentiment" (quoted) on Google. Also, most part of the article appears to be original research. LjL 23:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • POV is not valid reason for deletion. POV is reason for NPOV-cleanup. `'mikka (t) 01:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you didn't notice the part where I said "and it is bound to remain POV". LjL 14:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV is not a valid reason for deletion on its own, but a title that will only ever be a POV article is. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 18 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  RasputinAXP  c 14:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sequence breaking

Strong Keep This is not really like speedrunning, it's its own thing. 1:30 PM, 20 May, 2006 Wikimaster2

Delete for being an unencyclopedic entry on a non-noteworthy phenomenon. - Rikoshi 23:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I believe that it could be fixed up or merged. But I don't think it needs to be deleted. Yanksox 23:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep might be more useful merged into Speed run, but the sourcing worries me. Kotepho 01:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Speed run. BigE1977 03:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Speed run - it's a noteworthy term of speed runs, but probably not notable enough to have an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Now I'd rather say Keep or, only failing that, Merge, per Aguerriero's reasoning. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Second choice is redirect per Bige1977. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This cannot be merged with speedrun. While some sequence-breaking is speedrunning, they are two different things. Sequence-breaking could be as simple as the ability to go backward in the old Pitfall game. Good gaming topic that needs to be covered here. Aguerriero (talk) 15:04, 18 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. Flowerparty☀ 02:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FrontYard Baseball

Seems more of a promotion than an entry Yanksox 23:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete It's not even a promotion. It's just... nothing. It's about a game some guy plays with a bunch of friends. It's even written in first person, and no notability is even attempted to be established (except for the line "the county-wide craze that could only be described as an orgy of fun," which is a pretty good line). I guess, if anything, it would be a {{db-club}} type of thing. It's not that it's a terrible article... it's simply non-notable. -- Kicking222 23:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I've speedied this several times before, but it keeps coming up or the tag is removed. It's rather agitating. Yanksox 23:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Almost no relevant Google hits for "FrontYard Baseball" or "Front Yard Baseball". I'm not sure if a "county-wide craze" is really encyclopedic material... -- Scientizzle 23:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg✐ 00:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Crum375 01:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • De'ete per nom.
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep and cleanup for NPOV.  RasputinAXP  c 14:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wing-Time

Ad. Does not meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Alexa rank 4,589,961. Rhobite 23:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Clearly spamvertising. Bucketsofg✐ 00:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - clearly an advertisement. - Richardcavell 00:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be a relatively well-known product, but trim for NPOV. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wing-Time and its line of Buffalo Wing Sauces is notable and well known in the gourmet food industry, especially amongst folks in the hot sauce circles and aficionados of Buffalo Chicken Wings. The sauces are available widely throughout the United States and also many other countries. I know that most of the major food chains here in Seattle carry Wing-Time and have seen it in Hawaii and other places I frequent. In fact, I suspect Wing-Time to be one of the largest manufacturers of Buffalo Wing Sauces world-wide even though it is a somewhat niche market. Also, you might consider other related Wikipedia topics which involve similar type companies that have been approved in the past (although I realize this is not in and of itself a legitimate criteria for approval). These include: Texas Pete, Tapatío hot sauce, Dave’s Gourmet, Queen of Farts (sauce). Thanks for reconsidering the article. Note: the article is also being scrube for improved neutrality so that it is not perceived as spam/advertising. CaptainTrips 02:58, 19 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. Flowerparty☀ 02:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Movie Spoiler

No assertion of notability, and there isn't really any to assert anyway. There are numerous websites that write about films, this one is in no way unique or significant. Gets plenty of Google hits, but that's because it's a website that's linked to from other places. That does not make it worthy of an article in an encyclopedia.--Sean Black 00:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete NN - if this goes in so does almost every web site Crum375 01:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable website. Fluit 02:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is it notable? Has it gotten any media coverage? Has it affected anything in any significant way? Please give a clearer rationale.--Sean Black 02:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This website has been around since at least 1999. Not only does it have a significant number of Google hits, a search of usenet archives shows that there are hundreds of entries referring to and discussing this website. The website itself links to media coverage of it. I'm sticking with Keep, but as always am happy with whatever the consensus brings. (WP:WEB, btw, is only guideline, not policy.) Fluit 16:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Lots of websites have been around since 1999, that doesn't make them notable. As I said in the nomination, it gets a high number of Google hits because it's a spam machine- It's whole goal is to get more people to link to it and thus view it's advertisements, etc. etc. The only "media coverage" that the site notes is several anonymous emails and an appearance on a minor Seattle area radio programme. I don't believe that this, nor the "Usenet discussion", which doesn't seem to exist per this Google Groups search, which largely shows email spam sent to newsgroups and a few people linking to it. Numerous websites are linked to from Usenet mailing lists, what makes this one significant enough for an entry in a general encyclopedia?--Sean Black 20:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You asked for my reasons, you have them. I'm not out to change your mind, and you haven't changed mine. I won't lose any sleep over the results, I'm just here to give my opinion. As for the usenet threads, few if any of the threads I read were usenet spam. Fluit 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't want to change your mind. I'm simply demonstrating that you gave no evidence that this is site is "notable" whereas I gave plenty of evidence that it isn't. AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion, and the closing admin will judge arguments, not bolded suggestions. You have given a very weak, or rather, nonexistant, argument.--Sean Black 02:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable site, plus some editors went on a linkspam spree for it a month or so ago, which influenced my decision. MikeWazowski 03:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WEB -- Tawker 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tawker. Mackensen (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN per nom Bastique▼parler voir 20:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. (Ibaranoff24 03:01, 22 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.