Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 18

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, Keep. Deizio talk 14:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Holly (2nd nomination)

This is a strange case. I found this article in the Wikipedia namespace, and moved it, thinking that the creator made a mistake. When checking the backlinks, though, I found out that it had been deleted before. I would vote keep if that is allowed, because he appears to be an actual person, despite what the previous AfD debate said: he has three albums on amazon.com, an entry at VH1.com (for what it's worth), etc. Ardric47 00:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• The first debate is archived at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Holly. Ardric47 00:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and clean up A LOT Aside from this article being diiiiiiirty, being a voter for the Grammys means nothing, as you just have to be credited on six songs, and getting "first round" nominations means nothing, because like a jillion (give or take a jillion) artists get first round noms. However, if the other information in the article and further info can be verified, then this would be as good a candidate for an article as any other. -- Kicking222 00:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral- seems like the first deletion may have been an error, hence no speedy as a recreation. If this guy actually is a recording artist and fulfills criteria on WP:MUSIC then I would be inclined to vote weak keep. Badgerpatrol 00:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Verifiability is hard to establish, and the article is really weak. Some parts of it suggest vanity or original research ("currently lives…"). I say delete now. Bucketsofg✐ 01:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems sound (excuse the pun) enough to me. I've done some cleaning up. Vanity is not a cause for deletion - only non-notability. See Vanity. Plenty of articles have the "currently lives" line. Do we really want to dispute that and remove it from the article?Tyrenius 02:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's still not clear to me what WP:MUSIC criteria he meets, if any. --Metropolitan90 03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do websites not count as "reputable media"? Although I can see how almost all of the web hits might have been heavily influenced by Pete Holly himself (akin to vanity publishers). I will reconsider my vote if better sources don't turn up. Ardric47 04:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Are there multiple non-trivial works published about him on web sites? Some web sites are reputable media but others clearly do not count as such. Note that his entries on VH1.com and Allmusic.com include minimal information at most. Furthermore, the fact that his web site still makes false claims about him being nominated for multiple Grammy Awards, which is verifiably false, raises questions about the accuracy of other information he may have submitted here or elsewhere. (The "first round" does not constitute an award nomination. [1]) --Metropolitan90 05:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain about "verifiably false" for those of us not familiar with Grammy procedures. Thanks. Tyrenius 10:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really talking about Grammy procedures per se, just how claims Pete Holly makes on his web site are the opposite of verifiable. For example, his home page says -4-GRAMMY NOMINATIONS FOR "PETE HOLLY III"- -INCLUDING ONE FOR THE VIDEO "HEART OF GOLD"-in 2006- [2] yet the official list of Grammy nominations for the most recent year never mentions him or "Heart of Gold". In other words, not only can we not verify that he was Grammy-nominated, we can verify that he wasn't. This raises questions about how accurate other published information about him may be. Adrift* suggests below that he appears notable, and maybe he meets some WP:MUSIC criterion like having a national tour, but I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt until we get some reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 02:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Metropolitan90, sounds like someone trying very hard to meet WP:MUSIC. But failing. Rockpocket (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• It's time for this article to face the music. Hiding in the Wikipedia namespace couldn't save it. Delete. Kimchi.sg 09:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep – but more cleanup is required – Gurch 11:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if sourced. Recording career does not look notable, involvement on the Grammys etc. probably tips him over the edge into WP:BIO land. But as stated above, there is almost nothign on which to base an artivle on the web, so anyone with access to treeware resources should join in now :-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Rockpocket. Not notable enough in my view. Paddles 12:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No sources cited at all, so delete as unverifiable unless good citations are provided prior to expiration of AfD discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Rockpocket. Metamagician3000 14:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Contrary to JzG, I found many hits in Google. His website claims that his video is Grammy nominated (but doesn't state which year, so this is difficult to research). He has a discography, so he'd meet several criteria at WP:MUSIC. I'd say {{holdon}} until further sources can be found. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Not to disparage your points, but I'm very sure I've heard on another AfD somewhere (can't remember which article, or who said it) that it is much easier to get nominated for the Grammys than actually winning. Kimchi.sg 08:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or any other notability standard. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. Crazynas 16:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Appears notable. His early punk band Pete Holly and the Looks was a small time garage/punk band from around the early 80s and that too seems notable. He also has a much more recent solo release listed at Allmusic.com. The article needs citation and more detail all around, but could be an interesting article especially for collectors and historians.--Adrift* 18:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I could see, just barely, how people could see this article as being notable.Thetruthbelow^(talk) 23:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V.--Peta 05:31, 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 merge to Violet Blue (author). --Ezeu 19:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ultimate Guide to Adult Videos: How to Watch Adult Videos and Make Your Sex Life Sizzle

Delete or Merge and Redirect. Notability of the book itself is not established. Any current claim of notability is mainly due to the notability of the author, Violet Blue, and not the actual published material itself. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 00:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge—and use as redirect—as the Violet Blue article isn't very long, but certainly not delete. I think it's splitting hairs a bit to say the author is notable but the author's book isn't. Tyrenius 02:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I think it is drawing arbitrary distinctions to suggest that an author might be notable, but their work not notable. - Richardcavell 02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Violet Blue, unless some evidence exists of the book's notability apart from the author (i.e., critical or economic success). Amazon lists 14 titles by Violet Blue--do they all deserve articles? Maybe they do, but I think the content of the nominated article would strengthen the Violet Blue page. -- Scientizzle 03:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Scientizzle. mgekelly 05:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per numerous above. Rockpocket (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If an author is notable, their works are notable. Additional comment - this must be an awfully short book. How far can you stretch "1) turn on TV. 2) Put video in player. 3) Watch. 4) Um... you know. Play with your... um... your hoo-hah. Or your partner's hoo-hah. 5) Switch off TV & video"??? Vizjim 08:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that additional comment. I needed that. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and/or redirect – as specified above – Gurch 11:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Scientizzle. Paddles 12:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Violet Blue~~ Brother William 13:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• M&R - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirectper nom. It is not true that "If an author is notable, their works are notable." Notice that we're not talking about Shakespeare or even Stephen King, here, whose works probably do deserve an article each - this is a much less important author. Specific counter-example would be, oh, Joe Shuster. He himself is quite notable for his books about Superman, but not each and every of the thousands of Superman books that he ever wrote deserves an article. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per the above. But without the weblink to Amazon. Just zis Guy you know? 15:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to author's article per above. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per above -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge--Adrift* 18:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Palendrom 22:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• MergeThetruthbelow^(talk) 23:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Individual books should have their own pages. It is systematic bias to arbitrarily consider certain books by certain authors unworthy of having their own page.Nick Dillinger 23:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Question All individual books? Only individual books of authors of note? -- Scientizzle 23:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Books that were published through non-vanity publications, such as this one. I also don't like the over re-drecting of Wikipedia books either. Notability should be more lenient as well--Nick Dillinger 23:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I know it's not policy, but WP:N does contain the following definition - Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify. Now the thing about "The Ultimate Guide to Adult Videos" is that it seems to me to sit right on the border of noteability. And, as Wikipedia isn't paper, that for me means a "keep" vote. Vizjim 09:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I picked up the book off the shelves in the Vancouver public librarym, and I will add the ISBN to the artical.Nick Dillinger 03:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree with Mr. Dillinger. Authors themselves will be the first to agree that some authors are more notable than others, and some books are more notable than others. The Wikipedia is not here to encourage the false idea that every collection of words between two covers is equally worthwhile. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree with AnonEMouse. The tangible output from scientists are scholaraly papers, yet publishing a paper (even in the most illustrious journal) does not make a scientist or the paper notable. Publishing an important/seminal/high impact paper does. By the same token, why should all published books be inherently notable? Surely, as in any field, there are levels of notability. Placing the bar at all 'non-vanity publications' appears to be very low, compared to other disciplines. Rockpocket (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Ditto for me. I envision book notability paralleling WP:MUSIC, i.e., notable books have won notable awards, been bestsellers and/or critical success [even Oprah book club (*cringe*)]...This situation is hazier because the author is famous not for being an author--I'm not a fan of the idea of every B-list (non-literary) celebrity book automatically gaining encyclopedic notability. As for, books with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify, it's unfortunately nebulous. Has this book ecliped an "average cookbook"? Convince me and I'll change my vote. -- Scientizzle 20:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Why don't you deletionists just allow anyone who wants to create a article about a real, published book the ability to have a page on the book on Wikipedia. If nobody cares about the book, then the book would be non-notable by the fact that nobody wanted to create a page. By the way, the navigation on amazon.com sucks, so using the resources and popularity of Wikipedia as a book database is the proper idea, but the world of knowledge would be worse off page if pages like this get deleted.--Nick Dillinger 04:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Your argument for notability is a tautology--if one has written an article about a book, it is notable and should be kept; if there is no article about a book it is not notable and shouldn't have an article. And while your statement that "the world of knowledge would be worse off page if pages like this get deleted" may be true, and is certainly melodramatic, the vast majority of the voters here want to keep this information available, just on the Violet Blue article. -- Scientizzle 18:30, 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infamous people associated with Harvard

Forever POV list. Originally began with, "The following is a list of people who I think Harvard wishes never attended its school." Was Prod'ed, but creator removed tag and intro sentence -- which doesn't really fix anything. Calton | Talk 00:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete personal attacks - point 9 of WP:CSD#Articles might apply. Otherwise, just delete because of inherent POV-ness, as well as WP:NOR. LjL 01:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per LjL. Bucketsofg✐ 01:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think, in its current incarnation, it really counts as an "attack page." If the page simply says, "these people did such and such terrible things, and all of said people went to Harvard," then- if only stating truths- it can't really be an attack. Thus, in my opinion, it's not a speedy deletion candidate. However, it's still, in an odd form, listcruft, and (as already stated) it will inherently be POV. -- Kicking222 01:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree that it's not really an attack page, but the list is a bit absurd, subtly implying that Harvard University graduates are supposed to be good, perfect people. Perhaps the information could survive as part of a Notable Alumni section of the Harvard University article (although that section should also include positive figures as well). joturner 01:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as attack and redundant. Harvard has a "Notable Alumni" section already, and it contains all the people on this list that have their own wikipedia articles. --User:Chaser (T, C, e) 02:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - but not because it's a personal attack page. Rather, because the concept is better expressed elsewhere in other ways (for example, through Notable Alumni). - Richardcavell 02:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. When an article groups murderers together with plagiarists under the category of "infamous people", I think that means its concept is too broad for encyclopedic treatment. --Metropolitan90 03:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but "Theodore Kaczynski || sent unpleasant packages in the mail" might be funny enough for BJAODN. - CNichols 03:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I go with the notable alumni idea. jbolden1517^Talk 03:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently broad and POV. Grandmasterka 05:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NPOV violation. Far better to categorise these people as notable alumni of the college and place details as to their notability on their respective article pages.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Really bad idea and inherently POV. Rockpocket (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:LIVING: "Administrators encountering articles that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, may delete the article without discussion". --Rob 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN per CNichols. After that, Speedy Delete. --Icarus 07:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. This to me looks like a pretty clear violation of WP:LIVING as Rob pointed out, and given that this article exists solely to disparage the people on the list, I think that it is the kind of article WP:CSD A6 is intended to tackle, in spirit if not exactly by letter (e.g. labeling people as being "war criminals" or as having "stolen from sick children". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 23:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Doran

This page makes no claims to notability and appears to be vanity. The subject admits in his blog to being at "such an early stage" in his career. --User:Chaser (T, C, e) 02:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Don't know about no claims to notability, creating a novel form of haiku seems a pretty notable claim to me. Rockpocket (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Richardcavell 02:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as things stand. He is active on the poetry scene as in Google results (not all about him though). However, unless there's more material, he's not sigificant enough at this stage. Note this is the editor's second article on a poet. AGF Tyrenius 02:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:BIO as claims of notability are not obviously citable. Will reconsider if sources are found. Rockpocket (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete - two blogs don't cut it for notability. 83.77.219.198 09:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)- sorry, thought I was logged in... this was my post Trm3 09:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per NN Ydam 13:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I find it odd that no one has elected to delete the Nelson page, despite the Doran one having more information. That he created a novel form of haiku is one of the reasons i started the page -- not many people create a new poetry form, especially in haiku. And being at an early stage in his career (publishing work for two years) doesn't discredit that. --User:Userblade
  
• Delete per nom Bucketsofg✐ 14:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete seems still to be at college. Blog indicates youth and zeal rather than notability. Just zis Guy you know? 15:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Come back when there is a major published work. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of notability. --Adrift* 18:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As i just wrote on my blog, i don't really agree with keeping this page, either. Though i'm confused, also, why J. D.'s page hasn't had any delete request. In what way is J. D. more notable than i am? As i outlined, the only difference between him and i is the country we were born in -- it's interesting that the person who first requested the delete (a self-confessed new-page delete nazi) is American. I have no problem with seeing this go, but unless you request a delete of J. D.'s page, also, i'd consider a retract (if that's at all possible); though it seems as though the first request has already set the ball in motion. ...As i don't refer to myself as a poet, a Google search of 'Kevin Doran poetry' might be better. 'seems still to be at college. Blog indicates youth and zeal rather' -- i know a 70-year-old man who went to uni to study a B.A. in Art. ...If there's a question of balance in the page, i can add info on several editors with whom i've had public (in a 'Net sense) 'disagreements', and where i've gone on to actually publish poems about it. If there's a question of bias in the description of the 'zine, there are a dozen name-attributable quotes on it from people in the publishing world, on the site itself. Am i permitted to edit such things in myself? As i said, i don't mind a deletion, just be fair to whoever wrote this. --KD

• Comment If you look at the page history, you'll see that the version I nominated for deletion doesn't contain information about J.D. Nelson, which was added in a subsequent revision by Userblade. Please be more careful before bandying about implicit accusations of national discrimination. --User:Chaser (T, C, e) 21:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Similarly, you appear to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. An editor nominating one article is under no obligation to search for and nominate related articles of a similar level of notability (though they often do). Moreover, of the 10 deletionists whose motives you question in terms of nationality, please note that at least four are not American (three Brits and an Aussie). The great thing about blogs, is that errors can be corrected promptly. Rockpocket (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 23:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn self-admitted vanity page.--Jersey Devil 00:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment '(not all about him though)' -- all but one link on the first three pages reference me. I wasn't aware i was that visible via Google. 'claims of notability are not obviously citable. Will reconsider if sources are found' -- what kind of sources? Does blog, listserv, and forum discussion count? 'two blogs don't cut it for notability' -- how about three? and one is a 'zine on blogger, anyway; there's several around. 'Please be more careful before bandying about implicit accusations of national discrimination' -- sorry, i thought you were overlooking the other page. Btw, i've seen Wiki pages on people that were two sentences long, how do they remain? --KD

Your free to nominate any article you want for deleation. ---J.S (t|c) 23:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Response here --Chaser (T, C, e) 03:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:NN WP:BIO ---CH 08:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I personally like the article though it is too small. But we only let famous people have their own WP article (helps to be rich too). When he axe-murders someone and gets on TV then he can have his own article. As it stands now nobody ever heard of him. So delete per WP:NN.--AirportTerminal 13:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:BIO. ---J.S (t|c) 23:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 'As it stands now nobody ever heard of him.' Obscurity: the life of a writer. --KD

• Comment 'To me the key thing is getting it right. And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor; it's the work that matters' --Jimmy Wales, founder and president of the Wikimedia Foundation. ...Strange that someone should then bring up that i'm still in college, and use that to imply that i'm too young ('youth and zeal') to have a Wikipage. ...This has all been an interesting experience. I note more than a dozen delete requests, here, and only three on J. D.'s page (btw, J. D. told me: 'I hope those Wikipedia bitches delete my page -- that site is useless'. Gotta love that guy). Is this perhaps because i recently outlined on my blog, using reference to Neil Gaiman, how Wiki editors are "'know-it-all' nazis"? Nah, i like you guys. I checked the rules, and saw it was okay to add some info in myself, so did so. Kevin Doran 15:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

BITE. this went up for deletion 5 MINUTES after the last edit the day i made it. It's better since then Userblade

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete Prodego ^talk 21:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa_Brooks

This and two other related pages are vanity articles whose contents are either not noteworthy or unverified Ehusman 01:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - it's most likely vanity/spamming, but the content is notable. - Richardcavell 02:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've adjusted the article to remove a lot of the congratulatory statements. - Richardcavell 02:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Although the article makes claims of notability, I question them. Being "under contract" means works for. Traveling and giving seminars ... lots of people do that. Doesn't make them notable, it is just a feature of their work. A colorist in Austin, Texas ... doesn't sound notable. The only notability claims that may be "above the bar" might be her celebrity clients.... however, I don't think every stylist who works on a celebrity is notable... Only the last paragraph about magazine features might make her notable. However, all of this is unsourced. And if it is the case that she was the stylist for models appearing in the magazines, as opposed to having articles written about her, then this is not notable. —ERcheck @ 05:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Borders on WP:COPYVIO from http://www.lisabonline.com/ - Lisa Brooks' website... see the About List section. The few minor edits since them make it not a direct copy, but if it qualifies as "plagarism". —ERcheck @ 05:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep, just about squeezes into WP:BIO but only if the content - specifically regarding being featured in magazines - can be sourced appropriately. In light of of the information relevealed by  aeropagitica , i'm reconsidering. Delete.Rockpocket (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Looking at her website, it appears that she has received credits for the models' hair on magazine covers, rather than been mentioned on covers in her own right. Her winning awards might be notable but these need to be verified and sourced appropriately.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• This link might give a truer picture of events. If she's so great, what's she doing entering a magazine competition to work with a hairdressing legend in 2005? Cut, blowdry and delete. Vizjim 08:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Snip this article from existance per Vizjim. Kimchi.sg 10:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – possible copyvio, notability claims unsourced – Gurch 11:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete let's wash this cruft right out of our hair. Notability unsupporetd by reliable sources, violates WP:VSCA. Just zis Guy you know? 11:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dubious notability, unverified Dlyons493 Talk 12:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clear Vanity advert Ydam 13:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Vizjim, WP:VAIN. RGTraynor 14:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per aeropagitica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucketsofg (talk • contribs)
• Delete notibility and vanity. Crazynas 16:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of notability, unsourced claims.--Adrift* 18:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:00, 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 transwiki. --Ezeu 19:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fashionista

This and two other related pages are vanity articles whose contents are either not noteworthy or unverified. Moreover, it is not even close to being in compliance with other wiki standards, such as external links, etc. Ehusman 02:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - to retain the concept of a fashionista, but delete everything except the first paragraph because the reference to Lisa Brooks is an advert and probably non-notable. - Richardcavell 02:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC) vote clarified; thanks to jbolden1517
• Delete the whole thing, as a dicdef. -- Grev 03:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep From google: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,560,000 for fashionistas [3]. I think that justifies an article. Lets give this time to mature. jbolden1517^Talk 03:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but remove 70.112.46.50 (talk • contribs • count) Lisa Brooks edit.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article per Richardcavell, as the concept is notable. Delete the ad-spam though. Rockpocket (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Ad-spam deleted. Keep the article itself, which is much more than a dic-def. Vizjim 08:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary, it's a dicdef. Just zis Guy you know? 11:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as edited by Vizjim. Paddles 12:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Richardcavell. Bucketsofg✐ 14:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki as dict-def; there are no sources other than a link to the neologism's equivilent in Japan. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki as per JzG -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Transwiki this could be an article with more sources otherwise, per JzG. Crazynas 17:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable concept. hateless 18:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and Transwiki agreed its a dicdef, but could make an interesting article if its flushed out--Adrift* 18:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per JzG. Beno1000 21:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 23:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything worth keeping to Fashion. Ewlyahoocom 21:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki--Peta 05:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki/Delete - dicdef. —ERcheck @ 23:30, 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. Sango123 (e) 23:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wearing_LisaB

This and two other related pages are vanity articles whose contents are either not noteworthy or unverified. Moreover, it is not even close to being in compliance with other wiki standards, such as external links, etc. Ehusman 02:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - now this is advertising. - Richardcavell 02:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - completely vanity/self-promoting/non-notable phrase. —ERcheck @ 04:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as either WP:VANITY or WP:CRUFT. All of 70.112.46.50 (talk • contribs • count)'s other edits have either been to Fashionista or Lisa Brooks, with a drop in on Carrie Bradshaw too.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. Very self undulgent. Rockpocket (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 08:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Lisa Brooks sounds fabulous, darlings. Nevertheless, delete the advert. Vizjim 08:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete previously speedied as nonsense by Danny, and still nonsense now. Plus non-notable, uncited, vanity. WP:VSCA applies. Just zis Guy you know? 11:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvious advertising Ydam 13:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Google gets less than 2000 hits.--Jusjih 13:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Self promotion, name dropping, irrelevant. --Nosmo 14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. None of the clothing seem to even be made from human skin. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nosense, and even if not, non notable. Crazynas 17:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity--Adrift* 18:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vain -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Just like the other Lisa Brooks article that just got deleted. Beno1000 21:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pure advertisment. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 23:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity advert.--Jersey Devil 00:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as adcruft; companion article on Lisa Brooks already deleted ---CH 08:19, 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 Speedy delete redundant copy. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ANDREW CAMPBELL – BRITISH CONTEMPORARY ARTIST

Redundant copy of Andrew B. Campbell. I do not suggest a merge, as all of this article's content is replicated in the other. Colonel Tom 02:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete One copy's enough. Edit history is bizarre over the last three days. Author added a section to one article, then went over and added the same text to the other. Seems awfully pointless. Fan1967 02:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - and no need to redirect. - Richardcavell 02:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. However, Wiki can be very confusing to newcomers. BITE Tyrenius 03:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I think we all know how this one ends. jbolden1517^Talk 03:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article. Agree ... no need to redirect as this title is non-standard and not one that would be an expected search title.—ERcheck @ 05:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a replicated page.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the crowd above. Rockpocket (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as duplicate content, speedy if at all possible. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 10:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both articles (yes I know this AFD only applies to this one) The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:10, 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 Copyvio of http://www.playbattlefield.com/battle/pub/faq/howto.thtml - speedily deleted It is as it always was ^{T | @ | C} 03:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Playbattlefield

Delete - Non-notable online game. Prod removed without explanation. I've never put up a PROD that hasn't been removed by the editor without explanation. Wickethewok 02:56, 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. --Ezeu 10:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghostbusters III

Appears to violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there isn't even a release date yet. Wkdewey 03:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Aykroyd has spoken about this. It's more than just crystal ballism. - Richardcavell 03:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete They may sort of have an outline of a script. They don't have a firm cast. No filming has been scheduled. About as crystal as a ball can get. Fan1967 03:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This same rumor about a possible Ghostbusters III has been circulating for years. BigE1977 03:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Rumored for more than a decade (at one point rumored to have Chris Farley and Will Smith as new Ghostbusters), has never materialized. Very crystal ball. - CNichols 03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I seem to recall a deletion debate surrounding a movie that had been scrapped (and therefore would never get made, and therefore was unencyclopedic in terms of getting its own article), and before that, had a deletion debate that failed. There's nothing to indicate this won't get de-railed. Morgan Wick 03:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it can't get de-railed. It hasn't yet gotten railed. Fan1967 03:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - out of interest, did wikipedia have an article on Star Wars Episode 3 before it was made? - Richardcavell 03:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment History shows the article was created about a month after episode 2 came out. It is worth pointing out, though, that even then there were firm plans to film the movie. It had been announced as a second trilogy before episode 1 came out. This one, right now, consists of Ramis and Aykroyd saying they'd like to do another one. Fan1967 04:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No IMDb page. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Until the production receives the green light from a film studio, notable by a press release, then this should be deleted as speculation.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as speculative and unverifiable at the moment. Lets see come notification through official channels before we believe jobbing actors talking up their wishlist. Rockpocket (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, plenty of information available to discuss how this fell apart. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, if you read the the link, you'll see that the movie is on track now. It may only be in pre-production, but the ball is roling. Besides, if the movie has been in the works for so long, souldn't that be in the article? Failled starts are still starts and it should be noted. And there are other pre-production movies that have articles without release dates in them, like Toy Story 3. JQF 12:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Google gets 730 hits only for now.--Jusjih 13:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, I was ready to be persuaded by badlydrawnjeff's arguments, but then I did my research. This simply doesn't exist. Delete. Vizjim 13:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting. So your research was contrary to my statement how? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no information to discuss how it fell apart, at it was never together in the first place. Vizjim 10:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Avi 14:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any pertinent info into the main Ghostbusters article, Delete the rest. This is what, fifteen years old now? Sheesh; that crystal ball is growing lichens on its north-facing side. RGTraynor 14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete per RGTraynor Bucketsofg✐ 14:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Harold Ramis himself said: "We actually talked about it, wrote a story for it and did another draft, but we could not make the deal. Everyone had gotten so big that to get Ivan, Bill, Dan and I all packaged together, there wasn't enough in it for the studio." Aparently its not happening in the way this article portrays it.--Zer0faults 15:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as much as i would like to see it myself. viva vinz clortho! -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, has anyone actually READ the linked page in the article? It pretty much says they've started up again. JQF 16:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to point it out: Ramis on Ghostbusters III JQF 16:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

He says they have a script, and he has some opinions on who he'd like in the cast. That's still awfully hazy. Fan1967 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

He said that Dan Aykroyd and Rick Moranis will be reprising their roles, meaning some casting has happened, and it's something, which it means that there will probably be more. JQF 17:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

He said that Aykroyd and Moranis will be reprising their supporting roles, but they don't have a lead to replace Murray. It's something, all right. It's hope, just like they've had since the 90's. That's a long way from the cameras rolling. Fan1967 17:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment It is to be noted the linked article at IGN references a November 5th, 2005 report, its not a new report as the date of the IGN article would assume. Also to be noted is Ramis gave an interview here where he states

It would have been interesting. So, we even created a story around that. In the end, it sounds greedy, but the deal couldn't be made. We as an entity... Me... well, I'm low man on that totem pole deal-wise, but Ivan, Bill, Danny and me couldn't make a deal with the studio. There wasn't enough left for the studio.

Sorry if I broke any rules in the formatting of this comment, this just seems like IGN made a mistake by brining a Hollywood.com article back from its 2005 slumber. --Zer0faults 17:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article linked seems legit, 118,000 hits on Google. Crazynas 17:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per norm--Adrift* 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and cruft -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Ghostbusters. Do you have any idea how many people have a script written and some ideas about who they'd like to play the characters? More notable people than Ramis do and there are no articles about them. Aguerriero (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Palendrom 22:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. No release date, simply rumors and speculation.--Jersey Devil 00:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just because a film is in preproduction does not mean it will be finished or released. Bwithh 01:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the movie actually starts filming, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 04:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep valid article.  Grue  14:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Peta 05:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Who ya gonna call! Ewlyahoocom 16:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. RexNL 22:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing wrong with having an article about GB3, even though the movie might be a long way off. Mostly Rainy 05:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if the movie doesn't come to fruition, it was still in some form of existence worth mentioning.--Claude 06:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Ghostbusters and/or Ghostbusters II. —204.42.24.32 18:50, 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 delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of television commercials

Way too many to list, one of those lists that could last for ever and can become unsalvagle, listcruft Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This is only the most notable TV commercials. Perhaps a better title would be List of popular television advertisements or something like that. - Richardcavell 03:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; and keep it to "only the most notable" how? This is going to be a magnet for accretion. RGTraynor 14:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is the sort of thing where a web based encyclopedia can really trump a paper based one. Mass media studies is a legit field. If the article gets unwieldy we'll edit it not delete it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbolden1517 (talk • contribs)
• Question - What are the criteria for inclusion, aside for the vague "notable".... awards? Attention in the popular media? Without a set guideline, as per Jaranda, this is an impossible list to keep.... the title lends itself to inclusion of any tv ad. —ERcheck @ 04:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This list is totally unstructured. Advertising campaigns have regional variations, are time-bound and a lot are region/market-specific. If I was researching this topic, I wouldn't want to have to wade through a huge list of irrelevant adverts to find the few for which I was looking. If this can't be structured by date/region/subject or other criteria then it should be deleted, as it will quickly grow to be useless.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Either this article focuses only one the most notable, what, ten or fifteen adverts of all time from each of the 200 countries around the world, in which case it's POV, or it lists all of them, in which case it's an indiscriminate collection of information. Either way, it dies now. Vizjim 09:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – "popular" and "notable" are very vague terms when applied to television commercials, it would certainly be impossible to list all commercials in such a list, and such a list would need to be much more organised than this – Gurch 11:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Vizjim and Gurch, couldn't have said it better myself. Metros232 11:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Categorise -- GWO
• Delete categories, people. This is a practically unlimited list. Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft/POV. Paddles 12:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As long as it doesn't attempt to be a list of every commercial ever. If it's only listing notable ads especially mostly just those that already have wiki entries then I don't have a problem with it Ydam 13:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the possibilities for inclusion are far too broad. List is POV as to what is "notable". ~~ Brother William 13:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this seems an indiscriminate collection of information, one of the things that wikipedia is WP:NOT Bucketsofg✐ 14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sort of useful list, actually. Shows which tv adverts we have articles on. Could be converted to a category, if you like. Kim Bruning 14:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree a category is better for these types of articles. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Television commercials, already been created Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think it would be a good idea to change the title of this article to reflect that it is not intended to be a complete list of all TV commercials ever made. It is definitely worthwhile to keep a list of notable commercials as people studying mass media would find this very useful. Amazinglarry 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as totally subjective and unmaintainable listcruft. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --- OOZ662 18:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the users above--Adrift* 19:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Too broad. --Strothra 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A category would be better. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not just is it an unmaintainable list, but a category for TV commercials already exists! That's more than enough for me to vote to kill this thing. -- Kicking222 23:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft, the topic is so broad that the article could be infinately large.--Jersey Devil 00:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ridiculous list as would get very long very quickly and is unmaintainable. Bwithh 01:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, please. Unmaintainable. ergot 02:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Unlike some lists, this subject is better served by a category. In addition, who is it up to to decide if a commercial is 'popular and notable', as there is no magical fairy of NPOV-ness around to do so. -- saberwyn 08:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep All the commercials were bought and paid for by rich corporations and were shown to millions of people. Wikipedia exists to spread information from the mainstream media. You can't get any more mainstream than this! The list should be expanded! Where are the Mentos commericals? Where are the Tab cola commercials? If the mod deletes this then at least merge the info somewhere else.--AirportTerminal 13:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The fundamental flaw in the above reasoning, AirportTerminal, lies here: Wikipedia exists to spread information from the mainstream media. Why do you believe this? It is not true. —Encephalon 04:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Good grief. —Encephalon 04:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Deleteme42 20:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as there are probably millions of TV adverts which could be thought of as "notable". It's just not possible to list them all. In addition, a notable commercial to one person could mean nothing to another person; it's a matter of opinion. Andrew 15:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete or move to List of notable television commercials; otherwise this page will have nearly an infinite length. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 01:18, 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 Keep. Deizio talk 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency Communities

Reads like a Advert for non-notable organization, not very sure about prod so placing it here Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per rewrite, good job Muffuletta Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree it reads like an ad, at least as it is now. On the other hand I know from local experience that the group exists and has attracted a lot of volunteers, and the subject merits an article. If I have time in the next day or two, I'll write a new stub from scratch with two or three references. If not, I agree it should go. -- Muffuletta 06:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC) I rewrote the article, removed the npov and cleanup tags, but left the afd tag. I suggest we keep it, see if it grows. -- Muffuletta 19:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: The article has to keep the AfD tag until the AfD page is closed, whether it's rewritten or not. Kimchi.sg 10:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep sounds over-hyped but also sounds notable --MarsRover 07:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless someone rewrites this. Reads like a recruitment literature for the organisation. Kimchi.sg 10:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Keep, the rewrite was a good job! Kimchi.sg 10:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – unless rewritten, sounds like a copyvio and even if it isn't, the tone is inappropriate – Gurch 11:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising or POV at minimum. Social responsibility doesn't give immunity to WP inclusion criteria. Paddles 12:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Vote changed on the basis of Muffeletta's rewrite. Kudos. Paddles 15:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I guess we can keep it, as per Muffuletta. Kim Bruning 14:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep At this point doesn't sound exactly notable, but a rewrite might reveal potential notability and inclusion to Wiki.--Adrift* 19:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Sounds much better--Adrift* 19:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Paddles Bwithh 01:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's odd. Paddles wrote their opinion before the rewrite, and this "as per paddles" was made after the rewrite. Eh? Kim Bruning 10:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless author can provide verification that charity in good standing and that this doesn't violated WP:NN.---CH 08:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"The group began with assistance from the International Humanities Center, which provides 501[c](3) fiscal sponsorship." I don't know US law enough. Is that sufficient standing? Kim Bruning 10:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Article can and should be expanded and improved, but it is a legitimate subject. Along with Common Ground Collective, it is one of the most noteworthy grass roots oriented relief organzations involved in the biggest disaster to a metropolitian area in the USA in 99 years. -- Infrogmation 13:11, 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 keep. Sango123 (e) 23:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corkscrew (Alton Towers)

Do we need to have articles for individual roller coasters? I would have used prod for this, but there is no official guideline that applies. There seems to be nothing special about this one, and its existence here might be construed as promotion, so delete. (changed, see below) Mangojuice^talk 04:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If the author can't think of anything interesting to say then I see no reason to consider it noteworthy jbolden1517^Talk 04:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - can't see this making much of an article, although when I was a kid at any rate this one was the largest and most famous rollercoaster in the UK. mgekelly 04:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, that would be good to mention at least, if it can be verified. I intend to {{prod}} all the other roller coasters at Alton Towers; apparently there's a cluster of these articles. That is, unless someone votes to keep before this is done. Mangojuice^talk 05:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There are over a hundred and sixty articles about individual rollercoasters and as already mentioned this was certainly the most famous in the UK at the time. It is at the UK's leading theme park. It is certainly more notable than dozens of the American rollercoasters with articles. Seven other rollercoaters at Alton Towers have articles and the nominator has not given any reason for singling this one out for deletion. They are linked by a template, so deleting this would break the series and create at least seven red links. Choalbaton 06:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - any reason Alton Towers is being singled out? This one is as notable as any of the other rollercoasters with articles. Rockpocket (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. There should be an article on this, because it was a byword for big rollercoasters in the UK for years. But it should be possible to make it a bit more interesting. Vizjim 09:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's of interest to some people (no different from popcult fancruft on here). Is notable to the many poeple who go on it annually! Verifiable. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable coasters. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep – part of a series, plenty of other articles on rollercoasters. Expansion strongly recommended, though – Gurch 11:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- if any individual UK rollercoaster can be worthy of an article, this is it. -- GWO
• Keep Other roller coasters at alton towers currently have articles. As long as this one is as notable as the others I say keep. Article is a bit POV though.Ydam 13:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Expand. I see no strong reason to delete. Try to expand.--Jusjih 13:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

roller coasters are often unique and interesting structures. Kim Bruning 14:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- But since it is a notable roller coaster make the edit and the backlink to Notable roller coasters. jbolden1517^Talk 15:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Crazynas 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand... appears notable.--Adrift* 19:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand it's a notable UK structure so I see no reason to delete it. --ericthefish 19:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep expand -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well, I'm definitely not going to {{prod}} those other articles now! (And no, no reason for Alton Towers specifically, I just saw the template that linked all those articles together so I knew they all existed.) I must say, though, this debate has reminded me why it is that WP:N is not an official guideline. Mangojuice^talk 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't get 'em (roller coasters) any more than the nom, but there's no indication of hoaxery or a problem for the rest of WP, so let him do his thing, which from the sidebar appears to be all the worlds roller coasters. (I hope there are not more than a few dozen.) ---CH 08:24, 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 Speedy Delete per CSD A3. Naconkantari 04:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EWaiter

Advertising for non-notable company. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• CSD under A3 essentially an external link. —ERcheck @ 04:35, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silda Wall

Non-notable: a lawyer whose only claim to fame seems to be that her husband is a relatively obscure, if notable, politician mgekelly 04:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I vote against deletion. Besides the fact I created most of the content in this article, the fact is that both Silda Wall and Eliot Spitzer are well-known among lawyers and politicians throughout the United States. Spitzer is quite prominent as the most aggressive attorney general today in America---he's a classic example of a lawyer using the AG job to get into the governor's office. Wall is prominent as a highly successful attorney who put aside her career to focus on raising their family and supporting her husband's career. --Coolcaesar 05:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Being the wife of Eliot Spitzer makes a person notable enough for me. - Richardcavell 05:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge with Eliot Spitzer -- Spitzer is fairly well-known across the United States. Wall is frequently mentioned in articles about Spitzer's campaign (e.g. [4]). - Anirvan 06:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, well obviously I didn't realise how important the husband is. But I still don't see what is notable about his wife. I think the logic that being married to someone very notable makes you notable by default is wrong. If there is interesting information about her personally, I'd reconsider, but it seems to me that giving up her career to raise children and support her husband is unexceptional. mgekelly 07:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because Wall is prominent as a highly successful attorney who put aside her career to focus on raising their family and supporting her husband's career, i.e. she isn't prominent. Vizjim 09:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- being married to a famous person does not automatically bestow notability. And does not in this case. Reyk _YO! 09:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the Children for Children Foundation website does not mention her in their [foundation page] so she seems to be just one of the parents involved in it's foundation. The org seems notable but Silda seems not. Peripitus 09:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Reyk. DarthVader 10:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. See "Mrs. Spitzer Suits Up: Attorney Silda Wall Never Counted On Becoming—Eccch!—a Candidate’s Wife" from New York Observer May 1, 2006. --Nelson Ricardo 10:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – possibly merge with Eliot Spitzer, not sufficiently notable to warrant her own article – Gurch 11:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgekelly and Vizjim. Paddles 12:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Spitzer's article and redirect. She's not notable enough to have her own page, and that foundation not listing her doesn't help her case. -- Kicking222 13:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable with less than 900 hits.--Jusjih 13:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Spitzer is famous within the United States, and has been heard of by those of us blessedly outside. His wife probably doesn't need her own article, but there's no reason why it couldn't be merged in with his. We delete information because it doesn't belong, not just for the heck of it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I'm a Spitzer fan, I live in NJ and I've never heard of her. She isn't notable enough as a famous wife and she isn't notable enough as a lawyer or activist. jbolden1517^Talk 15:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's take this to its logical conclusion; suppose Spitzer wins the NY gubernatorial race? Well, as it happens, the wife of Massachusetts' governor doesn't have an article. Neither does the spouse of Vermont's governor. Jon Corzine had a very messy, public divorce, and his ex- doesn't have an article. Jodi Rell's husband isn't even named in her article, never mind have one of his own. Ed Rendell's wife is the only one of any nearby state governor's to have an article, and at least she's been a Federal judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals for the last decade. If governors' spouses aren't notable by definition, a state attorney-general's spouse sure as hell isn't. What is the basis for assuming that Wall is either "prominent" or "highly successful?" That she worked for a giant law firm once? RGTraynor 15:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Kicking222. Crazynas 17:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Only notable in that she's married to someone notable. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 18:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As long as there is verifiable information about her then she should be kept (unless you can argue that she will not be taking a major part in his attempt to be elected). Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 19:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - In other words, you believe that everyone should have an article, as long as the information within is factual? RGTraynor 19:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Private person, does not need article, does not meet WP:BIO -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only tie to "notability" is being the wife of Spitzer, not notable herself.--Jersey Devil 00:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Reyk, or as a second choice merge and redirect to Eliot Spitzer. --Metropolitan90 04:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN. Author can mention Spitzer's wife in his bio. ---CH 08:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's known as a merge. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Peta 05:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable person. RexNL 22:54, 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. Mailer Diablo 23:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theta Beta Potata

Non-notable venue / vanity article. ChrisB 04:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. —ERcheck @ 05:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable Wikipedia is not for things made up in college one day.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Aero. Essentially unnotable. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 08:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and User:(aeropagitica). JIP | Talk 08:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 10:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Ydam 13:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable.--Jusjih 13:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Once I did the search on punk house I got 50k hits on many houses and the punk house article does link to this and has the same authors. I'd like to hear more input from punk people before we delete jbolden1517^Talk 15:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• COMMENT I moved this article to Theta Beta Potatoes, since this is the correct spelling of the frat. I'm now getting 1,000 Google hits, and it looks like this is a legitimate frat, so I'm voting keep. --M@rēino 15:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT Scrolling through those Google hits shows 77 unique sites, and the vast majority of them are search engine links (spam). (Look through each page of a search for "Theta Beta Potatoes", and nearly all of the content is identical.) Again, not notable. -- ChrisB 16:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now, a frat in several midwest Universities is notable. Crazynas 17:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT - This is not a legitimate fraternity. It is/was a living group at Marquette. There is no evidence that any of the other asserted versions exists, save for the Iowa City house. Article title is faulty, given that the Iowa City venue is "Potata" while the Marquette living group is "Potatoes". Regardless, neither of these is notable, unless we want to start making articles for every college living group and music venue on the planet. -- ChrisB 19:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fratcruft. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity page.--Jersey Devil 00:45, 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. Mailer Diablo 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waxis

A google search for relevant terms (Waxis AND Wicker Park) turns up nothing. It appears this is a neologism that is not widely used. User:Chaser (T, C, e) 05:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, at best a neologism, though it may be a hoax. "Deer antlers... and Ukrainian folk art" ... doesn't seem a likely combination. —ERcheck @ 05:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and ERcheck. DVD+ R/W 05:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Uncited, unreferenced proto/neologism.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a surreal neologism. Rockpocket (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 10:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.--Jusjih 13:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I could've sworn I prodded this last night, or CSD tagged it as patent nonsense... must've been something else involving antlers and Ukrainian folk art.Tony Fox 16:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki This is a wikictionary in any case, let them decide notability. Crazynas 17:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Either a neologism or a hoax. And it never came into "prominance" as the article says it did. Beno1000 21:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn neologism, possible hoax and unverifiable.--Jersey Devil 00:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Article says "The WAXIS style is easily recognizable and relies heavily on the use of deer antlers". Deer antlers? In Williamsburg, Brooklyn?! I thought I knew Brooklyn and found this proposal hilarious, until I found this. Could it be? Has the city of churches been brought so low?  :-/ Still, I fear this might be more guerilla marketing, this time on behalf of some restaurants. More research, anyone? There must be someone from Williamsburg section of Brooklyn (verifiably distinct from the author of this article) somewhere around WP...---CH 08:35, 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. DS 14:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characters of the Soviet Union

Don't let the title fool you: this is extreme and utter fancruft, namely the voice credits for a computer game. Was prod'ed, but tag removed by author with the comment "working on it now !!!": let's save him some work and put it out of its misery now. Calton | Talk 05:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Also include the similiar Characters of the Allies. --Calton | Talk 05:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless expanded to include info on the characters themselves, would need to be renamed to something less confusing if that occurs. BryanG 05:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV-ish, and not that useful. Per BryanG. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very misleading title of article. --MarsRover 07:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, misleading title, non-notable gamecruft. JIP | Talk 08:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What a beautiful fragment this is: "Joseph Stalin is the communist dictator who tries to take over Europe. After Hitler was eliminated by Einstein's time machine..." Vizjim 09:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete misleading, not notable, pov... Trm3 09:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Soviet Union (C&C: Red Alert) Ydam 13:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Calton. ~~ Brother William 13:33, 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 --Ezeu 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Giselle Webber

Delete - not really notable outside of her marginally notable band. Prod removed without explanation. Fails bio requirements. Wickethewok 05:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not a nomination, it's a vote. Since AfD is not a vote, it's helpful to have the nominator take the lead in doing his (or her) best to provide good reasoning for deletion. Nominations can be short, but they really don't need big bolded "delete" notes, nor the phrase "Prod removed without explanation" (Prod can be removed for any reason, by anyone). Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am currently compiling a list of Canadian female musicians, which Giselle Webber is included in. She was voted best independent female musician of 2005 by CBC radio 3's Grant Lawrence. Montrealmusic
  • Do you have a verifiable source on this? Also, I'd like to hear some other editors opinions on whether or not that can be considered a notable enough award to qualify for notability. Wickethewok 05:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • cbc.radio3.ca podcast #31. Montrealmusic
• Delete Nn musician in nn band. Does not meet WP:MUSIC for me. Rockpocket (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Kimchi.sg 09:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 10:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable with only 101 Google hits.--Jusjih 14:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The content mentioned by MontrealMusic seems to get her nose over the line of WP:MUSIC. Bucketsofg✐ 15:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Provide a reason for deletion first. Kim Bruning 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect Band meets WP:BAND so the members do as well. However article is little more that a stub. Merge until material requires fork. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the burdon of proof is on the article to show notability, which it simply does not.--Jersey Devil 00:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete My concern about bandcruft relates to guerilla marketing, viral marketing, manipulating WP in attempt to create a "buzz". We complain when Hollywood does it, so we shouldn't allow bands to do it either. Live or die on your own merits (or demerits) as a performing group, say I! ---CH 08:38, 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 keep. Good work, people. DS 14:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnann Heinrich Diemer

This one perplexes me, and I've decided to bring it to the attention of the community. I found it after clicking "random article" a few times (which I rarely do.) He was an early 20th century "secretary to the editorial board" of a journal. Its creator has a very sporadic edit history, so asking him about it probably isn't going to prove too useful (although I will leave him a message anyway.) To me this is not an adequate assertion of notability per WP:BIO, but perhaps someone will find some new piece of info to save it. Google is, of course, useless for this. What do you think? Grandmasterka 05:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• A Delete from me. The only assertions not not appear to meet WP:BIO. Secretary to a journal editorial board is a pretty non-notable position. Sadly, lest we ever forget, dying after ill treatment at the hands of Nazis was not uncommon either. Rockpocket (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Reading further, i now realise that he had a book published (postumously) that i originally mistook as a reference for the article. Given this, and the unclear criteria by which a book is considered notable, i'll change to a weak keep. Rockpocket (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep he seems notable. Note: name of article is different than the name in the article. In the article he is also givin a different name when born with unsure spelling. --MarsRover 06:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep – a borderline case, but he seems to be moderately notable in the Reformational Movement (see Reformational philosophy), as the ideas expressed in his Nature and Miracle are still being quoted. --Lambiam^Talk 07:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep verifiable and pre-Google. Dlyons493 Talk 12:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Google gets 129 hits. I make no other comment as to keep or delete.--Jusjih 14:01, 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 Speedily deleted by Jni.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brett (unit of measurement)

Phony unit of measurement. No google reference. Probably should be speedied but looking for an outside opinion. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 05:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nonsense M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete not as nonsense which requires the article to be unintelligible but as an attack on the person the name was supposedly named after. Capitalistroadster 07:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, I tagged this as a hoax yesterday after spotting it in the Wikify category, the talk page now confirms this was a joke by Brett's friends. --Canley 09:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Marked as {{db-nonsense}}. Kimchi.sg 09:33, 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. Sango123 (e) 23:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Beginning Cult

Probable Hoax. No relevant Ghits for the name. Sources provided do exist but no apparent mention of the article. Even if it is not a hoax, notability is an issue. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 07:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I tried Googling various key terms from the article besides the name (founder, ranch name, etc.), found nothing relevant. Non-notable at best. -- Zawersh 07:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Well, I was going to AfD it, but first was giving interested parties a courtesy period to explain this. I guess Srikeit beat me to it. On the article talk page Talk:New Beginning Cult I explain that 2 out of 3 books cited wre searched in fulltext and appear to have no reference to this cult, and Google shows zero hits for the relevant search terms. This is definitely a hoax. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 09:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. I completely forgot to check the talk page. Well now I owe you one AFD ;)Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 09:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable.--Jusjih 14:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment for what it's worth, also note the funny business on the article talk page. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per CrazyRussian. Good research. -- Kjkolb 14:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. --Andy123 talk 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crazynas 17:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Zero sharp 20:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, possible hoax.--Jersey Devil 00:49, 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 Deleted at author's request.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious tolerance in Azerbaijan

The article reads like an essay, not an encyclopedia topic. Whatever the contents, I don't see the merit of any topic on religious tolerance (or intolerance for that matter) in Wikipedia, it seems inherently POV to me. The article furthermore does not cite its sources. - WP:NOT, WP:No original research. Jens Nielsen 13:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 18:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Valentinian ^(talk) 02:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom abakharev 07:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: apparently this was forgotten. Bringing it back here for useful discussion. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete too POV for me. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a personal essay.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, while well-written and informative, it is essentially POV, original research and unsourced. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 08:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question. The process was never completed; this page is not linked to except by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 18. Wouldn't it be polite to notify the author that there is a debate going on? The article is unsourced, but maybe it can be sourced. It is somewhat POV, but (in my opinion) not necessarily inherently so. --Lambiam^Talk 08:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have notified the user & included a link to this discussion.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the well-written personal essay. Vizjim 09:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Can this be Speedied? On the Talk:Religious tolerance in Azerbaijan the author wrote "This article can be deleted Baku87 18:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87". Isn't this is like {{db-author}}? --Lambiam^Talk 10:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Marked {{db|Author request on talk}}. Kimchi.sg 10:41, 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. DS 14:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Chance

Non notable vanity article on barely begun machinima production. Written by team member. Googling "Last Chance" "ride the emu" +machinima gets 12 hits. Only two episodes and a trailer are available. The official site wasn't even linked. Note that an article on the production group behind this show, under a slightly different name than the current redlink in the article, was previously deleted--Drat (Talk) 06:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, and please, learn to spell "character". Vizjim 09:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• No chance for this article to survive. Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 10:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 10:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• If you're machinima that's not Red vs Blue, you get deleted. -- Kicking222 13:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I wouldn't go that far, and I'd hate for that to become the outside image of us in the machinima community. That said, I am goddamn sick of people who think that Wikipedia is the place to promote their new production.--Drat (Talk) 14:31, 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. DS 14:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resistance series

Another NN vanity article on a machinima production. Created by team member, and there is nothing actually released yet [5]. How the hell can this be notable? I am getting frigging sick of this crap.--Drat (Talk) 06:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well we are just putting the finishing touches on the episode which will be released Saturday. Give us a break we still got 15 exams to do. so the process is abit slow. We weren't going to put this up until the first episode was finished. But I applaud you on your research drat. But you got to consider that we have been juggling GCSE exams and this project. --Wmdwales (Talk) 07:47, 18 May 2006 (GMT)

Please read the following: Wikipedia is not for self promotion, vanity guidelines, notability, notability guidelines for web-stuff, and No original research.--Drat (Talk) 06:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as per nom. Vizjim 09:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Your web comic doesn't automatically deserve an entry even when you release it. It must be reviewed in detail elsewhere first before it becomes notable enough for an entry. Kimchi.sg 10:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Kimchi.sg. DarthVader 10:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Once again, If you're machinima that's not Red vs Blue, you get deleted. -- Kicking222 13:12, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parody college

This appears to be an annotated list of a Wikipedian's favorite English language parody college websites. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Anirvan 05:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Maybe an article could be written about this (I don't know one way or the other) but this isn't even a good enough start to bother keeping as a stub. It violates Wikipedia's guidelines on external links left and right. --Icarus 07:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No encyclopedic content here, nor much potential for any. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nothing more than a web directory. JPD (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per wiki is WP:NOT a web directory Ydam 13:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. This doesn't look to be anything more than a web directory. And those sites aren't that funny. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crazynas 17:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom OOZ662 18:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 00:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all those sites appear to be the work of a single author, but I'm not sure what's being advertised. Ewlyahoocom 19:14, 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 merge and delete. --Ezeu 19:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plano Senior High School JROTC

This article describes a local high school club, and doesn't assert having influence outside the local community, nor mentions any media coverage. Anirvan 06:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 07:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Student organizations which exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 08:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Plano Senior High School. JPD (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Student club. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• I don't see why this couldn't be merged with Plano Senior High School; there's even a section there for it! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable with only 12 Google hits.--Jusjih 14:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge However if merge we might want to link JROTC to Plano since the article doesn't currently have any examples of schools with good JROTC programs. jbolden1517^Talk 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. Crazynas 17:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per JPD. OOZ662
• Delete/Merge per JPD.--Jersey Devil 00:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, could probably use a mention in Plano Senior High School, but certainly not to this level of detail. Kuru ^talk 04:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:50, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PANTS system

A hoax by all appearences. There's no support in the online literature for "Plasma Amplification by Nuclear Thermodynamic Stimulation" or (PANTS and CERN). R. S. Shaw 06:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - either a hoax or too new to be verifyable. No references I can find anywhere. Peripitus 09:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Googled this and got not a single hit StuartF 09:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. DarthVader 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• After an enjoyable moment spent Googling "pants", I reckon this article is pants, and as such, delete. Vizjim 11:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per R. S. Shaw and StuartF. -- Kjkolb 14:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 235 Google hits cannot be notable.--Jusjih 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article is pants anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 17:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crazynas 17:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think the acronym "PANTS" should give it all away - it's a hoax. Beno1000 21:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as pathetic trash --DV8 2XL 06:43, 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 Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content, which had gone through a proper AfD. (See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ProgressSoft.) It was probably recreated with the wrong name to intentionally evade the AfD history. It will be protected against recreation; however, pleae feel free to bring a deletion review. --Nlu (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progressoft

Article written like advertisement. A google search for Progressoft gets only 2160 results [6]. See also ProgressSoft and Progresssoft--PatCheng 06:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite, moving it back to ProgressSoft. Although the current version reads like your typical vanispamicruftivertisement, their press coverage page shows they've been mentioned in the press multiple times, such as here and here. These are not mere reprints of the company's press releases, and hence the article when rewritten will satisfy WP:CORP point 1. I will do the rewrite right after posting this. Done, rewrote and stubbed the article. Kimchi.sg 10:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to ProgressSoft – now that it has been rewritten – Gurch 11:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Gurch. Paddles 12:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite, definite claim to fame. I'll move it now... Just zis Guy you know? 13:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment an important part of the claim to fame that is found in the reference was omitted in the redraft. This is only the first such software developed by a Jordanian company, not the first such software. The article does satisfy WP:CORP point 1.GRBerry 02:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient notability. --Nlu (talk) 10:02, 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 speedy delete. Kimchi.sg 10:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David deBos

A college student with virtually no notability.--PatCheng 06:51, 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 as an attack page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Hall

A common teacher lacking any notability. Written in an unencyclopedia manner.--PatCheng 06:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete nn MarsRover 07:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete attack page --Icarus 07:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedied. Textbook WP:CSD A6 and let's hope that Mr. Hall assigns the author a week worth of detention. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frances Griffiths

Article has no content. Speedy Delete--PatCheng 07:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete --Icarus 07:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. It is a WP:CSD G2 testpage. No need to bring this stuff to AFD, just let the speedy tag stay until someone deletes it or makes something resembling an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 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 Deleted. A copy of goddess with the author's girlfriend added - touching, but not encyclopaedic. Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lovegirl

De-prodded by anonymous (likely article's creator) without explanation. This article is an out-right copy of Goddess, with the only difference being that it's a few days out of date now (and that "goddess" was changed to "lovegirl" in a couple of places). Non-notable neologism does not require a redirect. No definition at dictionary.com or urbandictionary.com, first five pages of google hits are totally unrelated.

The only page that links to it is a subpage of the article's creator's userpage, which is about his girlfriend. The subpage was originally an article that was moved to userspace for being non-notable. Same for the user's main userpage. User's only edits are related to these pages. (Ok, so this is more than is necessary to show why the article should be deleted, but can you really blame me for being annoyed by this kind of thing?) --Icarus 07:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Can't this article be speedied, per WP:SNOW? There is no way whatsoever that it will be kept. My two cents, of course... Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 08:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing can be done per WP:SNOW. WP:SNOW is not policy, guideline, or, really, anything. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, entirely useless article. JIP | Talk 08:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I wanted to tag the article for speedy deletion, to be sure, but it doesn't seem to really fill any of the criteria for speedy deletion. It's not exactly patent nonsense, not exactly a non-notable bio... I was hoping it would quietly die from the prod, but of course the creator had to go remove that template for no good reason. There really should be some ammendment allowing prods to be re-posted if they're removed without explanation by the article's creator, because I see that happen a lot. I was unaware of WP:SNOW, but I hope the next admin to stop by decides to invoke it. If ever there was an appropriate circumstance, this would be it! It's not actual policy, though, so I'll understand either way. The important thing is that whether it takes another hour or another week, this vanity/girlfriend-cruft/pain-in-the-butt-waste-of-time-to-even-delete article will bite the dust. --Icarus 09:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Girlfriendworshipcruft. I'm happy they're in lurve, I really am. Delete, speedily if there's any regulation that'll allow it. Vizjim 09:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a pointless copy-and-paste of an extant and encyclopædic article.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• While I wish the happy couple a long and happy relationship, it isn't really the stuff of an encyclopedia article. Delete. Capitalistroadster 10:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• I will love the admins who delete this article. :-) Kimchi.sg 10:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speed delete its vandalism, no? JeffBurdges 11:56, 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 bypassed (correctly speedily deleted by Brookie). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funky McFucka

Spam. Only 1 non-related result from Google search. Speedy Delete--PatCheng 07:14, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snoken Productions

Non-notable. Googling "Snoken Productions" -site:snoken.net -site:snoken.bf2.se (filtering out official site and forums) gets only 419 hits, and only 327 and 188 respectively when adding the titles they are supposedly famous for.--Drat (Talk) 07:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Advertising and vanity. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Kimchi.sg 10:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – for above reasons – Gurch 13:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 762 Ghits cannot be notable.--Jusjih 14:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Dominick ^(TALK) 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 Speedily deleted as total nonsense.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The great chicken

The religion of the great chicken. Contested prod so here we are. Weregerbil 07:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as utter nonsense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not only is it nonsense, I think it's also a vanity page. (The user who contested is the one who made it, and his username is in the URL link.) -- Zawersh 07:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 08:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under G1. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 08:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Almost good enouth for BJAODN, but not quite. --Icarus 09:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Vizjim 09:11, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BJ Hickman

Tiny article about a non-notable person. The article isn't capable of expansion, and the material doesn't fit in the well-written and structured article to which a merge is proposed. Kcordina ^Talk 08:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Like Jacko's trial, this guy's 15 minutes of fame are over. Wikipedia isn't for every single little flash in the pan. --Icarus 09:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Robin Johnson 09:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as extremely not notable. DarthVader 10:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable outside the context of the trial, and therefore very unlikely that anyone will come here looking for it. Just zis Guy you know? 11:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles 12:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Kcordina. Good nomination. :-) Kjkolb 13:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Rob 15:23, 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 Keep, following the alterations. Rje 11:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Egg Sandwich

Utterly, utterly non-notable. Robin Johnson 08:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, real kind of sandwich, as notable (or non-notable, take your pick) as any other listed at Category:Sandwiches. Gsearch for "Egg sandwich" gives 182,000 results. Upon further review, there already exist other articles more descriptive to this kind of sandwich (i.e. Fried egg sandwich). Therefore Delete this one and redirect appears appropriate indeed. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 09:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Isn't "egg sandwich" broader in scope than "fried egg sandwich"? I'd merge fried egg sandwich into this one instead. Kimchi.sg 14:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not claiming that egg sandwiches don't exist, I'm claiming they are in no way a significant, interesting, or encyclopedic subject. Robin Johnson 09:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Reyk _YO! 10:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencylopedic article of the foo is x variety (article can be condensed thus - "An egg sandwich is a sandwich made with eggs"). --kingboyk 10:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not a notable type of sandwich, as Club sandwich, merely a description of a possible filling for a sandwich.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Besides, it doesn't mention the proper egg sandwich, which has mashed boiled eggs. JPD (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Nah, mashed boiled eggs with salad cream and beetroot. That's a sandwich. Double fried egg in soft bap, that's a sandwich. Sorry, what were we talking about again? Deleting this article? Oh, OK then. Request nominator to have a good look over and thorough clear out of the Sandwiches category - so many articles combining dicdef and nn content.Vizjim 11:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Changing vote as I've just had a thought. Alter to Delete and redirect to prevent this article being recreated. Vizjim 11:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Now I'm hungry. Vizjim 11:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I do not object to redirecting it to Fried egg sandwich. PJM 11:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Fried egg sandwich is pretty stubby. I'd rather see a single article covering fried egg sandwiches, egg salad sandwiches, the Egg McMuffin and its "breakfast sandwich" ilk, sliced hard-boiled-egg sandwiches and so forth... with the individual kinds of egg sandwiches redirecting to the combined article. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• If it is kept, Move to Egg sandwich. Though I'd go with Delete – Gurch 11:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nothing here which is not inherently obvious from the words "egg" and "sandwich". Just zis Guy you know? 11:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merged? Good call. Two marginally encyclopaedic topics into one encyclopaedic one :-) Just zis Guy you know? 17:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A egg sandwich is a sandwich with some kind of egg filling just to clearly distinguish it from An egg with some kind of sandwich filling ? Keep the rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 12:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Possibly one of the most vague articles I've seen. ~~ Brother William 13:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (but move to Egg sandwich). The article is awful, but the topic, which is what is under consideration in AfD, is encyclopedic enough. A Google Books search on "fried egg sandwich" turns up 270 hits, which, if you're familiar with Google Books, is reasonably impressive and suggests some cultural importance. One of them, Omaha's Easter Tornado of 1913, shows a picture of militiamen in slickers, preparing to "patrol the stricken area on a frigid day," and notes that "a typical breakfast consisted of a fried-egg sandwich, a hard-boiled egg, and coffee." A 1902 cookbook gives recipes for a variety of egg sandwiches made with sliced hard-boiled eggs. A search on "Egg salad sandwich, surely a form of egg sandwich, yields 570 hits, many with nostalgic or comfort-food associations. The Egg McMuffin gets 472 hits in its own right and was of some importance in opening up McDonald's to the breakfast trade. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We already have fried egg sandwich though... 15:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep and rewrite per Dpbsmith. Needs to be reworded out of its current tautological state. Kimchi.sg 14:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Sandwich. P.S. What about an article on "Cucumber and Eggy Pies"? If you know what I am talking about, smile. If not, see the first BJAODN. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge what, exactly? Should there be a line in sandwich saying "If a sandwich contains eggs, it is an egg sandwich"? Robin Johnson 14:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment i've added some stuff... Dpbsmith (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep with Dpbsmith's excellent alterations. Vizjim 16:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Was Egg McMuffin merged into this article in an attempt to save the Egg Sandwich article? --Takeel 16:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Not by me. The content I added began with the phrase "This trademarked McDonald's egg sandwich..." and was not part of the Egg McMuffin article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Vizjim. Nice job, Dpbsmith. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There could potentially be lots of discussions of health, culture, cuisine.... jbolden1517^Talk 16:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Strong Keep!!! There may be some larger questions as to how organize food articles but there certainly are other individual sandwich articles. Check out category:sandwiches Egg sandwiches are common diner food all across america and more notable than many sandwiches with articles (such as Fried-brain sandwich). I am usually ready to delete anything with little thought but this seems like a mistaken nomination. At the very least it should be merged into sandwich along with the other 50 sandwiches but I'm not sure that would be the best organization. There are undoubtibly people (maybe some here) who have never had one and to whom this article would be informative.--Nick Y. 19:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable type of sandwich, with history, varieties etc. Important part of American cuisine. Needs to include Fried egg sandwich. Crum375 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Vizjim. Excellent modifications by Dpbsmith. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 01:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete or Transwiki to Wiki Cookbook Interesting - I sort of like the article and I really like egg sandwiches but at the same time feel passionately and violently in favour of this article's deletion. What a fascinating sensation. Not notable or important as a piece of cuisine. Are we going to create articles for every variety of sandwich, flavour of potato crisps/chips, different pizza topping etc. etc. etc.? Hmmmm...maybe this could be transwikied to Wiki Cookbook? Actually, I think all or most of the articles in category:sandwiches should be move to Wiki Cookbook. and I feel passionately and violently about it. Bwithh 01:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that a consistent general policy is needed re food dishes or sandwiches - maybe someone knows what it is? I notice Eggs benedict has a nice article Crum375 13:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• There is a strong consensus has been that recipes go into Wikibooks, not because they are food, but because they are how-to's and the current consensus is that how-to's don't belong in Wikipedia. AFAIK there's no objection to articles on food or food items just because they are food items. It all comes down to the usual question of importance, how much can be written about them, how much verifiable, published material there is (as opposed to personal essays, or even collaborative personal essays). Obviously Big Mac as legitimate, and so is hamburger and cheesesteak. I'm rather pleased by what happened to Pea soup which was nominated for deletion at one point. Egg sandwich is admittedly borderline, but for me it's on the "keep" side of the border.Dpbsmith (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I've removed PROD tags from this article twice, so don't count me as an independent opinion. That said, I think egg sandwiches are notable and encyclopedic. Recipes themselves should be transwikied to Wiki Cookbook; but in my opinion, even people who have no interest in making egg sandwiches themselves might still want to read about them. --Allen 00:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very week keep in light of the changes to the article since I nominated it. (In fact, if it survives, I support redirecting Fried egg sandwich here.) If I found the article as it is, I wouldn't have prodded or AfD'd it. But I'm still not really convinced. Robin Johnson 14:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. There are lots of other articles about different kinds of sandwiches. Why pick on this one? Dr.frog 00:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, all food is notable for a truly great encyclopædia.

Grue is the name of a high protein oatmeal-based concoction used in Arkansan prisons for punishment rations- edible and nourishing, but revolting.  Grue  14:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Dr. Frogs argument. Egg Sandwich, albeit with toppings of crunchy bacon, is known worldwide as the cure for hangover. But seriously, if we can have Ketchup on hot dogs, why not Egg Sandwich.--Ezeu 20:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep GassyGuy 23:03, 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 14:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead prostitutes in popular culture

Listcruft of no usefulness at all. Prod contested by its author, who is also the sole contributor. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 09:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - unmaintainable, endless - it makes no sense to include every prostitute ever killed in just about any movie, TV series, comic book, pulp story or other form of popular culture - Skysmith 09:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Skysmith Robin Johnson 09:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 10:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The mind boggles - just where do some of these ideas for lists come from?! --kingboyk 10:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopædic and worthless to a researcher.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; utterly useless. PJM 11:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Not quite as useless as the other editors commenting here think, I reckon: I can see this list being of use for a feminist theorist/critic, for example. However, it is not encyclopedic and should be deleted on those grounds. Vizjim 11:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it says "The dead prostitute is a common trope in popular culture, and appears in many films, television shows, and video games." An article on the dead prostitute as a fictional trope would be good, but a listcruft of examples? I think not. Just zis Guy you know? 11:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles 12:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. By all means write an essay for Psychology Today, but leave this useless, meretricious listcruft out of Wikipedia. RGTraynor 15:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Nom. Palendrom 22:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as pathetic trash --DV8 2XL 06:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• ...wha? Delete. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys are just mean. It would've been nice if somebody had told me how this article doesn't merit a place in Wikipedia instead of arranging to have a bunch of people line up and insult me. There are plenty of popular culture articles in Wikipedia, and I don't see how mine is any different. I like Vike 19:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It dosn't belong to you. Go read: WP:OWN. Also, noone was talking about you. This is about the list. Don't take it personal. ---J.S (t|c) 23:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vike. Nobody's insulting you - we're discussing the article. The people who want it deleted have presented reasons they think it should be deleted, perfectly civilly. It's important not to take it personally. Cheers. Robin Johnson 17:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unencyclopedic. And how on earth are the Ripper murders "popular culture" anyway? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Mets501^talk 16:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup.  Grue  14:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RexNL 22:57, 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 speedy deleted as orphaned talk page. Kimchi.sg 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system

Original research. The only informative reference, the link to http://www.florencetime.net/, affirmes that it is an invention of that site's author. Note that Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system itself doesn't exist, but only Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system. I'd rather expect this sort of contributions in the Orbius Tertius. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 09:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• No need to bring this to AfD (and even then, AfD is not for talk pages. Use MfD for that.) For talk pages without their articles, they qualify for CSD, just put the {{db-talk}} template on the page. Marked as CSD already. Kimchi.sg 10:49, 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 speedy keep (sort of). Subpage created solely to discuss a merge; you guys can just as easily use talkpages. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical Evangelism

Insufficient importance to be a standalone article. Should be partially merged to Way of the Master, partially merged to Evangelism, and redirected to Evangelism. --Nlu (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• partial merges and redirect per nom. Sounds good to me. JPD (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Partial merge and redir per nom. To nominator: you needn't have created an AfD if this is what you had intended to do. AfD is only for cases when you wants the possibility of deleting the article to be considered (as the {{afd1}} template states). Someone should speedy close this, no deletion is being requested here. Kimchi.sg 11:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, I am in the process of gathering data for this page. It is a key focus of a major movement in modern Christianity. I'm also in the process of developing a whole series of articles on The Way fo the Master movement. How is this not relevant? --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 13:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, forgot to add: Keep. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 13:41, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ShEEP? (Should Exploitative Economics Persist?)

Found this in the cleanup category from March. Non-notable group that appeared only in March this year to protest against a Canadian city's development plan. [7] 5 Ghits total. Trying to access the group's website gives an error - it seems their 15 minutes of fame are over. Delete. Kimchi.sg 09:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable per nom. DarthVader 10:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Small, local lobby group, don't seem to have lasted long. JPD (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles 12:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete baaa! humbug! Just zis Guy you know? 15:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above jbolden1517^Talk 16:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OOZ662 18:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• This is an article about an apparently short-lived protest group with little impact shown on Sakatoon let alone the wider world. As such, this should be sent to the abatoirs. Delete. Capitalistroadster 21:25, 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 Deleted - all rights reserved © bvs 1999 06 not compatible with GFDL. Just zis Guy you know? 17:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blueverticalstudio

Avertising. No assertion of nobilty. Looks like a copy and paste. Exterminate The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Possible copyvio? "all rights reserved © bvs 1999 06". DarthVader 10:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. JPD (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as copyvio and advertising. Paddles 12:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: unfortunately, copyright violations must be less than 48 hours old (this one was created on May 9th) and be from commercial content providers (they make money on the content that has been copied, like an encyclopedia) for it to qualify for speedy deletion. -- Kjkolb 13:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, vanity.
• Delete as copyvio.--Jusjih 14:12, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Mulkeen

He seems to be not notable enough, given that we have no information about his company (Mulkeen Media, Inc is a red link) Aleph-4 10:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 10:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 2 independent Ghits for Search&as_epq=The Insider News&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images Dlyons493 Talk 12:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, vanity. Paddles 12:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. -- Kjkolb 13:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above.--Jusjih 14:13, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Kusma (討論) 03:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clara Guerrero

Fails WP:BIO. Unless we're giving attention to student bowling competitions? The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC) It's nearly over now anyway, so this might be pointless, but I'm withdrawing my nom due to well argued/researched keep votes. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 10:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paddles 12:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 13:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• It does say she's represented Colombia internationally, has won many presumably prestigious, world-wide awards, and competed in many international events over six years. I cannot fathom why we would have any need to delete an article on this person. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. A sportist representing her country in an olympic sport. No reason whatsoever to delete. Zocky | picture popups 13:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep would require there to be no other delete votes. Please try another vote. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Er, what? This is not a vote, and it's a speedy keep if it is closed as such. Please don't make such patently ridiculous comments.--Sean Black 06:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Regardless of what some page written up by a small group of people in the last few months says, speedy keep has traditionally meant and still means "keep, this article shouldn't be on AFD at all, close as soon as consensus for keep is established". Strong keep doesn't mean a thing, apart from "this editor doesn't know that strong keep doesn't mean anything". Please try to refrain from challenging people's argumented votes on irelevant technical details. Zocky | picture popups 06:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although I don't think bowling has made it to the olympics quite yet.  ;P -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, nine-pin bowling (which sadly does not have an article on Wikipedia that I could find) has been an Olympic sport for a very long time, and I assume that Ms. Guerrero's international appearances in championships organized under tha mantle of the IOC are in nine-pin bowling. Zocky | picture popups 07:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 515 Ghits cannot be notable.--Jusjih 14:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's patent nonsense. I could speedy delete that comment. Google is not the ultimate authority. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 515 Google hits about a person's non-internet-related activities is quite a lot, actually. Zocky | picture popups 14:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Erm , notability established in article. I think we can just keep this one. Kim Bruning 14:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong, speedy keep per Zocky. Why are we thinking of deleting this article when the girl has won silver awards in international competitions for her country? And going by Ghits alone, ProgressSoft would be deletion material also. Yet it is notable. Kimchi.sg 14:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Zocky and Fuddlemark, she is one of the cases that lack of google hits doesn't matter, those awards make her notable. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, many awards, clearly an accomplished athlete. Amazinglarry 15:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There are articles about less known sportsmen and noone objects. Notable enough, she is. --Tone 16:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WP:BIO includes people who represent their country in a sport - which she does. Just zis Guy you know? 17:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Provisional Delete: The subject is valid, as we let in any Olympian, but the way that it's written now, it presents as a college athlete page. Because I think a valid article requires a total rewrite to make the emphasis totally on the international experience, that would be a "scrap and start over," which is delete. However, if it were rewritten before the end of AfD to talk about this person as an international athlete rather than a Witchita State athlete, it would be fine to stay. The distinction may seem fine, but the reasoning is sound: college sports teams will field dozens of athletes on varsity alone, and these will change year to year to year. Attempting to profile each and every one, when well over 99% will not achieve further fame, is folly, so college sport team profiles are very properly out. Olypians are in because they are inevitably and by default written up in national press and go into international record books. Geogre 17:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I fully support that notion, with the small caveat that she isn't an Olympian, but has represented her country at World Championships, which are roughly the same rank of competition as Olympic Games in the international sport federation system.Zocky | picture popups
• Strong Delete per nom --Strothra 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable athlete as per WP:BIO. In my view, the article clearly establishes notability by noting placings in world championships and the Pan American Games which is a notable multinational competition in its own right. Needs a cleanup with more wikification but good enough to justify retention in its current state. It is also good to see Fuddlemark and Geogre back at AfD. Capitalistroadster 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Fuddlemark is campaigning for ye olde hands to come back and bring sanity to these pages once more ;-) Kim Bruning 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Surely members of national sports teams are notable. Kevin 00:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I disagree. National sports team membership is not automatic notability Bwithh 01:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep She is one of the most well known international bowling stars. If you were to delete this article, then you should be deleting every other international bowler that is listed in wiki. As I just noticed this discussion, please let me know what you would like to see and I will add it to her biography. I could probably go into detail about international competition and personal bio if you feel that the college bowling is too emphasized in this article. Dmorgendorffer 14:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I second this motion of deleting every other international bowler. --Strothra 14:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's absurd.--Sean Black 06:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, clearly notable. It would be helpful if people actually did proper research before commenting in these discussions. Sheesh.--Sean Black 06:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not only does the nom misrepresent Guerrero as just a mere student bowler, but she is clearly notable due to her membership on a national team and wins on the international circuit Copysan 06:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Peta 05:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Zocky and Fuddlemark GassyGuy 23:08, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mortimer Green

This is a 'character' in SimCity 3000, one of the advisors. He is more of a rubric to introduce help topics and warn when the city budget is messed up than a character, and he shouldn't have his own article. None of the other advisors have articles, and the info in this one is contradicted by the manual. Delete Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 11:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game cruft. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 12:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC) ╫
• Delete per nom. Paddles 13:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crufty McCruft. -- Kicking222 13:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Squiddy. -- Kjkolb 13:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge. 417 Ghits cannot be notable.--Jusjih 14:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: unfortunately, if content is merged, the page must be made into a redirect to preserve attribution under the GFDL. A recommendation of "merge" is sufficient. -- Kjkolb 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The stuff on the page is not consistent with the printed manual which came with the game. I suspect someone just made up a bunch of stuff. I recommend not merging it. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Squiddy says it's unverifiable from the authoritative source. Just zis Guy you know? 17:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Creating a new notability for games to fix this. jbolden1517^Talk 17:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. 00:59, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 14:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph McMoneagle

Joseph McMoneagle is another person involved in the supposed psychic ability known as remote viewing. He has written a book on it, and a couple of volumes of autobiography, all published by a small new-age publishing house. This article makes no discernible case for his being a notable figure, unless you soncider that merely being involved in remote viewing is inherently notable - which I don't, but others might I guess. Just zis Guy you know? 11:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, not sure if the "small new-age publishing house" is with merit, I don't know of many large new-age publishing houses. Regardless, his book the Stargate Chronicles was reviewed by Publisher's Weekly, and his bio indicates he was featured in multiple media outlets, as well as recieving a medal from the military. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per bdj. Vizjim 12:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep – again, per badlydrawnjeff
• Keep – again, per badlydrawnjeff – Gurch 13:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, he seems to have enough published to render him notable. Paddles 13:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree he is notable, but the POV (supporting remote viewing) seriously undermines the credibility of the article. Arbusto 10:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per badlydrawnjeff. -- Kjkolb 13:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete THis is marginal, and the story of the CIA project sounds fishy. Can't be verified by anyone at all, or can it? (Da da DUM!) Dominick ^(TALK) 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Check Stargate Project for evidence etc. Vizjim 15:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• That article is fishy. There is a claim by proponents of remote viewing that it was developed by the CIA, a claim which appears calculated to lend it a credibility which scientists reject. As far as I can tell the only cited source for the existence of the contracxt which underpins that claim is a (falsifiable) copy on a scientology website which does not actually imply anything much other than funding to investigate and certainly does not imply that the CIA originated the idea; CIA sources indicate that they gave some support to several programmes investigating psychic phenomena but that all such support is long-since terminated. Much use is made of the fact that it's all so secret that of course the Government won't talk about it, but I have never bought the idea of leak-free conspiracies (it didn't work for Richard Nixon and I don't see it working here either). So all articles which make these claims need ot be viewed with a sceptical eye. I think their comment on the remote viewers is along the lines of "the guy died, we haven't heard from him since". As far as I can tell it's a minor if interesting sidenote to the lunacy of the cold war, made out to be a massive endorsement of psychic phenomena by a bunch of scientologists pushing a barrow. I'd say that everythign that can encyclopaedically be said about these characters is already at Stargate Project anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 17:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• So it's verifabile, but fishy. The problem...? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable from a fishy source :-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep on condition of a rewrite. I agree with Dominick, but think the article has notability. SRI is a very shady connection, anyone who knows their past, and is more or less a joke (partially financed by tax dollars better spent on scientific projects or housing the poor). The article reeks of POV to support remote viewing as an actuality and needs to be fixed. Thus, some explanations that the CIA project NEVER revealed anything of value in remote viewing and SRI never proved anything other than parapsy. can be fooled by sleight of hand should counter balance the claims. Arbusto 10:21, 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. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eminem timeline

Fancruft that does not warrant its own article because everything is sufficiently covered in the Eminem article. Metros232 11:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 11:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vizjim 11:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom, utterly redundant. Paddles 12:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that the timeline is unnecessary, and the article should be deleted or (if there are any differences at all) merged back into Eminem, but this is hardly a speedy delete by any means. I'm not sure that it warrants the label "fancruft", either; someone put this article together in good faith, and there's no call to go insulting him. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  "Fancruft" doesn't mean articles written with malicious intent, it just means things that are only of interest to people who are already fans and probably already know the content. Most fancruft is written in good faith by people who just don't realize how narrow their subculture/fandom is. I wouldn't necessarily call this cruft, but it is duplicitious with Eminem's main article. Delete — AKADriver ☎ 14:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  Once upon a time, I'd have agreed with you there. But what the speaker meant tends to be unimportant when it comes to insulting words; the speaker's targets tend to get upset regardless. I don't doubt Metros232 (or anyone else who uses the phrase) intended any offence, because back when I was throwing it about with gay abandon I didn't mean to offend anyone either; but offence is, nonetheless, the end result. We should try to respect each others' feelings whenever possible. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom, unnessarry --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Unencyclopædic. Anything that isn't mentioned in Eminem can be merged if required.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary; adds nothing to our knowledge. Richardcavell 00:45, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew B. Campbell

This could arguably be speedied as A7 since it makes no assertion of notability, but there is some chance that this might be a notable subject just stated in a horribly precious way. That part of the article which is vaguely encyclopaedic hints that it is a copyvio from an exhibition catalogue. Absent any evidence of notability, though, I'd say it's not worth the effort of finding out and fixing the article. I can't claim to be an aret luvvie but I have been known to visit Tate Modern and I loved the white boxes installation, so this is not a "delete all living artists" nomination. Just zis Guy you know? 11:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• According to one of his own bio's, Andrew B. Campbell is "the antithesis of the celebrity seeking and publicity driven shallowness prevalent in our egocentric age". So he'd probably want us to Delete this, until his work has been acclaimed by verifiable independent sources. I see no reason to disagree. Vizjim 11:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete six times in different colours. Do it in a way that can be replicated by any kid who knows how to change the hue in Photoshop. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, that gave a chuckle, but please try to be nice. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Might also want to remove from various lists? Dlyons493 Talk 12:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per JzG. -- Kjkolb 13:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 223 Ghits would not be notable.--Jusjih 14:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above Computerjoe's talk 15:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, almost as important an artist as Daniel C. Boyer ... wait, what am I saying. Terminate with extreme prejudice - GWO
  • That wasn't really necessary, was it? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • None of this is really necessary. -- GWO
• Comment I would like to request that the nominator withdraws this AfD for the time being. It was proposed for deletion only 8 hours after I put a notability tag on the article, the purpose of which is to give the chance for establishing notability with a warning that, if this is not done, the article will be proposed for deletion. I do not regard it as proper etiquette to completely ignore this and propose for deletion regardless, particularly as the nominator has even stated, "there is some chance that this might be a notable subject." I left a message on the editor's talk page and he has come back to me with some substantial references, including exhibiting with the likes of Damien Hirst, Sarah Lucas and Gavin Turk, and being acknowledged by, amongst others, Louisa Buck. I was, furthermore, already familiar with this artist before the entry on Wiki even appeared. I am a member of two relevant Wiki projects, WikiProject Contemporary Art and WikiProject Visual arts. We are trying to improve the poor coverage of art on Wiki, my interest being particularly in contemporary art. I request co-operation from other Wiki editors to this end. It would be helpful if proposed art/artists AfD could be run past members of the projects first, as we have some knowledge of the subject, which may not always be clear from a cursory investigation. Some artists, for example, can achieve huge hits on google via various blogs etc, but are not necessarily notable. Others can hold a reputable position via shows, catalogues and books etc, which may not equate with google hits. I am in the middle of a dialogue with the editor of the article, and the material being provided at the moment, when it presented correctly, looks as though it will pass muster and make a proper article. We need to encourage new editors in this area, who by definition will probably make a mess of their inital editing attempts, not being familiar with Wiki's particular requirements (which are different to the way art may be written about elsewhere) but that is no reason to BITE. Everyone has to start somewhere. Tyrenius 21:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Assuming that the nominator chooses not to withdraw, and having read your exchange with the writer, my vote stands. Campbell's "claim to fame" appears to be interpolating his works into others' exhibitions, and exhibiting at spaces that, when I lived in London anyway, were available for rent. If the writer comes up with any of the claimed press coverage (even issues and page references will do), then it'd be time to change the vote. There's more than enough time to do so.Vizjim 08:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. That is why I put the notabilty and other tags on the article, and what I am in the process of finding out. It would be better to start an AfD, if necessary, knowing the facts, rather than guessing them. However, whether the subject meets wiki notability requirements or not, the information given, if correct, certainly shows the subject has received proper art school training and is a committed practitioner, involved with the contemporary London art scene. Some of the comments made in the AfD are, to say the least, frivolous. Established editors may not realise the effect of these on newbies. In this case it is as follows: I hadn’t counted on my innocent contribution Re: The Artist - Andrew Campbell - being met by such a cynical and – quite frankly – offensive...response from a bunch of people who blatantly know little about art. (Mostyn) Some Wikiquette wouldn't go amiss. Tyrenius 09:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The editor/subject is unwilling or unable or uninterested in providing any substantiation for notability, so that clarifies the issue.Tyrenius 19:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Tyrenius 19:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Good try anyway - we do need to avoid biting. Dlyons493 Talk 19:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Jusjih. Kuzaar 17:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Recreate from scratch because I think that he should have an article. Andrew Campbell artist brought 76,000 google hits. —Mets501^talk 16:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC) - upon looking into it more, he doesn't need an article here. —Mets501^talk 16:57, 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 all. Mailer Diablo 14:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie references within The Simpsons seasons 1-5, seasons 6-10 and seasons 11-15

These three pages are copyvios of [8]. Another reason for deleting is that they are unencyclopedic listcruft. --Maitch 11:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Maitch 11:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – as copyvio – Gurch 13:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per listcruft Ydam 13:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete copyright violation. LjL 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete copyright violation. --Tone 16:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Palendrom 22:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Adolphus79 20:31, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo binaries

Alexa rank of over 127k. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB.-- GraemeL ^(talk) 12:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As pr nom. References are only blogs. --Sleepyhead 13:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Advertising. Non-notable. The site even references itself. -- Kicking222 13:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per GraemeL and Sleepyhead. -- Kjkolb 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Tone 16:35, 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 14:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Wheaton

This article ends with an external link titled "Who is Glenn Wheaton?", a question which the article itself signally fails to answer. He seems to be a poster on a forum who clamied a special forces background. This is hardly rare... Just zis Guy you know? 13:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not verifiable, as far as I can see. Bucketsofg✐ 13:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Egads, that article is a mess. -- Kicking222 13:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or extreme cleanup... Prefer delete, quite a mess of an article indeed. --Tone 16:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn poster on forum, vanity.--Jersey Devil 00:34, 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 hoax. I work less than five miles from Wallingford, this station does not exist. Just zis Guy you know? 15:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W1610 AM

There is no evidence to suggest that this radio station exists. Smileyrepublic 13:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as likely hoax. The "official page" of the station linked from the article is on freewebs.com which should be enough in itself, but the page itself looks like a refugee from myspace. 4 Ghits for "Wallingford W1610" - the article, two mirrors and one unrelated. Paddles 13:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Kicking222 13:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I couldn't find any evidence of it with Google[9][10][11], and the Freewebs (!) website linked in the article appears to refer to a completely different station. While it may well exist, it seems to be unverifiable at the moment. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per fuddlemark, will reconsider if evidence of its existence and notability is found. -- Kjkolb 13:47, 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 (disregarding suspect sock). --Ezeu 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRIS integrated risk management ag

Contested PROD after deletion via email, listing here for further consensus. Reason for PROD deletion was "Advertisment". No vote. lightdarkness ^(talk) 13:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since I could not find anyone here who has heard of them, and we shouldknow since we would appear to be a major competitor of theirs (or, more corrrectly, they would be a minor competitor of ours). I will ask my Zurich-based colleague if he knows them, but since we are the trading and risk software implementation office I think we'd know. Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete since first of all this company is one out of the 5 leading actors in its segment and established since 10 years (see company website), i.e. risk, profitability management and legal reporting, secondly the subjects covered by the company are of general interest, i.e. Basel II regulatory reporting for instance. Finally the Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information wikipedia guidelines encourage listing of any kind of public or privately held company. I would like to note in addition that the fact it is competitor to another company is a good sign it has a place here. :). And if we talk about philosophy: market and its actors are a major component of our lives so it is definitively part of an encyclopedia of real life to list its actors into it. See also other companies like UBS, Microsoft also having contributions which are not more or less part of the all evil bearing capitalism than Iris. Wwa 10:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless 213.55.130.205's claim is verified. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• You can find general information about the company on its website. You can also check in www.bobsguide.com for instance under Bobsguide - Asset and Liability Management that other people active in the domain know the company as active in the risk and profitability management area. Wwa 10:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Peta 05:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete Infos are verifiable. fdspr 09:49, 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. DS 18:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casemachine

This article is about a neologism with the definition of "a man who has achieved supreme physical being." Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, particulary a slang dictionary, I suggest it be deleted. -- Kjkolb 13:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, neologism, dicdef at best. RGTraynor 14:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete uncited neologism. Just zis Guy you know? 15:15, 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. DS 18:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wootie Bag

Neologism. If I could think of a speedy criterion I'd have dleeted it. Just zis Guy you know? 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 13:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. This is a neologism used only in a small county in Oklahoma? Eccch. RGTraynor 14:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:08, 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. --Ezeu 10:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edinburgh University Shinty Club

Another university club. Oh dear. Can someone help them find an appropriate place for this please? Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 14:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Tone 16:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. We can't have Every uni sports club in here Ydam 17:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as with Glasgow University Shinty Club, Edinburgh University Shinty Club is a fee-paying member of the Camanachd Association, the governing body of Shinty, therefore they have as much right to be in the Wikipedia as any other shinty team such as Kingussie and Oban Camanachd.

They are one the sport's most historic clubs and have a long history of playing the sport at a high level. I understand why people would not wish for any University Club to be allowed in to the Wikipedia but in deleting Edinburgh University Shinty Club one would have to delete all University Sport pages such as the following, UCLA athletics and also delete any club or team in any sport with an academic connection in their name such as Hamilton Academical F.C.. Edinburgh University have always catered for non-students as well and until very recently played against non-academic teams.

In giving a complete picture of the sport of Shinty it is necessary to give a list of all teams who play the game. I have no vested interest in promoting Edinburgh University Shinty Club. Please keep this article. Sologoal 10:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, merge the team into into the sport article since it isa small sport.--Peta 05:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Shinty is not a small Sport, whilst it is mostly confined to Scotland, it is a very popular game with important historic linkages to communities and peoples, to merge all clubs into the one article would be small-minded and petty.. For example, Edinburgh Univeristy merits a mention at least in connection with Sorley MacLean, the famous Gaelic poet as well as their long history of competition. One is of the opinion that "University" should not necessarily tar a club as being a "University" club per se. (See my earlier point.). the clubis not a drinking club or some jolly fraternity, it is a copmetitive club competing at a national level.Sologoal 10:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)—This comment was really added by User:Cabers

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Again. DS 18:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JenniCam

I am nominating this page for the following reasons:

• Original research Page has been tagged with the {{original research}} tag for several months with no citations for the information listed in the article. There are references listed, but whether or not they back up the information in the article is dubious.
• Unencyclopedic Internet meme where the original website no longer exists. Claims that she initiated the webcam phenomenom are unsourced original speculation.
• Meets upddated CSD A6: Attack pages. ...a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to. The information about the Dex saga is clearly negative in tone, unsourced, and no NPOV version exists.

-- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note Previous AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JenniCam. Result was Speedy Keep, with no delete votes other than the nom. Fan1967 14:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note CSD A6 has been upated since the original AfD. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Note It hasn't changed that much, and you left out half the definition: "Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject". Clearly that does not apply here. Fan1967 14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - this is a very famous topic. I'd be amazed if Wikipedia did not have an article on it. Metamagician3000 14:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with nominator that the cleanup tag should be kept up, and citation requests fulfilled. The BBC reference alone means that this article should be kept, never mind the reams of academic doscourse cited. Request nominator to take on the job of adding citations, and to withdraw this AfD. Ultra-strong Keep, verging on speedy. Vizjim 14:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the previous discussion. She may not have been the first, but she was the first notable "cam girl". She was covered by the BBC, The Nation, and was a guest on Letterman. She played a fictionalized version of herself in an episode of Diagnosis:Murder. [12] - what more notability do you need? Excise the POV, complete the citations, don't delete. — AKADriver ☎ 14:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This subject is one of the most highly notable figures in Internet history, and I'm rather surprised that this has been renominated yet again -- if, for instance, a section of the article is considered A6 fodder, what is preventing editors from deleting it rather than sending yet another AfD? Be bold, for pity's sake. Besides which, following Fan1967's comment, A6 doesn't mean "we can't ever say anything negative about the subject." Following that logic, we'd need to find ways to avoid saying naughty things about the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Genghis Khan and David Berkowitz. RGTraynor 14:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment The new contents of A6 apply to living persons and contains the provision that negative material be sourced. They are separate from the definition of attack pages. It would be difficult to excise the Dex material because it is a major reason for the demise of the cam. But unfortnately it's impossible to source the details listed in the article. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced gossip and minor details of her life, so there's no "attack" left on the article. See how easy that was? :) Someone is welcome to add it back if they can find sources. — AKADriver ☎ 15:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep and Comment Spewing fact templates is not a good response to an AfD. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment We may have had a problem, I thought that was blanking AKADriver, sorry. LEts look at the Cruft closer. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I reverted to my rewrite and also removed the {{fact}} templates, since the remaining stuff {{fact}}-ed is all verifiable if you take the time to skim the sources at the bottom of the article. — AKADriver ☎ 15:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, I would delete pretty much all internet cams, but this one is notable. If the content is unsalvageable because it cannot be verified, I suggest deleting it and replacing it with a stub. Skimming the article, it does not seem to be an attack page, though it has negative information. -- Kjkolb 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep just about the only such site for which I would vote keep. Just zis Guy you know? 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Psychotically famous webcam / site / case study. If this doesn't have an article, I can't imagine Facebook or IGN having their own articles. -- Kicking222 15:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Duh. -- GWO
• Keep. All has been said above. --Tone 16:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Possible the only notable webcam but this one is very notable Ydam 17:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The reasons listed by Malber all point to the article needing work not deletion. AlistairMcMillan 17:09, 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 wasSpeedy Delete.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Mountains Aikido

Mention of a local dojo with a generic aikido philosophy, possibly an ad Skysmith 14:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

historical—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavimelk (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom, although the author of the aritcle is sure polite about it. Either way, an obvious delete. -- Kicking222 15:22, 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 merge. Mostly Rainy 03:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topfree Equal Rights Association

"Topfree Equal Rights Association" scores about 250 ghits outside mirrors. Just zis Guy you know? 15:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Topfree equality Computerjoe's talk 15:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Topfree equality, has been acknowledged by a couple universities [13] [14] though it doesn't seem notable on its own. Plus, there's is a very noble cause. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 18:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. Stifle (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. —Mets501^talk 17:05, 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 Userfied to User:Bpottermcbotter Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barrie Potter

Contested prod (removed twice). Original reason was: "This falls under WP:CB. Mr Potter has no academic publications, no released films or any credentials whatsoever. Unfortunately, it fails to meet any of the WP:CSD criteria." Vanity page created by User:Bpottermcbotter. Delete ::Supergolden:: 15:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Vanity. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:25, 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 Userfy to User:Rzdave. Just zis Guy you know? 16:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Schilling

Appears to be vanity. No Google hits in top 10, only 457 hits on company referred to. Already 1 prod tag, removed without comment StuartF 15:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Vanity. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Even with a lot of the junk removed, the article is still vanity by/about a non-notable person. -- Kicking222 15:25, 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. Default to keep. --Ezeu 10:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The_Little_Flames, The little flames

Page already exists -- see The little flames. Marysunshine 19:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC); Including both articles in this afd. —ERcheck @ 20:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this and the other article as well as non-notable. Aplomado ^talk 19:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both articles. Non-notable group. —ERcheck @ 19:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - terrible article, ghastly, in fact, but meets WP:MUSIC as they have toured the UK several times. [15][16][17] and have played in Japan as well [18]. They appear to be signed to Sony. Ac@osr 20:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Ac@osr, are you referring to the first or second article, or both? If both articles are kept, we'll have redundant entries. --Marysunshine 22:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first has virtually nothing in it but the second is terrible and also reads as if it were copied directly from a press release so with a copyvio over its head, it would have to go. I'll expand the initial effort with the relevant information if it survives. Ac@osr 08:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the correctly titled one per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete When there is verified facts in the article they are signed to Sony, they can have an article. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC if that means anything. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Relisted in order to gain clearer consensus. Computerjoe's talk 15:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - here you go Dominick [19]. No point adding anything to the article until it's established which one, if either, is staying. Ac@osr 17:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. On the contrary, there are very good reasons. The Little Flames article as it stands could have been speedy deleted as an article on a band with no assertions of notability. The other article asserts notability by saying that they have toured the UK in support of the Coral and that they will be supporting the Arctic Monkeys, which would qualify them under WP:MUSIC. The best thing would be to expand the correctly titled article to establish notability to avoid the prospect of deletion. Capitalistroadster 23:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Of the two titles aboved, I moved The little flames to The Little Flames because the latter is the correct capitalisation according to the title bar of their web site, but the former is clearly the better written article. No vote. --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if info can be verified. —Mets501^talk 17:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, per link above provided by Ac@osr. Much of the article was a copyvio (directly copied from the source above). I deleted copyrighted material. No vote. —ERcheck @ 19:40, 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. Rje 11:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judy Williams

NN feminist Computerjoe's talk 15:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain She doesn't appear to be particularly notable, but she also doesn't appear to be particularly non-notable. If the article wasn't an advertisement for the woman (if there is such a thing), I'd be able to go one way or the other on this one. But for now, no vote. -- Kicking222 15:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep seems somehow notable although I agree that this is on the margin. --Tone 16:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN per nom. It looked like a shill for nude beach pics at first. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Local activist = NN. Hawkestone 15:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the notable bits with Wreck Beach and drop the rhetoric. --Chris Pressey 16:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete.--Peta 05:39, 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 speedy delete. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jose Espin

IP Users added a talk entry only. --Supercoop 15:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It would have been easier to just tag the article for speedy deletion as being empty. I've gone ahead and done so. Of course, judging by the talk page, even if there was an article, it wouldn't establish any notability. -- Kicking222 15:40, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 14:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican Immigration Propaganda

Delete after merge of material into Reconquista (Mexico). Fails Goggle test, only 4 Ghits for "Mexican Immigration Propaganda". Reconquista is the more common term, at least in TX. Brimba 15:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete — While I don't disagree with some of the assertions, it is a strongly PoV article and so should be removed. The Reconquista (Mexico) page can cover this topic adequately. Thanks. — RJH 17:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. highly POV name as well. ---J.S (t|c) 23:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV ALERT! and per nom —Mets501^talk 17:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a mess. -Will Beback 07:36, 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 14:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kadavul (2nd nomination)

Last nomination resulted in no consensus. Has been transwikied now. Is a dicdef. TheProject 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Is a dicdef, and will always be nothing more than a dicdef. -- Kicking222 16:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete this short, non-notability-asserting (non-English) dictionary definition. LjL 19:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete .Bharatveer 05:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete dicdef —Mets501^talk 17:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. this is just a meaning of a word, wikipedia is a encylopedia not a dictionary. Gsingh 22:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. Ardenn 21:36, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mattfolk

Non notable surname Computerjoe's talk 15:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE as non-notable; I was about to tag it as such. HubHikari 15:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 16:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete NN Dominick ^(TALK) 17:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don`t Delete --Kennet.mattfolk 18:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  Why? Computerjoe's talk 18:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do delete. LjL 19:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  Why? Computerjoe's talk 19:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  Because. :-) Seriously, delete per nom. LjL 19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Don´t delete --194.251.240.113 13:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RexNL 23:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• do not delete194.251.240.113 09:52, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaivalagi

Transwikied foreign dicdef. There's a bit of a discussion at Talk:Suva, where the only backlink not from a list originates from. TheProject 15:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, Wikipedia is definitely not an English dictionary, even less so a non-English one. Article doesn't even assert notability. LjL 19:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Delete, as per Ljl. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 23:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as it's been transwikied. Stifle (talk) 23:22, 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. No Guru 20:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaplanidis

Tagged as speedy A7, but asserts notability. Looks enormously like a vanity autobiography. Just zis Guy you know? 16:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity autobiography, all right. Great to know he makes time for his wife and kid. Fan1967 16:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. -- Kicking222 16:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this absolutely non-notable vanity biography. LjL 19:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE, Mr. Kaplanidis, helped my mother out immensely(Saved her from being swindled basically) & helped me out- I'm a 9/11 widow, and he was not only helpful in helping me with $, but with referring me to counseling peer group. Not sure if this exactly warrants inclusion, but he made a difference in our lives, more than anyone I know

• Note Above text was entered twice, first by Dtrump (talk · contribs), while deleting all the other votes, then, after the edit had been reverted, a slightly different version was re-added by John469us (talk · contribs). It seems likely they are the same person. Dtrump is the article's author. John469us has no edits other than this one. Fan1967 18:16, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khanki Magi

Bengali slang. Does it warrant entry? Dangherous 21:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• No, delete. Unless wiktionary wants it, that is. Henning Makholm 22:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This forgotten AfD is being relisted to generate a consensus. TheProject 16:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: this entry has since been transwikied. TheProject 16:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as now transwikied dicdef. Sandstein 17:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seriously, delete. Hornplease 20:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Delete now. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 23:14, 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, and block article creator indefinitely for being a vandal who bragged about vandalism and boasted that he could not be stopped. DS 19:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is Mythology?

POV 1st person viewpoint fork of Mythology ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Tony Fox 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete This article does not violate any rules. What makes it a 1st person view? And what in blazes is a mythology fork?. What kind of person hunts for articles that they don't like and asks for them to be deleted? It doesn't break any rules, why delete it? And can you AT LEAST allow me to get it posted correctly before you request that it be deleted? It wont go away just because YOU want it to. JonnyLaw2121 16:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Violates WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK, for a start. Anything that goes in a "What is Mythology?" article should go in our article on Mythology instead. I'd say merge anything that can be salvaged (i.e. NPOV and not OR), but I don't think there's anything in there that fits that description. Delete. TheProject 16:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for violating WP:POV. Vizjim 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV. --Tone 16:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not an opinion. This is a discussion on Mythology. I'm not saying "This is what I think about mythology." This is the same as saying that not every person has the same fingerprints. No two people can see a story in the same light. It isn't an opinion, it is truth. You may not ike to be wrong, but this article is NOT an op[inion, and it will NOT go away! If you can cite one statement that is an opinion, do so. Otherwise, find some else to bother. JonnyLaw2121 17:05, 18 May 2006

• Delete per TheProject. Yes, it will go away, just watch...

Sandstein 17:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you "just watch". It may disappear, but that will be temporary. Plus, my article isn't the only one dissapearing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonnyLAw2121 (talk • contribs)

Delete as POV. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 17:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

JonnyLAw2121 is a mock account. I just created it so I could post this article. I am not concerned if it is deleted, or if this IP address is banned. I'm am not on my main account, nor am I on my personal computer. Have fun trying to stop me now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhOaMi (talk • contribs)

Oh noes, we will not stop him. Someone please think of the children.  :'-( -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 17:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - article is an unsourced, not very coherent, point of view. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Personal essay using a rhetorical device, unencyclopædic. Mythology will give an answer to an interested researcher.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:45, 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 speedy delete. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Meadows Apartments

vanity non notable apartment, POV, etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as attack page, looks like to me.Tony Fox 16:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A6. Tagged. PJM 16:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. --Tone 16:27, 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 grrrrrr... ARF ARF ARF ARF! DS 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blitzhunden

Article about a German shepherd breeding business. Proposed deletion contested by page creator. Primarily seems to be advertising, also fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:CORP blue520 16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• delete this is little more than an advertisement. google returns less than a page of results for Blitzhunden and actually thinks it's a spelling error. so... let's toss it.frymaster 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per your choice of WP:NOT. Incidentally, the correct plural of "Blitzhund" would be "Blitzhunde", not "Blitzhunden", but since there is no such thing as a "Blitzhund", well... Sandstein 17:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Woof per nom. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as adspam. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 17:25, 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 Speedily deleted as nonsense.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ribbon cutting ceremony

Already speedied previously, user removed tag. Patent nonsense. cholmes75 16:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete - WP:NOT. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 16:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not even funny. Accurizer 16:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Super speedy Delete Satire is supposed to be funny right? Dominick ^(TALK) 16:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nonsense not about the title subject which could contain a useful article. Smerdis of Tlön 17:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT Uncyclopedia. Sandstein 17:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per the just-now-created "Oy vey" clause. If the only thing I can say about an article is "Oy vey," then it must be speedily deleted. -- Kicking222 17:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as WP:CB -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 17:25, 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. --Ezeu 21:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Savvy Miss

Online magazine with an Alexa rank of 3.5 million. No indication of meeting WP:WEB-- GraemeL ^(talk) 16:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Savvy Miss is a brand new web community for women, which launched last week. Wikipedia has pages for almost all of the current women's magazines, and should therefore include Savvy Miss in its database. Savvy Miss is unique, because instead of tauting unhealthy body images, dieting, archaic beauty rituals or doing anything to make your man happy, it instead empowers and inspires women. The content encourages women to pursue careers outside the realm of more traditional female jobs and promotes nonprofit organizations and volunteering. --Missshmu 17:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Current press links to follow.

• MediaBistro blog [20]

--Missshmu 17:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Journalism Jobs posting [21] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Missshmu (talk • contribs) .--Missshmu 17:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB, as per the case made by the above anon... Sandstein 17:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yeah, "launched last week" pretty much seals the non-notable deal on this one. -- Kicking222 17:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB and per nom.--Dakota ~ 17:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Look, this is my last attempt to save this page. You're all crazy if you want to pull a page to an up and coming web community that actually encourages women.--Missshmu 17:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, we do. "Up and coming" websites and the like are exactly what does not go onto Wikipedia. Please see WP:WWIN and WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete glaring failure of WP:WEB too new to be notable. Please read WP:NOT Dominick ^(TALK) 17:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep User makes point about other women's mags pages --MikeD7759 17:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment list them here and they will be looked at the same way. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Just checked #s for Savvy Miss. Google ranks them a 3, They've had over 133,000 pages viewed in their first week and over 5600 unique visitors. --Missshmu 17:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a "brand new" web community. There is a stark lack of reliable sources. Come back when your community site has been featured in multiple, independent, and non trivial publications, and has an alexa rank lower than 50,000. --Hetar 19:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons above stated. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; I strongly recommend thatMissshmu consult WP:CHILL. If this online mag becomes notable, then it may merit an article. RGTraynor 20:21, 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. --Ezeu 21:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TimberWolf Content Management

We deleted this in March as non-notable (see first AfD), and now it's back. Deletion via {{db-repost}} was denied with the rationale that "content is substantially different and the situation may have changed since last AfD". Well, no, it isn't (from what I remember), and hasn't. Delete and protect, please. Sandstein 16:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 17:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Nothing Notable. Software does not always get listed, especially when the authors pluralize with the letter "Z". Dominick ^(TALK) 17:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• The content is substantially different from the originally AfDed version. As for whether the situation has changed, it's not my place as the speedying (or not) admin to make that determination; that's why I removed the tag instead of deleting the article. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• I, the author changed all the content. The previous AfD was very baised and deserved to be deleted. This one does not deserved to be deleted and is very unbaised. MarcConnor 07:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not (and was not) a matter of bias. It's a matter of notability. We do not cover every piece of software in the world, only notable ones. Can you show that your software meets the (proposed) standards of WP:SOFTWARE? Sandstein 07:46, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brenda Barrie and The Binding

Proposed for deletion by Rbanzai (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "This appears to be primarily self-promotion with little value as a Wikipedia entry." Deprodded by me; Rbanzai latter added the afd1 template to the article but didn't complete the rest of the process, so I'm finishing it for him. Brenda Barrie is an author with a published novel, The Binding (2005, RockWay Press, low Amazon sales rank, but stocked by Amazon itself, not an affiliate). She has also published a collection of poetry, Full Speed. Full Stop in 2003, also from RockWay press, which I couldn't find on Amazon. RockWay press is not a vanity publisher, I checked. Her official website includes a "reviews and comments" section, but no reviewers give affiliations with press. The damning stroke for me is [22], which lists the WP articles on her and her novel on her own web page: apparently, these are here for promotion. I say delete Mangojuice^talk 17:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment, I just added The Binding to this AfD as well; clearly they should both go if either one goes. Mangojuice^talk 17:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete She doesn't seem particularly notable, but I don't think the page is as advertise-y as some others might believe. But either way, she's not really worthy of a WP article. -- Kicking222 21:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per WP:BLP, unless we see some proof of the books having circulation of over 5000. Stifle (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete.--Peta 05:40, 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. No Guru 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iPod Camera Connector

Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia isn't here to fill in holes in Apple's documentation. AlistairMcMillan 17:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT the Apple support database. Sandstein 17:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a user manual. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 17:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-encyclopædic. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Modify the Article. I think the article shoud be modified to exclude the howto stuff. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT.--Peta 05:40, 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 {{db-repost}}. No need to relist here once the first AfD passed.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Meadows Apartments

Delete and protect second recreation. Creator keeps remaking article Dominick ^(TALK) 17:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and protect Changed my vote Dominick ^(TALK) 17:20, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attwi members

Wikipedia's not the best place for a comprehensive list of an organization's members. I suggest that this list be stored on an external website, which can then be linked to from the main Association of Theologically Trained Women of India article. Anirvan 17:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a "free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site". -- Scientizzle 17:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Crum375 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This is about as unencyclopedic as it gets. -- Kicking222 21:04, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sombras Extintas

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - there's minimal information on this album's release, and from what I can tell, the artist is completely insignificant in the American music scene. I can kinda understand putting an entry for a highly-anticipated album for a major star, but this has very little appeal. fuzzy510 17:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Delete per nom. Could have used a vanity tag Dominick ^(TALK) 17:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete does not meed WP:MUSIC.--Peta 05:40, 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. --Ezeu 21:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DirectStarTV

Spam article for a company that isn't notable. Author only created this article, then linked it on DirecTV. The Deviant 17:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

DirectStarTV is a registered company in Charlotte, North Carolina and is a top dealer for DirecTV. This is a legitimate DIRECTV top dealer. If you don't want to put a link on DirecTV's page to DirectStarTV, we don't mind, but we are major dealer for DIRECTV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.9.145 (talk • contribs) 18 May 2006

• Delete per nom as failing WP:CORP. This is like an outfit claiming notability because they're Charlotte's leading Toyota dealership. Stipulating so, so what? RGTraynor 20:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Traynor. -- Kicking222 21:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we are not only Charlotte's leading dealer, but a leading dealer for DIRECTV in the whole nation. There is a difference there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.245.100 (talk • contribs) 20 May 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deizio talk 19:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs with the word "song" in their title or lyrics

Although I hate to do it, I nominate this article for deletion. It is hardly enycyclopedic and it will never end! The title, (List of songs with the word "song" in their title or lyrics), is what really got to me. Do we really need a dynamic list of songs and albums that include a single word. What's next, List of songs with the word "of" in their title or lyrics? Furthurmore, I fail to see the importance of the page. DGX 17:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unmaintainable list; WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 18:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Myspace chain letter cruft. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete arbitrary list. The Deviant 18:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question Is there a policy regarding songlistcruft? I don't think this list is intrinsically more pointless than, say, List of English songs whose title includes the name of a fictional place, List of theme songs which don't mention their show's name in the lyrics, List of songs with brackets in their titles, List of English songs whose title includes the name of a landmark, List of songs with the name of a musical performer in their title, List of albums which do not contain their title track, List of English songs whose title includes nonsense-words, List of songs whose title includes dates and times, List of songs whose title includes a phone number, List of self-referential songs, List of songs whose titles are composed solely of numbers or List of songs containing covert reference to real musicians. A centralized discussion might be helpful here. David Sneek 18:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thats a really good question, I think WP:NOT covers that. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If afd's don't appear later for the above article, I might have to consider creating one. DGX 18:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I noticed that some of the lists I mentioned above have been through AfD and survived: [23], [24], [25]. (I didn't check them all.) David Sneek 18:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Wow, I didn't think lists like those could even survive an AFD. Well, we'll see I guess. DGX 19:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, some people go directly in the face of WP:NOT because "It's a cool list!"... The best we can do is to squash them as we can. The Deviant 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete at a quick guesstimate there's over 1,500 entries here and they barely step outside the bounds of the last 20 years. Any serious attempt to make this list ocmplete would result in the servers imploding. Do we include Dowland's books of songs because they incuded the word song in the name of the book? Do we include lute songs? Lieder? Lieder ohne worte? A list whose selection criteria are utterly arbitrary and of no known significance, which potentially contains many huyndreds of thousands of songs going back hundreds of years. Did I let slip the fact that I don't think much of the conept of this list? I do hope I managed to maintain my legendary air of studied neutrality... Just zis Guy you know? 19:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is listcruft at its worst. If any of the others ever come up for afd I will hapily vote delete on them. Ydam 19:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article has existed for more than three years and has been edited over 500 times by a lot of different users and IP-numbers; apparently there is some kind of interest from the community and readers in this list, and I don't really like the idea of just throwing away their work. In the absence of a general policy on "lists of songs according to this or that", and with the above-mentioned lists and AfDs as examples that we keep and maintain many strange things in this field, I'd rather err on the inclusionist side. David Sneek 19:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thats why I was reluctant at first at nominating the article. It has a long history dating back to 2003. Even though it does have a long history, I still can't get over the fact that this is listcruft. I don't doubt that the lists were made in good-faith but maybe when they were created, they weren't aware of policies like WP:NOT. DGX 19:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It just seems to me it just took that long for someone to AfD it... Longevity doesn't validate this worthless list of information which is directly against WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. The Deviant 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Those lists will never be complete or even close to that. So it's more like List of random songs about something...--Tone 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur. The Deviant 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, it's one thing to have a list of songs based around something like it's genre, but just random things doesn't cut it. But I would refran from mass deleting them all per this AFD because seperate Afd's or one AFD that links from them all would be more appropriate. DGX 20:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • QUick start list of songs about concurring on deleting song lists Dominick ^(TALK) 20:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • We might have to rename it to List of songs that have appeared on articles that have been deleted. ;-) DGX 20:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Wow, I hope someone userfies this before it gets deleted. I cringe at the thought of all those editors' work going down the drain. Aguerriero (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- sad as it is to remove so much hard work, the fact is that this list is just not encyclopedic. It's listcruft. Sorry, but it's got to go. Reyk _YO! 20:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete delete delete! Amazing songcruft/listcruft. I am one of the many people to have edited this page, but not because I want it around. If it is to exist, I'd rather it be a bit better, but I'd much more rather it simply not exist. -- Kicking222 21:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I cannot see how this list of trivia will be useful to anyone. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Vizjim 08:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• please please please please please delete -- Hirudo 14:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Run'e Language

This language looks non-notable - no google hits. Thue | talk 18:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete it really looks jus tlike something someone made up, and if not then horribly written for a real language entry.--Nick Y. 19:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:OR, unfortunately fits no CSD. Sandstein 19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, no assertion of notability, no references or links at all, "author wants to stay unknown" ('nuff said with this last). LjL 19:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Definite OR Ydam 19:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per above --Zoz (t) 20:01, 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 14:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sybarites

Spam. Plain and simple. Tagges as speedy-nonsense, but sadly all too comprehensible. Just zis Guy you know? 18:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete for the finer things. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:WEB. Sandstein 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, for a complete lack of salvagability. If not that, then standard delete. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy if poss per nom Ydam 19:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam -- or is it an attack page? Kevin 00:47, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gothitech

Neologism, non-encyclopedic. One Google hit, presumably by author Docether 18:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom--Nick Y. 19:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NEO. Sandstein 19:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability, no sources, nothing but nonsense. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. (15,000 songs!) Dominick ^(TALK) 19:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Neologism. Complete nonsense. Beno1000 21:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advertisement disguised as a genre. Ac@osr 22:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this is getting a bit ridiculous, the same user is responisble for similar neologism attempts "post goth", "Space Industrial" and "urban goth". - Deathrocker 11:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone above, but especially User:Deathrocker. Joyous! | Talk 23:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, non-verifiable.--Adrift* 12:23, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Strykowski

No assertion of notability, vanity page presumably created by the subject. cholmes75 18:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7. There's no assertion of notability, no recordings, no performances by a major orchestra. He's a college student. Good luck to him in his career, but he's not there, yet. Fan1967 18:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio per nom Crum375 19:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio per nom --Nick Y. 19:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Fan1967, vanity page. RGTraynor 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable; the requirements for ASCAP membership are pretty light. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. AnnH ♫ 07:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not so much as assert its own notability --Yst 16:02, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Brennan

Tagged nn-bio but notability is asserted. Not qualified to judge, myself, since notability of folk musicians is notoriously hard to quantify via online sources, and the fact he has a day job may not preclude him being a notable folk musician (folk is like that). Just zis Guy you know? 18:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

delete fails WP:MUSIC, generally, notable musicians are full time. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. He's so "well-known" that the top 20 Google hits have nothing to do with this "Francis Brennan" aside from this article. -- Kicking222 21:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 08:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.--Peta 05:41, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yanine Diaz

tagged nn-bio but notability is asserted. Whether one recorded appearance in a second-rate titcruft magazine actually constitutes notability is open to question, cewrtainly falls well below the current proposed porn notability guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 18:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Linked to subject's web site selling access to her nude pics. If she ever becomes notable and can provide independent sources then sure why not. Crum375 19:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no comment. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, porncruft. Sandstein 19:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ads. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I originally tagged it for speedy, as the current proposed porn guidelines are just that- proposed. I don't think having appeared in one magazine (and not even a well-known mag) once is an assertion of notability. But whatever- the article will be gone either way, and that's all that matters. -- Kicking222 21:17, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WPWB

Tagged as no context, but that's not quite true. It is, however, very hard to verify. As in: it does not Google. Just zis Guy you know? 19:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete one liner non-notable small biz Crum375 19:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no claim to notability. Sandstein 19:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Crum375 --Zoz (t) 20:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. A search of the FCC web site shows no television station by these call letters. --Metropolitan90 03:47, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Reiss

This person had non-life threatening injuries from rubber bullets sustained at a demonstration. A minor injury sustained at a demonstration is hardly newsworthy much less notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment on presentation: Note that I'm a doctor. A sub-dural haemorrhage is not a minor injury, it is very definitely life-threatening. It is highly unlikely that someone who sustains one in that fashion will not be left with lasting damage, after they spend the following six months or so recovering. The description above is very inadequate and dismissive. was based on early reports. Midgley 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Nick Y. 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep WP not paper, maybe he'll get a better claim to fame someday :P Crum375 19:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that he sustained a brain hemorrhage and made the news in a paper in a different continent from the incident, that's mildly notable ('making the news' is almost automatic notability) Crum375 20:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet Notability test Zeq 19:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet notability test. Rubber bullets are supposed to bounce off, is that they worked properly notable? Dominick ^(TALK) 19:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable enough for an encyclopedia article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not important. I've seen other people being injured during protests with worse injuries and they don't require an encyclopedia article. Mtmelendez 19:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Ydam 19:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with other articles on ISM or other shooting incidents. Including this information is important to revealing a pattern in the practices of the Israeli army regarding ISM activists. 82.102.240.5 22:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Elmo
• Keep plenty of other less notable people on Wikipedia - Xed 09:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipiedia is not even a memorial, so it certainly doesn't require articles on every person who ever got a minor injury in a demonstration. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability. —Viriditas | Talk 01:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Will run out of server space at this rate....--Tom 01:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Naconkantari 01:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Kill. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into International Solidarity Movement. That's a good article, and needs a section about this event. --John Nagle 03:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep we need to draw attention that people were hit by bullets. but sorta fails WP:BIO M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into International Solidarity Movement. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or if he is notable make it a biography. Midgley 16:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Verified, but not much likelihood of expansion, so Merge to International Solidarity Movement. Ziggurat 01:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Jayjg. JoshuaZ 02:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Peta 05:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete random individual. Pecher ^Talk 06:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)