Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 30 May 2 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] May 1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Oops, looks like I closed this a bit early as it was placed at the top of the page instead of the bottom. But consensus appears clear. If anyone has a problem with this please message me. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Queer Cinema

This article is insignificant. Nevermind2 22:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. This term has 44500 results in google. The article in Outrate is republished on authoritative movie site Sence of Cinema. There are number of books about this appearance. — fatal_exception ?! 23:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    But another Wikis don't contain this article. Russian article is simple translation of English one and was made by fatal_exception ?! :-) Nevermind2 23:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    Yep. It's a good argument :). Good luck. — fatal_exception ?! 23:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    There is another one! The article's subject is interesting for particular specialists and isn't encyclopedia occurrence. Nevermind2 23:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per fatal exception, this appears to be notable and verifiable. IrishGuy 01:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It might be of interest to editors to view this other AfD on Dmitry Kuzmin Tyrenius 02:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't pay attention to this guy, that's only New Homophobic Wave in Russian wiki and nothing more :) --AndyVolykhov 05:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, nothin' but WP:POINT. MaxSem 06:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & expand. --The Wrong Man 08:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand Relevant and verifiable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Beno1000 (talk • contribs)
  • keep per Fatal Exception, and Nevermind, I suggest you stop with these possibly bad faith nominations. JoshuaZ 21:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand --Deville (Talk) 02:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand --Naha|(talk) 16:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep and expand, although the queer theory in film does not necessary deal with homosexuals, this point should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.158.92 (talk • contribs) JoshuaZ 14:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emre Gurkan

Dear Wikipedians: First, thanks very much for welcoming me to Wikipedia. It is a great place and serious environment. We are lucky that we have Wikipedia.

Re "Emre Gurkan" article, I think there is a misunderstanding:

I am a management consultant and a thinker, trying to publish in local Turkish newspapers. My articles are usually about the Turkish family life, how young Turkish population can improve themselves (education-wise, personal and professional perspectives). I think I am in the mid-way through and there is a long way for me to become a prominent philosopher with a significant impact on Turkish literature. If this is too much, I would like to apologize from all and mention that I did not have any bad intention at all. My content reflects the truth but being prominent as a little too much at this stage. I agree and sorry for that.

Regards, Emre Gurkan

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emre_Gurkan"


Non-notable vanity article. Created by user with the same username. Info provided is also a hoax. No relevant Ghits. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As nominator. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. Alibabs 00:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the claims are very improbable, and I doubt that being a business consultant type person is a type of philosophy.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per the nom. Darquis 01:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 01:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pretty funny, though, claiming an "immense" impact on Turkish literature. I guess it's nice to have goals in life. ekedolphin 02:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 03:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - and I'll point out that it could have been speedied. - Richardcavell 03:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I was looking for a general consensus. Now that there is I've added an {{nn-bio}} tag to it. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 04:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 05:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Bhadani 07:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom DannyM 11:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity and nn. As ekedolphin noted, however, it is good for a laugh.... -- MarcoTolo 15:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, also per nom. --Doug (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone. Arbusto 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Just enough for consensus, methinks. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dust bunny

This is a dictionary definition that has been transwikied to Wiktionary, and I don't think there's much to say about dust bunnies other than what they are. Brian G. Crawford 00:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Brian G. Geedubber 00:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • But what about their Treatment in the media, Habitat, Diet, Life history strategy, Population control techniques and other sections?...Oh...right...I mean Delete.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 00:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment/Clarification That was only half tongue-in-cheek. If someone expands this more than it is to actually include full sized sections on Treatment in the media, Population control techniques, Danger to humans, etc. per Hyperbole, then I'll say Keep. Until it has those sections written, or someone promising to write them, I'm not convinced it's worth keeping.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 10:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't forget Dust Bunnies in popular culture... KWH 12:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete its already in wikitionary. - Patman2648 00:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments belows - Patman2648 03:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef. Metamagician3000 01:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Terence Ong 03:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with dust. At least in principle, it's a legitimate, study-able subject. The article as it stands does go beyond a dicdef... not far enough beyond to warrant its own article, but far enough to warrant merging. --Allen 05:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep; the arguments below have changed my mind. --Allen 02:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment an artist has used them as a material to make sculpture out of (true)—I can't remember the name, but it was in the press some months ago in the UK. Tyrenius 05:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm again shocked at the delete votes, given the prominence and easy verifibility of this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 05:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Allen. SorryGuy 05:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, lots of pop culture references - eg, the Dust Bunnies on The Big Comfy Couch [1] Thethethe 06:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - This topic has significance, and the article is far more than a dicdef - there's discussion about the danger of dust mites, references to dust bunnies in pop culture, solutions to dust bunny problems. Undoubtedly, the article could grow further. We keep so many articles on fictional star trek and video game characters, and so many articles that are of interest to only a couple hundred people tops, that it seems ridiculous to me whenever someone afd's a real, tangible, universal thing like this. --Hyperbole 07:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hyperbole. --Eivindt@c 10:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- good enough for me. Reyk YO! 11:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • C'mon guys, let's be serious - delete.--Smerus 12:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, worthy of a dictionary definition but not an encyclopedia article. Robin Johnson 14:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef; no real "explantory" value, thus should be in Wikitionary only. Batmanand | Talk 15:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to have become part of mainstream culture (for whatever reason): the aforementioned Big Comfy Couch characters, the title of a Bettie Serveert album, a Howard Kaylan album, etc. etc. etc. Could certainly be expanded. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a fairly established idiom. JIP | Talk 16:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Several other pages link to dust bunny. Keep, or merge to dust and redirect. Anthony Appleyard 16:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as this is a notable and verifiable subject which should be documented in an encyclopaedia. Yamaguchi先生 18:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There's a little bit more to say about dust bunnies than what's suitable for a dictionary, it appears. -Obli (Talk)? 18:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Hyperbole. --Edcolins 20:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's even an artistic medium (see my previous "comment") Tyrenius 02:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete there is not really much more that can be said on a dustbunny. Unfortunately votes such as Hyperbole's above: "there's discussion about the danger of dust mites, references to dust bunnies in pop culture, solutions to dust bunny problems. Undoubtedly, the article could grow further." shows that while this might be expandable, none of it would be encyclopedic, most would be original research, and none of it would pass our verifiability policy. It's already been transwiki'd let it go.  ALKIVAR™ 03:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hyperbole. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 03:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is simply a dictionary definition. I can't honestly see how this could ever be turn into an encyclopedia entry. Ted 03:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Dust --Astrokey44 15:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - lots of expansion possibility. AnonEMouse 18:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - There seems to be quite a bit of encyclopedic text there on the subject. The danger of dust mites is certainly verifiable, not OR and encyclopedic.--Prosfilaes 21:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, although this isn't ever going to be a great article --Deville (Talk) 02:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: properly referenced and interesting (particularly when I discovered that one of the references was written by a distant relative—which obviously doesn't affect my opinion on the article, but demonstrates the kind of thing which can happen when Wikipedia includes articles on less well-known subjects as well as the immediately obvious). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as nomination withdrawn & no delete votes. -- JLaTondre 15:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RightNow Technologies

This article doesn't establish notability per WP:CORP. Please note that the NASDAQ is an exchange, not an index. Being listed on NASDAQ does not make a company notable. Please read the inclusion guidelines at WP:CORP if you are unfamiliar with them. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 00:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Withdrawn per addition of references. I've just been seeing so much spamming happening at Saas that I wanted a clear boundary between what companies are notable and what aren't. Articles that didn't establish notability came here. If we're using NASDAQ as a notability indicator, let's add it to WP:CORP.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 10:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable enough, assuming the basic facts here are true ($61 million revenue, notable clients such as Nike). It's true that NASDAQ ia an exchange, but being NASDAQ-listed is a strong indicator of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, satisfies WP:CORP criterion 1, CEO has been interviewed in CRM Buyer [2] and the company is mentioned in other companies' press releases [3]. Kimchi.sg 03:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears to meet WP:CORP. MyNameIsNotBob 04:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:CORP criteria. --Terence Ong 04:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep one reason being that it's quite a neatly presented article. Tyrenius 05:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. SorryGuy 05:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Chick Bowen 01:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journyx - History

This article doesn't establish notability of the company per WP:CORP. It makes a claim to have a product that might be notable, but without supporting third party coverage, it doesn't meet guidelines. Please read the inclusion guidelines at WP:CORP if you are unfamiliar with them. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 00:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Question Did you mean to nominate Journyx? It appears you have created a page called "Journyx - History" and immediately nominated it for deletion. Fan1967 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, umm speedy this one. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 00:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Just slap a {{db-author}} on the top of the page. Fan1967 00:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom Life Church Melbourne

Was proded a couple weeks ago, but the creator then disputed the deletion. S/he hasn't made any changes since then, so here's the AFD. I say delete; an insignificant church. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 00:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete there is nothing additional to the fact that it is a church.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Over a week after a disputed prod is plenty of time to institute some sort of signifigant changes. Darquis 01:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable church. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Doesn't assert notability. Google has no media/press references, just church directories.GRBerry 01:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete is a prominant church in the area, but by no means notable in the wiki sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Librarianofages (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete - wikipedia is not free web space. This is an advertisement. - Richardcavell 03:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Surely there is a List of AOG Churches or something like that? MyNameIsNotBob 04:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn church. --Terence Ong 04:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. -- ReyBrujo 04:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A search of an Australia New Zealand database came up with 0 references and there is nothing in the article establishing notability. Capitalistroadster 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NN. SorryGuy 05:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but only if it can be verified as prominent in the area. Tyrenius 05:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Roisterer 11:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Full disclosure - I prodded it. Dlyons493 Talk 12:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 13:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, doesn't sound particularly notable. JIP | Talk 16:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Question what is it that makes a church inherently non notable and a school inherently notable? Jcuk 17:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete—cj | talk 05:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this goes, so should St Matthew's Church, Kensington, which was only ever permitted on account of no consensus.—cj | talk 05:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I added it thinking it would extend Wiki's coverage of AOG churches (there's no formal list of AOG churches as suggested by [user:MyNameIsNotBob]. However, if there is consensus that it is not adequately notable (as it's clearly a brand new church), can I store it somewhere until events occur that change this? Visitpaul
Sure, just put it on your user page for now and let's hope things change quickly and you can bring it back. Dlyons493 Talk 11:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Withdrawn by nominator. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journyx

This article doesn't establish notability of the company per WP:CORP. It makes a claim to have a product that might be notable, but without supporting third party coverage, it doesn't meet guidelines. Please read the inclusion guidelines at WP:CORP if you are unfamiliar with them. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 00:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Withdrawn per addition of references. I've just been seeing so much spamming happening at Saas that I wanted a clear boundary between what companies are notable and what aren't. Articles that didn't establish notability came here.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - spamadnotfreewebspacegodistributepamphletselsewhere - Richardcavell 03:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, satisfies WP:CORP criteria 1. Company is mentioned in IT Manager's Journal [4], and in other companies' ress release [5]. Kimchi.sg 03:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Speedy Keep per Kimchi. -- ReyBrujo 04:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kimchi. -- MyNameIsNotBob 04:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kimchi. SorryGuy 05:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I suppose - could do with being tightened up though. Tyrenius 05:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete More or less spamad for a pretty not notable corp. Also I dont agree it meets WP:CORP criteria 1 - the coverage looks "trivial" or at least pretty lightweight to me. Marcus22 16:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Given that there are delete votes other than the nominator's, I would still regard this AfD as open despite the nominator's withdrawal. Please feel free to comment. Chick Bowen 20:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious rivalry in Glasgow

The article is original research WP:OR and does not contain verified material WP:V refers, both are official Wikipedia policies TheMadTim 00:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator --TheMadTim 00:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is not WP:OR, the user is attempting to make a WP:POINT as "his" article History of Sectarianism in Scottish Football has been nominated for deletion. Alibabs 00:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment isn't someone using an article for WP:POINT an argument against Darquis 01:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
No, he means that this very nomination is an instance of WP:POINT, not that this article's creation was an instance thereof. Kimchi.sg 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I misunderstood, and am voting to keep. Darquis 06:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Just so that you know dude, WP:POINT is being used by Alibabs without basis. Alibabs has in fact been conducting a campaign of harassment against myself for a couple of days now. Ask them to explain exactly how [WP:POINT]] applies. They can't. --TheMadTim 12:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete I mean speedy keep - WP:POINT. Metamagician3000 01:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepLibrarianofages 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:POINT nomination. --KarateKid7 02:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Johnbull 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Err dudes, you do realise that people who are citing WP:POINT are actually voting both to keep and to delete the article? --TheMadTim 02:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I am voting to keep the article as you nominating the article is an attempt to make a WP:POINT. KarateKid7 03:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Err, are you able to cite any evidence of this dude? --TheMadTim 03:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:POINT nomination. Fan1967 03:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Can't see anything wrong with this article. Phileas 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Alibabs. The article could use some references, but (for me) it is not WP:OR, as there are over 10 different editors that had contributed in the past. -- ReyBrujo 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Has room to become a good article. The WP:POINT arguments are confusing though. MyNameIsNotBob 04:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep though I'd love to see this expanded and more importantly, one or more relevant external references added. Kimchi.sg 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Terence Ong 05:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. SorryGuy 05:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is an important and known aspect of Glasgow. However, it very strongly needs to be referenced. Tyrenius 05:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitely not WP:OR Darquis 06:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep linked to too many pages, and is a very useful basis for research as there are frequent documententaries etc. about (espc. when it comes up to Old Firm Derbys) so its a well know topic. I think renaming though, maybe to enforce the point that it's a catholic vs protestant rivalry. DannyM 11:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & Expand --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 13:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as nomination to make a point. But while I'm here, I'll also suggest a move to Sectarianism in Glasgow.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Johnson (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. WP:POINT nomination. Some of the things you have asked the editors to cite sources for (eg "Nowadays, overt sectarianism is largely limited to the rivalry between the supporters of Celtic F.C. and Rangers F.C., which has an underlying religious basis for some people" (which has 2 "citation needed"s in it)) is just a little extreme. Batmanand | Talk 15:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Dude, asking the article to conform to WP:V isn't too much is it? --TheMadTim 15:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm certain it could conform to WP:V, because it is an often-noted thing in Scotland (yes, it's just me saying this.) The lack of sources is a flaw in the article, but taking the article away because of that flaw would, in this case, be a Bad Thing. Robin Johnson 15:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as this is a WP:POINT nomination. Yamaguchi先生 18:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:V can be addressed (and by the nom if willing, there is most certainly published material on this) but WP:POINT is telling. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The number of "citation needed" tags is way over the top. Osomec 22:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Alibabs is a sock puppet of the permabanned Karatekid7


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Limerick History Society

A nn university club that was formed 8 years ago, and does not appear to have won any awards, and does not seem large enough to be particularly notable in size. My Prod was removed without comment.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable. Darquis 01:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 01:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "The Society is one of a number of societies in the University. It is one of many societies and clubs..." Article does not assert notability of the society, making it one of many to be speedy deleted. Kimchi.sg 03:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Hmm... the awards claim is buried in the end of the article. Still delete, they won only an internal Club and Societies award. Kimchi.sg 04:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Merge with University of Limerick. MyNameIsNotBob 04:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting article. Good idea for a club, too. I wouldn't mind stealing it. Ambi 04:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Ambi, but Ambi, don't! (steal the idea). --MaNeMeBasat 06:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not that impressed with a society that has been around for only eight years (there is a History society at my university that was founded in 1862), the award is just local, and it is highly debatable whether anything in this article is verifiable through any sources, let alone reputable ones. This society has a website where every page contains nothing but the words "Content goes here", and it has a minimal entry at the University of Limerick clubs & societies website, which does not even support the content of the Wikipedia article. If it is actually kept, please remove that current-and-recent-official-cruft that seems to pollute every article on student societies. I think it is fine to mention members prominent for other reasons or to have separate lists of historical presidents or other officials going back a century or two, where at least some non-negligable proportion of these have gone on to do something notable (e.g. List of Cambridge Union Society Presidents), but listing some student who was treasurer last year is really just vanity (nothing personal against that individual in particular, I just took that as an example). u p p l a n d 07:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. --Eivindt@c 11:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- does not come close to any reasonable standard of notability. Reyk YO! 11:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable student society. Far older ones have been deleted. Dlyons493 Talk 12:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dlyons493. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability (unlike, eg, OUCA or the Cambridge Union Society). Batmanand | Talk 15:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Blnguyen and Uppland. -- Kjkolb 16:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Every university in the UK (and presumably Eire) has dozens of these societies. Almost without exception each and every one of them is not notable. This one seems no more notable than any of the others. Marcus22 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warps. Stifle (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. Kimchi.sg 05:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scandals of the 2004 Summer Olympics

I think this a POV title which needs to be altered at the very least if the article stays because it inherently condemns the official outcome of the controversial events which are listed within in the article. Secondly, the "Officiating decisions" is inherently violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV in that it will be inherently selective and incomplete of the incidents which are considered to be "scandalous/controversial". For example, regarding Kitajima doing a dolphin kick in breaststroke, this was the most prominent as he was fighting with Hansen for the gold medal, but there were many other murmurs about all sorts of breaststrokes bending their legs underwater etc. Also the section on which gymnastics performances cannot possibly be POV. Perhaps the Drugs Tests section will stay, but should be changed to "Drug Testing at the 2004 Summer Olympics".ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Change name The name should most definitely changed, per nom it violates WP:NPOV & the "Officiating descisions" column needs to be removed or rewritten. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The problems identified should be dealt with by bold editing, at Cleanup, or through some other appropriate process. I don't think the title is too bad, but would be happy if the nominator or someone else could offer a better one. Some word like "controversies" might be better than "scandals", but I think "scandal" has just come to mean that there was some sort of furore in the press - which is verifiable in principle. It doesn't necessarily mean that the wrong decision was made. In any event, we don't need to go to AfD just to change a title. The appropriate first port of call is the talk page. Metamagician3000 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & rename with POV scrub. Plenty of good info here, if cleaning it up is too tricky then support reducing it to drugs testing only, per nom. Deizio 02:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename, and clean the text up. - Richardcavell 03:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merged to Rock Hudson. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Christian

only claim to notability is sueing a famous person Hirudo 01:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Rock Hudson. In this case his singular claim to notability is a pretty strong one but there's not really much else to be said about him that can't just go into the Rock Hudson article as a side note. — GT 01:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per GT. Aplomado - UTC 01:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no particular reason to shove this info into the Rock Hudson article. The episode receives a brief mention there, as is appropriate; further details are reserved for this article. As is appropriate. As to notability, suing a famous person is one way of achieving it. So is sleeping with a famous person. I know some people don't like that, but that's just the way it is. And Marc Christian's done both. - Outerlimits 02:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge I don't find him signifigant enough for his own article, although the portion in Rock Hudson's could be expanded a bit (hence, merge). Darquis 06:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Rock Hudson. --Eivindt@c 11:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Eivind Computerjoe's talk 13:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Rock Hudson. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Is notable, but not enough info to justify stand-alone entry. Merge as noted by others. -- MarcoTolo 16:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Outerlimits. JIP | Talk 16:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete and merge into rock hudson. too nn for his own article M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art Hauser

nn businessman. The Art Hauser Centre is named after him, but only because he donated $1M. Hirudo 01:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Text is an exact copy of part of [6]. Delete as copyvio. Kimchi.sg 04:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as copyvio. I've put Template:Copyvio on the article. --Icarus 04:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio (likely speedy, although I'm not altogether certain that the primary purpose of the page whence the text comes is commercial, which such a page must be for a copyvio to be speedied); weak delete irrespective of copyvio as nn businessman per WP:BIO. Probably appropriate to redirect to the Centre. Joe 04:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Not speedyable, it was created in February which is way past the 48 hours allowed under CSD. Kimchi.sg 05:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If I could, I'd go for a speedy here, but as it is, delete for blatant copyvio. Darquis 06:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Bhadani 07:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, possibly speedy as nn bio Computerjoe's talk 13:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn businessman --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a nn-bio and copyvio (hey, that rhymes). JIP | Talk 16:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by BorgHunter under CSD-A7 --Arnzy (Talk) 02:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VashTheStampede

Vanity Article by unremarkable person --—Preceding unsigned comment added by NightShade (talk • contribs)

  • Speedily Delete Patent nonsense. Tagged with {{db-nonsense}} --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed regular delete tag NightShade 02:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually you should'nt have removed the tag. The speedying admin would have seen the tag & would have closed this AFD. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "With his fearless army of sporks, he has waged a war against the Evil Isis who stole his possessive "S." Each battle proved to be a stalemate with each side losing sporks by the thousands until the Bental Bots were called in to restore peace to the land." This is entering BJAODN territory. Speedy delete. Aplomado - UTC 02:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rageshree Ramachandran

She's already in the Scripps National Spelling Bee list of winners. I don't think she needs her own article Hirudo 01:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. She won a national spelling bee. I think that makes her notable enough. Aplomado - UTC 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spelling bee winner. Dangerous precedent if kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with redirect. All notable info (name, year of victory and winning word) safely contained at parent article. Deizio 02:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn duplication. --Arnzy (Talk) 02:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with redirect. Ropcat 03:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with Starblind. If this is kept then there will be a flood of articles of the spelling bee winners & then even the runners-up will start getting articles. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 04:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, duplicate, nn. --Terence Ong 05:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Her notability stems from one incident already noted elsewhere. No need for the seperate article. Darquis 06:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Bhadani 07:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. DarthVader 09:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with redirect per Ropcat. Reyk YO! 11:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Deizio Computerjoe's talk 13:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 13:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. Same as Samantha Davis (now protected from re-creation!) --Sunfazer | Talk 13:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, spelling bees are spectaculary non-notable. JIP | Talk 16:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Aabha (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Five generations of computing

This was PRODded with the explanation "Badly done content fork of History of computing, possible copyvio / WP:OR issues." Somebody contested the PROD on the talk page, so I'm sending it here. I say Delete per PROD nom. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kedra Hart

Initially prodded as "Non-notable founder of non-notable company." Prod tag was removed by creator without explanation. Google search returns 5 unique hits. ScottW 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete looks very NN. Could be spam. --Bachrach44 02:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:BIO with assist from WP:CORP. Mind you, spam never smelled so good. Deizio 02:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    Copyvio from [7] Deizio 02:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Copyvio per Deiz. --Arnzy (Talk) 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've put up the {{copyvio}} tag per Deizio -- Hirudo 02:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Note that the article's original creator has removed the AfD tag and CopyVio tag since the last comment here. Ropcat 03:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Restored the AFD & Copyvio tags & warned user. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 04:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom, which was per me, the prodder. ;) Wickethewok 04:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 05:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE I wrote the article. It's a modified version of something I wrote for free for the Opus Oils website. Everything is true, but I took it down because of the hassle. I sincerely apologise. P.S. There is no copyright violation. You can contact the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywoodtrim (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom and creator. DarthVader 09:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Nom. --Holy Cows 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episodic Metagames

I don't think this is an accepted part of gaming vocabulary, and it seems to be an essay by the authors that has no place in an encyclopedia. jaco♫plane 02:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NEO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarianofages (talk • contribs)
    • Comment - Sorry that was me, un-coordinated today: Librarianofages 02:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Neologism, barely any Google hits. - Hahnchen 02:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above; WP:NEO; WP:OR. --Muchness 04:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, OR. Kimchi.sg 04:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, original research. --Terence Ong 06:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. OR. DarthVader 09:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO, WP:OR --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - NEO, original reserach -Trjn 14:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone else. JIP | Talk 16:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete... "emerging"?! Once it has emerged, then we'll keep it. GarrettTalk 21:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. OR -- apparently not neologism, as the term has been around a while -- although the concept has been around longer. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Oils

Promotional information for a non-notable company. Twenty-three unique google hits. Prod tag was removed without comment. ScottW 02:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Reads like spam, i.e. "Clients often comment on how potent and long lasting their products are…" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, adspam Deizio 02:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Copyvio from [8]. Deizio 02:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I was going to suggest {{advert}}, myself. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that the author has tried to blank his own article, [9] should we take that as db-author? Kimchi.sg 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - defo delete per nom. Wickethewok 04:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 05:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 06:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE I wrote the article because I thought these guys were cool. It's all true and can be backed up. Contact the company. I sincerely apologise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywoodtrim (talk • contribs)
    • Response - No harm, no foul. Enjoy your future editing! Wickethewok 07:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedied, can be re-created and improved though. Tawker 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dennison's

speedy delete advertising, no info or history on product. Librarianofages 02:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - advertising. - Richardcavell 03:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 04:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The company meets WP:CORP but not in its current form. SorryGuy 05:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn company, advertising. I would rather the article be recreated as a better piece of work. --Terence Ong 11:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: unfortunately, advertising is not part of the speedy delete criteria. Also, I would say that the "A3" (no content whatsoever) tag currently on the article is a stretch. The article is more than a rephrasing of the title and it is clear what it is talking about. -- Kjkolb 16:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Dsmdgold 17:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persephone (band)

Delete NN Librarianofages 02:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • No Vote - clearly notable in Austria, but cant find information on whether they charted or not. --Arnzy (Talk) 02:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per nom. 36 unique Ghits, nothing noteworthy even on their own website. Kimchi.sg 16:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason given for deletion. Stifle (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if even their own website has nothing noteworthy... M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't seem to be particularly notable. Their own website isn't very illuminating as to anything special about them. Zaxem 10:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holland & Hart

NN as per WP:CORP: Librarianofages 02:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, only 253 unique Ghits. [10] Kimchi.sg 04:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think it is important enough. - Richardcavell 04:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • comment but notable enough under WP:CORP

Criteria for companies and corporations A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion excludes: Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. 1 Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. 2 The company or corporation is listed on ranking indexes, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies. 3 4 The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices 5 6. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded. ?

  • Comment: there is a link to WP:CORP (no need to copy conditions, we can read these conditions on original page). But, do I need to investigate notability? If the company meets WP:CORP as you claim (which criteria), prove this with certain external sources. I suppose you checked all these criteria, do you? --MaNeMeBasat 07:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. "Largest law firm in ROcky Mountains" reasonable claim of notability, 180,000+ Google hits; Google News shows firm mentioned an average of once a day in news media (most recent two weeks). Monicasdude 22:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Monicasdude. JoshuaZ 03:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Ontario Model United Nations Assembly

de-PRODed. Model UN Groups/conferences are generally considered NN or Vain, this one included. Mystache 03:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merged with Adam Savage. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I reject your reality and substitute my own

It's a comment from the host of a mildly popular show. While I love the show, and it's a great line, this doesn't deserve an article. UsaSatsui 03:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep useful phrase, commonly quoted.
  • Strong Merge EDIT with Adam Savage's article : Librarianofages 03:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Richardcavell 03:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no merge, no redirect. I like the show, and I try to watch it every week, but I agree with the nominator. It may merit a mention in the article on Adam Savage, the guy who said it. Brian G. Crawford 03:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment apologies I got confused, I meant Adam, not Jamie! Librarianofages 03:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Adam Savage. BryanG 04:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Brian G. Crawford. Kimchi.sg 04:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Adam Savage. SorryGuy 05:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Librarianofages Darquis 06:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I was wondering how long this article would last. If Wikiquote takes information on the events surrounding a particular quote, transwiki. If not (or in addition to), merge to Adam Savage, or failing that, delete. -- Saberwyn 11:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Adam Savage. --Eivindt@c 11:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. --Tango 18:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Adam Savage. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Already mentioned in both Adam Savage's and Mythbusters's articles, no need to keep this cruft - Hobbeslover 03:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep it why would you not keep it it's a very popular saying no reason to get rid of it it sheds light on the phrase

  • I'll tell you why. For one, despite it's "popularity", I've yet to hear it outside of the show itself. It has not seen any significant use in pop culture I'm aware of. It's not even really a catchphrase, as Adam himself doesn't really repeat it. Second, everything witty or famous that's said doesn't get its own article. Even famous lines like "May the Force be with you", which might deserve thier own article, don't get one. Finally, it doesn't even really shed light on the phrase. All it says is "Adam said it, and he probably pulled it from an obscure movie". There's nothing that can really be added to that. Heck, the page was created with the quote attributed to the wrong guy. How can it be notable if the page creator doesn't even know who said it? --UsaSatsui 00:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It is notable. You must not be hanging out with nerdy enough people who watch movies like The Dungeonmaster. My brother went crazy when he heard Adam say that. Not only that, but I looked it up as an adjunct to the Adam Savage article just now, because I wanted to see the full history of the phrase itself. Keep it! CuteGargoyle 04:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
From my experience, this phrase it particularly well known and directly associated to MythBusters, as well as being quoted enough to enter Pop Culture quotes. However, I think this page should stay, as I think the quote needs to be properly referenced as not originally coming from MythBusters. Alternatively, chuck The Dungeonmaster link in the main Mythbusters article ~ Anklepants
You guys keep saying that the article explains the "history" of the quote. I'm sorry, but there is no real "history" besides "it came from a movie made in 1985. Adam said it 20 years later on his TV show, maybe borrowing from that movie". That's it. It's not even something he says all the time, like a catchphrase. Unless you can pull out a source to prove it's gone beyond just Adam, I'm not convinced it's worth a whole article, expecially one this small that will never really grow. I agree with the Merge votes. That can be easily done, and won't deprive anyone of information. --UsaSatsui 06:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DUNSA

de-PRODed. Model United Nations Group/Conference -- NN, Vain, or unencyclopedic. take your pick. Mystache 03:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. Kimchi.sg 04:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think it's important enough to belong. - Richardcavell 04:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There is one of these in South Australia. It's just a debating club and they organize social events, etc. completely nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. DarthVader 09:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 12:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be a fairly prominent students' association in the Netherlands, and certainly not less notable than many others in Category:Youth model governments or Category:Student societies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Yet antother student club with no impact whatsoever on the outside world. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, perhaps more notable than most such groups, but still just a student association. -- Kjkolb 16:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete none of these model UNs are even remotely notable. --Eivindt@c 17:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, Vain, AND unencyclopedic. Beno1000 00:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pitchcare

Fails WP:WEB jmd 03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 04:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity spam advertisement - Richardcavell 04:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Richardcavell. --Icarus 04:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. SorryGuy 05:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 20:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Ten Burrito

non-notable/vanity

  • Delete. I nominated the page for deletion because the article doesn't make any claim for the restaurant's notability; from the article text, it seems to be just another burrito shop. In addition, the article was created by someone with the username "BTB," which, as the article states, is the acronym for the restaurant; this (along with "BTB"'s edit summary of "Big Ten Burrito is SOOOO good") leads me to think it's a vanity page by the owner or manager. Ropcat 03:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising jmd
  • Delete, though it could have been an overenthusiastic student who created this while munching on a tasty burrito. Kimchi.sg 04:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - advertising. - Richardcavell 05:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. DarthVader 09:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad, nn. --Terence Ong 12:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN, fails WP:CORP, probably counts as an advertisment.... take your pick. -- MarcoTolo 16:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom... besides, Pacheros has the best burritos in East Lansing, Michigan.--Isotope23 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, advertisement, WP:CORP. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, no consensus for merge, see WP:MERGE if you want to pursue that. P.S. Lost sucks. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desmond (Lost)

Minor character of series with next to no information available. Not notable. Duplicative of information already in the summary article Characters of Lost. PKtm 03:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into Characters of Lost. BryanG 04:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • i think this pag should stay as it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.234.32 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge into Characters of Lost --Eivindt@c 11:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because we'll be adding it shortly anyway! SergeantBolt 11:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Characters of Lost. --Terence Ong 12:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Knowing that the season finale will be about him, more information will be available. --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 13:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back into Characters of Lost where it belongs. He has only appeared on a few episodes and even if the season finale will feature him, that is not enough for an entire encyclopedia article. Danflave 18:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- he's going to get a flashback episode in a few weeks, we're going to learn a whole lot, i say keep it. rose and bernard get their own articles, and desmond should too. 207.76.182.20 19:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per SergeantBolt... since it appears that "flashback" is the criteria for a character getting their own article, this will be recreated in a few weeks... Of course if merge is the consensus then someone just needs to go back before the redirect edit that will be left, edit the historical article, and add to it with the new info... so it's not really a big deal either way; keep just saves the admins some time!--Isotope23 19:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge until there's discussion on whether this page is needed. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. per SergeantBolt. If you must, I say that you wait and reconsider deleting this page on May 25th. -- Wikipedical 00:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Using that logic, this page should not have been created before May 25. Jtrost (T | C | #) 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Basically, you are questioning the idea of an article on a future event. Look at a page on a future award show for example. Should we delete the page on the next Oscar Awards because we don't have enough information to fill it in as of now? It's more of a reference, which is encyclopedic. In practice on Wikipedia, if a character gets a flashback episode, they get a page. Articles with confirmed future events are on Wikipedia and should should remain to be. Desmond will get a flashback episode on May 24th, just as the 79th Academy Awards will be held on February 25, 2007. -- Wikipedical 21:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you cite an official source that says Desmond will have a flashback? Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you cite an official source that says he won't? I agree with Wikipedical in that we should wait, until we know for sure that either he will not be having his own flashback episode or that there wasn't enough information about him at the end of the season. I don't think we should delete or change things radically immediately before some potential new information arises. We'll find out in 3 weeks either way I guess. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That does not make any sense. You cannot keep adding information based on what you think will happen, what spoiler sites say, and what people speculate on message boards. You people need to stop treating Wikipedia like a fansite. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • and you need to stop claiming falsely that we are treating Wikipedia like a fansite. I'm not predicting the future or pretending even that Desmond will have a flashback episode, in fact I want just the opposite. What I'm saying is simply that we wait until the end of the season (3 more eps) to know for sure what will happen (or is that considered a prediction that the season will end at all?). ArgentiumOutlaw 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is the article as it stands now is not sufficent to stand on its own. If, at a later point, enough information is available to warrent splitting off this article, then do so, but now is not the time. It's not like the info in this article will be destoyed, just (probably) merged into Characters of Lost. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is, it's not like recreating the article (if it becomes necessary) would be that time-consuming. BryanG 04:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's easier not to do anything at all, than to re organize the information twice. We can just wait a week or two to find out is my only point here. ArgentiumOutlaw 06:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Jtrost is right, it makes no sense. We can't cite an official source that Turbine Guy won't have a flashback episode either, but that's not an excuse to give him his own page. I'm starting to think, I hate to say, that keeping Lost pages free of fancruft is almost impossible, given its immense popularity and the endless supply of enthusiastic newcomers to Wikipedia at the same time. Having these recurring debates about fundamental Wikipedia tenets (e.g., verifiability, not a crystal ball, etc.) is utterly exhausting. -- PKtm 00:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You're comparing Desmond and Turbine Guy? Do I even have to explain to you how much more important Desmond is (and how much more not dead he is)? Please give less extreme and less ridiculous examples to try and make your point. ArgentiumOutlaw 04:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The point PKtm was making was valid: you've asked for a "proof" of a negative proposition, which is logically not possible. Please understand, those who are arguing for deletion aren't trying to block new and interesting content from Wikipedia just 'cause we don't like someone or something; rather, we're aiming to keep the information in articles accurate and verifiable, based on the most reliable sources we have available. This is as important for fictional material, such as Lost as for non-fictional ones. Many times, the sort of things someone might like to include here is actually closer to what's on personal/fan sites than what should be part of an encyclopaedia. Not everything is necessary to be written up as a separate article immediately; some things, such as minor fictional characters, should wait until there's enough notable information to warrant their presentation as individual articles. I would ask that you give such material a bit more time to be developed, with appropriate deliberation and consideration. There may be a time for this article; that time is just not yet. —LeflymanTalk 05:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't recall claiming that pktm made an invalid point. Instead of focusing on the actual point of my comment, you both just focused directly on my single rhetorical question (which doesn't technically make sense I must admit, but I put there to make a point anyway). I'm getting kind of tired of repeating my view, so I wont say it again. ArgentiumOutlaw 06:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & wait per Wikipedical. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasons already mentioned above. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ---"--- Jon Harald Søby 11:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete and redirect to Characters of Lost page, as this article is completely redundant. Those arguing for "Keep" are doing so for entirely un-Wikipedia reasons. At the point at which this minor character becomes notable, then the character can merit a separate article. At this time, he is yet another of the many characters in Lost about whom as of now we know next-to-nothing. Wikipedia:Fiction says: Non-notable minor characters... in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." Note to those saying "Merge": unless you state "Delete" as your preference, your vote may not be counted as contrary to "Keep"—LeflymanTalk 03:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep For reasons stated above Ixistant 17:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Characters of Lost. Please see WP:WWIN. Stifle (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Characters of Lost page. As Wikipedia:Fiction says: Non-notable minor characters... in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." Rillian 17:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Wait at least until the end of the season, which is only a couple of weeks away, and then decide in the interum. It would be stupid to delete an article and then re-add it two weeks later just because. Two weeks won't kill anyone, it won't hurt anyone, and no one will remember this conversation anyway. And if, at the end of the season, it still deserves deletion, I can't imagine any rational person objecting. But for now, just let it stay, and don't be premature. Nerrolken 21:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with other Lost-cruft. Mike Dillon 22:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was.........................(nothing happens for 45 minutes) redirected to Characters of Lost. OR IS IT? TUNE IN NEXT WEEK! --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goodwin (Lost)

Minor character of series with next to no information available. Not notable. Duplicative of information already in the summary article Characters of Lost. -- PKtm 12:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge/redirect into Characters of Lost. BryanG 04:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect We should try to keep the characters of various shows clustered in articles instead of separated. This provides greater parsimony. Kukini 05:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Characters of Lost. --Terence Ong 12:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Characters of Lost, very minor and dead character which most fans can't remember their face. Until the character is majorly developed in the coming seasons, the article should be merged. --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 13:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete info already contained in Characters of Lost Danflave 18:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Danflave.--Isotope23 19:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Danflave. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect not notable enough to be on his own, he was only in one episode with no grand importance. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge all relevent info back onto Characters page. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Characters of Lost page, as this article is completely redundant. At the point at which this minor character becomes notable, then the character can merit a separate article. At this time, he is yet another of the many characters in Lost which as of now we know next-to-nothing about. Wikipedia:Fiction says: Non-notable minor characters... in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." (Note to those saying "Merge": unless you state "Delete" as your preference, your vote may not be counted as contrary to "Keep".)—LeflymanTalk 03:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to Characters of Lost. Perhaps I shouldn't have given that the numbers are for outright deletion, but redirects are cheap, and if that doesn't satisfy you, let's pretend that I have dysfunctional parents, like everyone on the goddamn planet, apparently. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Littleton (Lost)

Minor character of series with next to no information available. Not notable. Duplicative of information on Characters of Lost. PKtm 03:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We have created articles for those in the main cast and, recently, for those who have had their own flashback episodes. Danflave 19:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
In which case - Delete - this is redundant and replicates information already available Barneyboo (Talk) 03:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected back to Thomas Robinson, 1st Baron Grantham. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Robinson

  • 6 May 2006: I attend school with this individual and while he is an intellect, the article is misleading. Delete it and redirect to Thomas Robinson, 1st Baron Grantham.
  • NN. Possible Vanity. College student with no mention of published works. Fails WP:BIO. Before April 30th, 2006, the article was a redirect to Thomas Robinson, 1st Baron Grantham, so a revert in lieu of deletion might be in order. -- Ichabod 04:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • We can well afford to wait until this "up-and-coming writer" makes it big. Delete per nom then change it back into a redirect to the Baron. Kimchi.sg 04:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Revert to redirect per nom. --Icarus 05:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Revert to redirect per above. DarthVader 09:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Revert to redirect (though I feel like a bloody Greek chorus. -- MarcoTolo 16:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It's appropriate, considering the hubris of Tmr04a. Thatcher131 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Revert to redirect. Possible hoax, I don't think there's any writer, notable or not, called Thomas Robinson in Finland. Or am I supposed to read this article from another nation? JIP | Talk 16:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks like someone needs to track down and clean up all of Tmr04a (talk · contribs) contributions. Thatcher131 23:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete this content and restore redirect to Baron whatshisname. Thatcher131 13:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hey I'm the Thomas Robinson that the article is talking about and, while I do have aspirations as a writer, I have no reason to have my own wikipedia page. This page was written by one of my friends without my knowledge. I'm sorry for the problems it may have caused, and please feel free to delete away. Tmr04a WAS my username, but I was dumb enough to share my password with others. I wrote a couple of serious articles that, in my opinion, do not deserve deletion, but any written under that username that seem rediculous should be deleted quickly. Again I apologize for the inconveniance, and I wish there was some way I could clean up my own mess.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Djfrolikk (talk • contribs)
Thanks for letting us know. I left a longer message on your user talk page. Thatcher131 11:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to Characters of Lost. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leslie Artz (Lost)

  • Delete. Minor character of series with next to no information available. Not notable. Duplicative of information on Characters of Lost. Character's name is even misspelled in article's title. PKtm 04:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Characters of Lost, just like the rest. Darquis 06:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge, oh my god this is too much, I mean making an article about about Rose and Bernard is ok but this, what's next? a page about the extras! --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 13:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge what's with all the Lostcruft? --Eivindt@c 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Name misspelled and minor character - info already on Characters of Lost page Danflave 18:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Characters of Lost per PKtm.--Isotope23 19:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Characters of Lost per PKtm. Rillian 21:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge As above. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Characters of Lost page, as this article is completely redundant. At this time, he is yet another of the many characters in Lost which as of now we know next-to-nothing about. Wikipedia:Fiction says: Non-notable minor characters... in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." (Note to those saying "Merge": unless you state "Delete" as your preference, your vote may not be counted as contrary to "Keep")—LeflymanTalk 03:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Liberatore(T) 16:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Directed Studies

This article is not about "directed studies" in general, just a program by that name at a single university. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An individual academic program at a university is generally too narrow a topic to warrant an article of its own. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 04:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Yale is notable enough, and this course is widely known, so I say keep. - Richardcavell 04:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Directed Studies at Yale University per Richardcavell. Kimchi.sg 04:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless this course/program has lead to some kind of success and results in terms of academic achievement, I fail to see how a random university course/subject is notable. It's not as though there is a suggestion that this program won intervarsity competitions for the university or anything similar.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough, no reason to expect article to grow beyond the content on the program's own website, which, if notable enough, could be linked to from the main Yale University article. --Ajdz 05:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is, unless the term "directed studies" is used to describe great books programs elswhere. If so, then rename per Kimchi and maybe merge some of it with Great Books. 216.227.122.37 05:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this curriculum is no more notable than the thousands of others currently present at American universities. — GT 05:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think this is suitable for it's own article. Would merging it with the Yale article be feasible? Darquis 06:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Yale's page is already huge, and Wikipedia's not paper. PRRfan 12:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep just as we keep PPE. Batmanand | Talk 15:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per GT. -- Kjkolb 16:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, extremely well-known and internationally recognized program, e.g., [11] Monicasdude 22:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Is anybody else getting a broken link for Monicasdude's link?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Response. Link fixed. I lost the very last character in the URL, but it looked OK after I cut-and-pasted (.htm rather than .html). Monicasdude 00:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ajdz & Blnguyen. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep--this page is interesting and part of the larger movement of core programs in the humanities, which popped up in America in the mid-to-second-half of the 20th century.

  • Keep & rename without redirect Academic programs should usualy be merged into the schools page if possible, but the Yale page is huge. If there are existing pages on appropriate parts of Yale, this program couple be merged to one of those, and the new name couple become a redirect. JeffBurdges 14:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, an uni may be reputed but all of its courses need not be. Also, there is very little academic support (almost nil relevant web hits) for the course outside the uni. --soUmyaSch 14:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kuzaar 00:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak Keep and rename per Monicasdude's citation. It is a notable program. JoshuaZ 03:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • First preference: Smerge to Yale University, second preference: rename to Directed Studies at Yale University. Stifle (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Splints

De-prodded by creator/sole contributor without explanation. Does not appear to meet any of the WP:MUSIC guidelines for notability. The beginning of the article is copyvio from the band's website, and the last section is shamelessly POV and outright admits that this band is not yet notable (i.e. the encouragment to become a fan now so you can say later that you liked them before they were well-known). The article says that they have an EP scheduled for release some time this year, but they apparently don't have any singles, EPs, or albums out yet. Icarus 04:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • "All in all the article on The Splints is bound for greatness fails WP:MUSIC, so go listen to them delete this right now." Ok, well maybe not "right now", but... :-) Kimchi.sg 05:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kukini 05:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web.py

A piece of software that appears to have been released in January 2006. Neither the article nor the website indicate any particular notability (see WP:SOFTWARE), and Wikipedia is not a software directory. Contested PROD. Sandstein 04:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. We should have an article on C:\Windows\System32\Urlmon.dll first. :-P Kimchi.sg 05:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing special --Bachrach44 16:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, in a world where there was no good way to dispatch urls in a sound manner, the actual solution is 'something special'. --Dafuchs 01:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable python scripts are a dime a dozen. ergot 19:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That is why we should include the notable ones;) --Dafuchs 01:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kimchi.sg. Oh wow, a bit of software written by ASwartz. Before we do this, we need an article about that one letter that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote to that one guy. In other words, just because you're notable doesn't mean everything you do is notable (and the other way around). I have heard of this piece of software before (first time through Wikipedia though!), but it's probably not that widely used compared to, say, Turbogears or Django. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Go ahead, guys, no skin off my back. Sorry that you all wasted the flames, though.--Tmcw 00:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well it lakes the hype of TurboGears, but it is used for more production sites than tg. I assume that tg is not yet suitable for large scale projects. --Dafuchs 01:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Todays python web frameworks are a shame. web.py is one of the few that get it right. I think it is definitely notable. --Dafuchs 01:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • We're not questioning whether or not it's a good web framework - we cover awful stuff and great stuff alike without passing judgement to either way. What we're questioning if it's used widely enough, if it has gained enough fame. Something that has been just released in January probably isn't notable just yet. If you can produce media mentions or like, that'll probably help a bit. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Django has been released in July 2005 and the first version of the article dates back to 16. July 2005. This is the great advantage of wp, "never outdated";).--Dafuchs 12:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Please attempt to tell us exactly how this software is notable according to our software notability guidelines. Pointing here and there to another random article, as you have just done, is just dodging the crucial question and making your replies much less respectable each time. You'll have wasted so many seconds typing on the keyboard without convincing anyone not to remove this article. Kimchi.sg 13:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying you shouldn't make articles about really new things. All I'm saying you shouldn't make articles about really new things unless there's proof that it's really popular and notable - look at Main Page to see the news box, new articles on newsworthy events that shake the world. Rails had an article much much before 1.0 release, and I approved that exactly because new uses were springing up all the time and IT media couldn't shut up about it (and they still can't!). But let's not talk about those articles - let's talk about the multitude of websites and gigantic media buzz targeted at Web.py, shall we? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, can't see any reason why this software is so major that it should have an article in an encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A7. Tawker 05:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Doerner (economist)

This is an article for a "doctoral candidate." Does not comply with WP:BIO and his only other claim to faim is having allegedly written several opinion editorials. Delete. --Hetar 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee C. Rogers

Was a speedy but published author, might be notable. Tawker 05:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete looks like an average doctor to me, albeit with publications (in a narrow field, might not reach the audience of 5,000 or more required by WP:BIO). Kimchi.sg 05:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete also. Having published a few books does not seem to meet criteria for wikipedia. Notability may still be added, thus the weak on this delete. Kukini 05:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm really not much for autobiographies. They feel too much like the person is just trying to get the word out about his practice or occupation (and possibly say, "I'm so cool, I'm listed in Wikipedia!") rather than actually contribute to the encyclopedia as a regular editor. This, of course, is a general statement and not referring directly to Dr. Rogers, who may well be willing to be a regular contributor. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete notable but not notable enough. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AndyZ 15:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William L. Durkin

Article suggests might be notable not not sure, was previously a speedy Tawker 05:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Howard Hughes, famous only because of the incident mentioned in the article. Google suggests nothing else about him. Kimchi.sg 05:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if it is the only thing he is famous for, his notoriety was significant enough for his death to make all the wire services. The Associated Press refers to him as a hero in their article on him. Why wouldn't an 89 year old hero rate an article? If I were reading about someone risking his life to rescue a billionaire, I would want more info on that person. Who was he? What happened to him? Was he rewarded or otherwise offered compensation for his efforts? Such an event has often changed the outcome of an individual's life. What happened in this case? All of this is beyond the scope of an article on Howard Hughes. Most importantly, I should be able to find all of this on wikipedia, and not have to go to some other site to get it. Hebron 05:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a good read, merits attention, and adds to the overall picture. Redirecting it to the Hughes page confuses the bold line between the two. Check-Six 06:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as separate article. Nick Fraser 06:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 13:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a seperate article. Yamaguchi先生 18:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hebron. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Good article RFD 18:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Howard Hughes, since his interaction with him seems to be the only notable thing about him. Zaxem 10:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hebron--Looper5920 11:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was deleted by The Land, who evidently forgot to close this afd. Chick Bowen 02:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cruise staff

Deprodded. A dicdef, somewhat tautological.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sudden Death Records

not notable, no information other than that needed to promote commercial product Richardcavell 05:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete advertisement. Kimchi.sg 05:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Bhadani 07:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, advertisement. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Save This page has now been updated with recent and credible information and provides an efficient source for anyone interested in learning more about this company. I would suggest keeping it.


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

The result of the debate was Delete The Land 20:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo-variety

Possibly a neologism. Single link to blog entry, no other ghits other than for an unrelated term in group theory. Created by a user putting up lots of new pages with what appears to be OR. Hornplease 05:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as currently written. Although with some good addition and sourcing, it might be demonstrated to not be a neologism. Kukini 05:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as covert linkspam. (Article title is the title of the linked blog post.) We do not need another word to describe oligopoly. Kimchi.sg 05:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - though it needs to be rewritten, the idea is real. - Richardcavell 06:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Ahem. Not to make too big a deal of it, but even if the idea is real, WP isnt the place to coin new words describing it. As kimchi says, there's a well-written article on oligopoly already. Hornplease 06:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
That article on oligopoly doesn't mention the concept being discussed in pseudo-variety. The term 'pseudo-variety' is probably grammatically incorrect (should be pseudovariety or False abundance of product choice or something like that) - Richardcavell 06:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually you're right, the oligopoly article is pretty basic. I've just rewritten a bit of it and put in the appropriate link to the product differentiation article. But the above thing is still a neologism. Hornplease 06:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Could we have a reason? Thanks. Hornplease
That depends. Is it mandatory for me to state a reason? --TheMadTim 15:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
If not mandatory, then at least customary, so that other users have access to a broader set of viewpoints. Hornplease 16:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The site quoted as a source describes this as a neologism, one of three being proposed in that blog. Actually, "protologism" might be the correct term, since (as far as I can tell) this term is only being used in this context on one blog and, now, wikipedia. Never mind, Google makes it look like this term might actually be in use in this context. No vote. ergot 00:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure? there's a similar term in mathematics. I haven't been able to find any other ghits. Hornplease 04:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right. Looking at the results more closely now, the only other examples of usage in this exact context are a PDF and a "buzzword dictionary" (www.buzzwhack.com) whose content is getting reproduced as filler on other sites. Beyond that, we have the site being referenced as this article's source describing the term as a neologism. Changing my vote back to delete. Apologies for cluttering up this AfD with my indecisiveness. ergot 17:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, hard-to-verify neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete The Land 20:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flobo

Nonsense drunkcruft game, made this year. WP:NOT for something made up in a day (while drunk). Prod removed. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 05:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems like an interesting game, it is not for one person to decide whether it is a worthwhile entry or not. The article should stay.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.196 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment By the same token, it's not for one person (you) to decide it is worthwhile. Everyone who wants one will get a say. Darquis 06:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 06:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. How about four people? Hornplease 06:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Unless, that is, people want to Keep and Merge with Princeton. Happy with that as well. Hornplease
Comment I doubt that this pastime of a few students should be officially related to Princeton University.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Should have specified: that was humour. Ha ha. Hornplease
  • Delete I agree, the game sounds interesting, but as it is now, it's not up to Wikistandards. So let's make it five people. Darquis 06:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--blue520 07:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dylan 12:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic, fails WP:NOT, etc. -- MarcoTolo 16:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per MarcoTolo. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of if it seems like it was made up in a day, it looks like something that would be awesome to play. I for one am going to try it out right now. Unless it sucks, I say keep it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.180.8.103 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 2 May 2006.

There are far more esoteric and useless entries on Wikipedia than this. At least some people reading this article may be inclined to try out a new game. I see no reason to delete it. At worst, it could potentially be merged with the existing Robopound page. infix 23:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a drinking game, after all, and it seems an interesting one at that. Just because it was created this year doesn't mean it should immediately be deleted.

The game is gaining popularity and is already widely played at Princeton University. An article on Flobo should be in Wikipedia. If anything the article needs judicious editing. If there is an article on Robopound there should be an article on Flobo.

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

The result of the debate was Delete, The Land 20:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Meyer

  • Delete Does not assert notability failing WP:N and fails WP:V with using a yahoo search for 'Michael Meyer Comedian' only finding on real match being this Wikipedia page. [12] Jersey Devil 05:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - agreed. - Richardcavell 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. 06:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - maybe re-create as a redirect to Mike Myers? Grutness...wha? 13:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable (sub)-stub. Not enough to even begin to determine if it fails WP:Vanity. -- MarcoTolo 16:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 G7: "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request.". --JoanneB 22:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Pasquale

  • Delete - Appears to be an autobiography and/or vanity page. Subject may be notable, but, if so, probably best merged somewhere else. WilliamThweatt 05:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because it's vanity - Richardcavell 06:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Also, please note that the author/subject has blanked the page other than the AfD tag. Darquis 06:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. If the sole author blanks the page, that's a speedy delete under WP:CSD G7. --Metropolitan90 07:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Metropolitan90. --Icarus 07:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough (more notable than the average professional baseball player). Holder of named professorship at a major research university (University of California, San Diego), and has a number of decently-cited papers on Google Scholar, including one cited 132 times.[13] Blanking by author in response to a probably humiliating AfD request should not be a reason to delete. As I see it, blanking without provocation is a different matter. u p p l a n d 08:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Uppland. Blanking your own page in response to an AfD is perfectly normal, but shouldnt be encouraged to happen. Also, I think the individual in question is notable enough. Hornplease 08:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've unblanked it so ppl can see what were voting on. He merits inclusion per Uppland. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I've written articles on professors who were more qualified than this (Harold Luntz is a world expert on Western torts law, quoted in the highest courts of the UK, USA and Australia) and they were AfD'ed. Let's be consistent. - Richardcavell 09:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see any incoming links from an AfD page to Harold Luntz - when was it on AfD? It seems from the deletion log that it was actually speedy deleted. It is quite likely that it would have survived had it ever come to AfD. u p p l a n d 10:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
        • You're right. It was speedy-deleted by User:Vegaswikian. I'm not happy about it, because if I can't have the leading expert in English language torts law then I don't see why Joseph Pasquale should be in. - Richardcavell 10:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
          • It seems Harold Luntz was improperly tagged {{nn-bio}} and speedy deleted by a hurried admin. You should repost the article, and could put it on AfD yourself just to stop it from being speedy deleted again if you believe there is any danger in that. Don't bother with Wikipedia:Deletion review (where nobody except admins can actually see the content), just make sure his importance is clear from the article. Some people put nn-bio tags on anything and anybody they haven't heard of, and admins don't always have time to look closely at everything; it doesn't mean that the deletion was actually in accordance with any policy. The {{nn-bio}} tag is supposed to be for school students writing about themselves and their buddies, and that kind of thing, very explicity not for cases like this. And that deletion obviously can't be used as an argument to delete other professors. Have you had any other articles deleted? u p p l a n d 10:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Okay, I've re-created the biography of Harold Luntz and I'll put it through AfD. - Richardcavell 11:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - makes a claim of academic eminence that amounts to notability in my eyes. Metamagician3000 13:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep If the article is true, he's more notable than the average professor. Needs references though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep. Probably just clears the bar - needs work. -- MarcoTolo 16:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears notable—who wrote it has no bearing on that. -- SCZenz 16:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the sole author blanked the page (someone else restored it) and he does not seem to that much more notable than an average professor. -- Kjkolb 16:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems more notable than average due to the fact that he holds a named professorship. RicDod 16:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand making his noteworthiness clear. In relation to Harold Luntz, it is quite often that articles will be nominated for CSD if the article does not emphasise the notability of the subject and sometimes even if it does. Admins should check what links here and occasionally do a Google search before making a decision. Justin Hinds, a notable Jamaican ska singer was nominated because the article didn't demonstrate notability before I expanded it. Capitalistroadster 18:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, holds named chair in important university system, very substantial Google scholar presence. Monicasdude 22:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Just look at the list of PhD students (and the publication list). JeffBurdges 14:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vatical_Entertainment

While there are a lot of ghits, most of them are on pages discussing the games this company produced - the last one came out in 2000 or 2002. I can't find anything that discusses the company itself; the company site has turned into a search portal; and this page has become a magnet for vandals.Jamoche 06:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:CORP]. Kimchi.sg 15:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • From the company that gave you AMF Xtreme Bowling and Catwoman II: Dogman. Honestly it looks like nothing but an invitation for vandals to add nonsense titles to the list. More importantly it fails WP:CORP. Delete --Eivindt@c 18:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:CORP. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Presswood

Does not appear to assert sufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. And I bet he's a fake. The use of a huge version of the coat of arms on the page just shouts "I'm a fake!" to me. Average Earthman 08:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Descended from Charlemagne, indeed. Everyone in Europe is descended from Charlemagne. Do we give them all pages? (Sometimes it feels like we do.) Hornplease 08:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- vanity. Reyk YO! 11:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsourced and does not presently satisfy WP:BIO. PJM 14:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete although the fact that he lives with Enya is maybe of interest to some of the redtops sorry I misread the article, WP:VANITY. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, nn. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 01:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Heart

Bio of web broadcaster, whose real name is "Bernardo Hipos", created by Crazyberns (talk · contribs) -- Hmm, vanity? Prod tag removed by creator, who also created the up-for-deletion Cruise staff and the now-speedily-deleted Bernie's vlog. Calton | Talk 06:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No discernable signs of notability. IrishGuy 06:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ra2 forums

Delete. Not-notable. Does not seem to have notability in line with WP:WEB bdude - uwantit TalkCont. 06:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - strange instructions within the text; an overt ad to feed people into this website. - Richardcavell 06:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--blue520 07:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. (Note that there are multiple forums with the same name, or so says Google.) Kimchi.sg 16:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE. Non-notable & vanity. Owner of said forums is very hard to deal with, and is also very irritating. I used to work for him. -RFS


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martha Johnstone

Prod removed by article's creator, no explanation given. Redirect to movie's main article reverted by article's creator, again with no explanation given. This character is not notable enough to merit a separate article, and this article is little more a summary of one specific scene from the movie. This article should be redirected to the movie's main page, as the only other article (that I know of) about a character from this movie's has been for being unencyclopedic. Icarus 07:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect as per nom. Also POV issues in article. Darquis 08:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You are attempting to suppress the truth. Other notable fictional characters are listed and described throughout Wikipedia at discreet entries. Your comments are therefore unencyclopedic. Hahbie 05:46, 1 May 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)

  • This isn't part of the encyclopedia, this is a discussion on AfD. And the entry *does* have POV issues. I vote to Delete, the character is extremely minor and I don't see anything here that is worth merging. Danny Lilithborne 09:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep You are attempting to suppress the truth. This fictional character is sufficiently notable as to have warranted the drafting and entry of the subject article. This fictional character's existence is at present constituted by the one specific scene. This character was deemed important enough to be depicted photographically on the packaging of the Region 1 DVD of the film. You fail to distinguish objective notability from subjective notability. The purported standard "not notable enough" is void for vagueness. Other notable fictional characters are listed and described throughout Wikipedia at discreet entries. The article is neither misleading, nor is it inaccurate. The content of the article is not profanely expressed. The article is therefore of sufficient merit. Hahbie 10:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You're saying the article deserves to exist because it exists. That's circular reasoning. And accusing those who vote against keeping the article of "trying to suppress the truth" is bad faith. It's a character in a movie; I fail to see where truth becomes an issue here. Danny Lilithborne 11:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Minor character in one movie. In the IMDB cast list, this character was listed 27th. Fan1967 12:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I state that this fictional character is notable, because I deemed this fictional character notable, and because such notability is entirely objectively assessable, except to those persons who are politically or invidiously opposed to the inherent statement made by the visible and visual expression of the character's social minority. The article is of sufficient merit for all of the reasons originally stated. Hahbie 14:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So, your argument is (a) the character is notable because you said so and (b) anyone who disagrees must be "politically or invidiously opposed to the inherent statement made by the visible and visual expression of the character's social minority." I'm guessing, in trying to translate that phrase into English, that you're trying to claim we're all prejudiced against large women? Fan1967 15:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability is not a clearly-defined concept, I agree, and there is a lively debate over at the WP:DP talk pages which you may want to join. But this is clearly in the non-notable category, pretty much however you square it. Batmanand | Talk 15:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I've never seen the movie in question, but the IMDB entry has this character billed 27th, after several non-named characters (i.e. "Gordon's Wife"). Doesn't seem to be a major character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete the character is barely in the movie, not notable. --Eivindt@c 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice the character was not even in the Canadian version of the movie, and no one noticed. Thats how minor they are. Superbeatles 18:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I recognize that Hahbie is heavily invested in this article (the article, and articles about the actress playing her and the movie in which this character appears represent his sole contributions to Wikipedia), but please do understand that Wikipedia has guidelines and standards for gauging notability more stringent than "It's notable if I say it is." I recommend WP:FICT as a start. RGTraynor 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- FRCP11 23:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This article needs deletion by a rouge admin. --Elkman - (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not stating that the character is only notable because I say it is, and for no other reason other than my own caprice. I state that this fictional character is also notable on an objective basis because (1) this fictional character was depicted within a significant scene; and, (2) the depiction of this fictional character's role advances the backstory of a more prominent character depicted in the movie; and, (3) this fictional character was given a name in the screenplay; and, (4) this fictional character was depicted in a speaking role within the movie per se. The fat that I deemed the character notable only demonstrates the subjective component of the quality, without additional reasoning and explanation demonstrating the objective component. I have indicated several reasons why this fictional character is notable on an objective basis. This fictional character is no less notable than Noonien Soong of Star Trek: The Next Generation was after the character's first appearance in that work. I am also stating that the even the expressed WP-FICT guidelines are therefore vague. Also, in general, I state that simply because a fictional character appears in and is developed within a movie which is of the comedy genre does not diminish its notability compared to fictional characters depicted in other genres and media. I, myself, have never heard slurping and squishing sounds when actually witnessing the body morphology and body kinesiology of obese persons. If I agreed to and did appear in such a role within a major Hollywood motion picture, and such sound effects were subsequently dubbed in after my participation in principal photography, and without my assent, I might consider bringing an action in tort for invasion of privacy against multiple and deep-pocketed named defendants--because my agreement to appear in a motion picture in such a role would not make it legally impossible to exceed the scope of the implicit consent thereby. It would be deemed to constitute an unlawful misappropriation of my likeness and image. The foregoing statement was not nor was it intended to be legal advice. Ms. Denberg's career will probably be diminished from what it could have been as a result of this appearance. Also, I agree that, from what I know of them, Canadians would have even less tolerance and appreciation for such a character than Americans would. I have heard anecdotal evidence that the various Canadian government-provided health plans do not cover the various bariatric surgical procedures at all. In general, Canadians are as obese as Americans, but tend to adopt what they think is a Britishesque disdain of such a medical condition. Also, in contrast to the character of Martha Johnsone, which is developed by and as a speaking role within the movie itself, the character of "Gordon's wife", played by Suzy Nakamura, is not, and is thereby and therefore, for the purposes of cataloguing the facts of this movie, less notable, because that character only had spoken lines within the deleted scenes included in the DVD. Hahbie 02:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Are you done? Because it sounds like you haven't been giving us the real reason you created this article. Taking a stand for the rights of the obese does not constitute enyclopedic content. You can't compare a joke character to Noonien Soong from ST:TNG, who has the important role of having created one of the main characters. Neither reason is good enough. Danny Lilithborne 07:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well ... a slanging match would do no good, in any event. I recommend that those of us proposing deletion stand on our arguments, and those proposing keeping the article stand on theirs. RGTraynor 14:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; any salvageable information can be put in the article about the film. David | Talk 15:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (or possibly Redirect — I don't think the character is notable enough to bother with in case another character or person with the same name appears.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Extremely minor character from a movie which itself will probably be forgotten by next year. See no need for redirect, since the character's name apparantly only appears in the credits, making this an extemely unlikely search term. ergot 14:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lamadre

Non-notable term, appears to only exist to promote external site Oscarthecat 08:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - advertispam - Richardcavell 08:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is this speedyable? 'Little or no context', just an external link? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Deletion I added {{db-band}} to the page. Definately speedyable, made yesterday.--Jersey Devil 09:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Rak

Delete Non-notable, probably vanity article. I cannot find any other mention of this Nick Rak on Google, and I can't even verify that the city of Ostrava has a professional squash team, much less one called the hawks. Fabricationary 08:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The JPS talk to me 18:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Making It Right

Non-notable band, not even signed let alone published Richardcavell 08:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete fails to show notability WP:MUSIC, none of the albums seem to be "on a major label or one of the more important indie labels".--blue520 13:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 14:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

[edit] Kino (Kino UK)

No evidence of notability, allmusic.com gives no useful information. Delete. - Mike Rosoft

  • Keep - although a side-project, the regular bands of all the members have been deemed sufficiently notable to have articles and 2 of the 4 current members already have individual articles as well (although one is somewhat stubby). The group has also toured internationally. Ac@osr 12:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Will change to a keep pending evidence of notability. Kuzaar 15:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom unless there is evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. Kimchi.sg 16:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Errr ... the evidence of notability is right there. Follow a couple of those bandmember links, and one was with a group that did transatlantic tours and recorded several albums; there's a WP:MUSIC chain right there. RGTraynor 19:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey's biggest industries

  • Delete completely unworkable, fails WP:V with no sources for claims of "biggest industries" and anything that could be put on this page could easily be put into the economy section of the New Jersey article. Jersey Devil 09:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into New Jersey if there is something to merge (which I doubt but heh), Delete otherwise. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 10:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "3. Bowling Balls Inc. 4. Cranberry Juice Co"... I think this was meant to be funny. BJAODN as "deleted nonsense". Kimchi.sg 16:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. -- MarcoTolo 16:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jersey Devil. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20/20 Filmsight

  • Delete nn movie blog, alexa ranking of over 5 million. [14] Wasn't sure if it was speedyable.--Jersey Devil 10:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not speedyable (criteria). Kimchi.sg 16:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not SD (per Kimchi), but certainly seems NN. -- MarcoTolo 16:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 16:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New American Empire


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Walker (writer)

An extremely minor local sports writer, who seems to have written only sporadically for low-circulation local newspapers and a handful (literally) of columns in low-circulation, failed industry magazines. He was a producer of a community-radio programme, and he has a blog. The flowery encomium of the writing smells of WP:VANITY, and the excessive talk of his amazing winner-prediction reads just like an ad for the gambling-tips website linked from the article. We need to delete this adicle. Middenface 10:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nothing that shows notability. P.S. I think the better policy/guideline for the "flowery language" would be WP:PEACOCK.--Jersey Devil 10:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely delete.--Smerus 12:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 13:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 15:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. This is a clear-cut CSD A3. Good thing a rouge admin was handy to take care of this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Redman

Non-notable character from the movie Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (cf. Martha Johnstone). Danny Lilithborne 11:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Author's only edits are to Dodgeball-related pages, and accuses others of "trying to suppress the truth". Danny Lilithborne 11:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Character in a movie, nn. Looks kind of like this page is an afterthought, as the author devoted a lot of effort to the Johnstone article, then threw out this one-liner. Fan1967 13:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. PJM 13:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn (oppose redirect). --Eivindt@c 18:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn as per others. Superbeatles 18:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nominating this article was on my to-do list, but I was tired last night and you beat me to it ;-) --Icarus 22:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as well. Again, I think this will need a rouge admin to do the job. --Elkman - (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Tawker 05:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Luntz

Last time I made this it was tagged {{nn-bio}} and speedy deleted by Vegaswikian. What do you all say? Richardcavell 11:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment So you are the article author and only contributor and are requesting deletion? You can tag it as speedy deletion. Or is this AfD disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point? Weregerbil 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I suggested that he should recreate the article, and mentioned that he could put it on AfD to avoid it being speedy deleted again. u p p l a n d 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It should be noted that this version is very different then the article that was speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 19:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He appears notable from the linked text (even taken into account its character of a speech at a dinner in honour of Luntz). But it appears that both his Torts: Cases and Commentary and his Assessment of Damages for Personal Injury and Death have been published in at least four editions. It seems likely that he would even pass the notability guideline for authors ("Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more"). u p p l a n d 12:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per u p p l a n d. He's a distinguished academic who has written some of the standard legal texts in Australia. I'd be very surprised if they haven't sold 5000+ copies. Also was a full professor at Uni. Melb., one of Australia's most prestigious universities. But for the record, I'll add the disclaimer that he was my torts lecturer. Metamagician3000 12:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Surely passes the academics notability guidelines; yes, the article needs explansion (a list of published works would be nice, for instance), but that is not a reason to delete. Batmanand | Talk 15:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. Article needs work, but don't they all? RicDod 16:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article describes a notable individual. Yamaguchi先生 18:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough for mine. Quoted often in legal circles and occasionally in the media. Capitalistroadster 18:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm mystified that this was considered speediable. Reyk YO! 20:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 18:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Google turns-up a number of Supreme Court (of Australia) rulings that appear to be regarding international law issues (though I could be wrong since IANAL). -- MarcoTolo 20:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Admittedly I'm going primarily by the article itself and the content of the tribute it links to. While I'd like to see stronger verification/sourcing, I'd say he's notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Uppland. Monicasdude 22:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. A Professor and Dean of the Faculty at the University of Melbourne is certainly notable. Note to those from US. Professor in Australia is equivalent to named chairs in the US. Associate Professor in Australia is equivalent to Professor in the US. Associate Professor in the US is equivalent to Senior Lecturer or Lecturer in Australia. --Bduke 23:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems easily notable enough. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per everyone. --Canley 04:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. -- Synapse 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or possibly speedy keep as per WP:SNOW. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per *. JeffBurdges 14:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete

[edit] Tumua Ioane

Possibly a borderline one... a Samoan cricketer. Samoa is only an afficiate member of the ICC (not even an associate member, so about as low as we can get on the scale, and there are probably only half a dozen entries for associate nation players on WP). And cricket is hardly a big sport in Samoa - it's not even the dominant form of cricket in Samoa (that's Kilikiti). Also, given a quick glance at who created this article, it has a strong whiff of vanity. I'd put it below borderline as a delete. Oh, and only two google hits for "Tumua Ioane"+cricket, although there is a different Tumua Ioane who plays rugby league for Wellington (who gets quite a few more hits). Grutness...wha? 12:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless verified. Stifle (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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!. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandra Voskowitz

Hoax. First of all I highly doubt the fact that such a person exists. He turns up an whopping 1 hit on google. Secondly even if he does, he is definitely non-notable. Change to Weak Delete Proved as a genuine article. Although notability of the person is an issue. If some more references can turn up then I will be willing to withdraw my nom. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As nominator. As above --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears this was a transliteration issue. Author has moved the article to Aleksandra Wasowicz, who googles as an established author from the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology in Warsaw. Limited number of hits, especially in English, but she has published books on Ancient Greece and the Black Sea region. Fan1967 14:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Fan1967 Dlyons493 Talk 16:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep. After the name was resolved, it's clear the person exists. She is, as far as I can tell, a minor scholar. I can't find much info on her, but I think she is more notable then not. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) should likely be the criteria to judge this nomination.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am not supporting this article just because I am its author. The only reason I wrote the article in the first place was because Wikipedia never had an entry about Aleksandra Wasowicz. I agree that there is not a lot of information on the Internet pertaining to this specific academic. However, her contributions to academia should be noted no matter how "minor" they may seem. The purpose of Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) is to provide information so that people are aware of who is who and what is what. I apologize for utilizing the name "Alexandra Voskowitz" when I first created the article. However, I took the time to rectify this mistake and tried to help verify the existence of the Polish archaeologist. Wasowicz deserves a place in Wikipedia and therefore I vote to keep the article. - Deucalionite May 2, 2006 1:11 P.M.
  • Keep wrote a few papers, seems to have created a bit of a stir.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak Keep per Blnguyen and Piotr. JoshuaZ 16:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and continue researching, in view of existence of apparently valid documentation for the subject. KonradWallenrod 06:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I suppose, although I can't really access it. JeffBurdges 14:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 yes from where I'm from there are hundreds of "cenotes") -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synaute

Sounds plausible, but with only two unique non-wikipedia google hits - a list of words and something that looks suspiciously like an uncredited wikimirror - I remain unconvinced. Does anyone know whether this is kosher, or some kind of hoax? Grutness...wha? 13:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverified. I don't even think it sounds all that plausible (the unexplained bit about the two kinds of water is pretty suspicious) but even if it did, we have to have a way of getting rid of plausible-sounding hoaxes. --Trovatore 13:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Redirect to cenote per Andrew c (not sure there's anything to merge). --Trovatore 21:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • That was silly of me. No point in redirecting; not a plausible misspelling. If there's nothing to merge I guess we're back to delete. --Trovatore 21:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not buying this either. Sounds too much like WP:NOTMUISOD. -- MarcoTolo 16:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as non-verifiable probable hoax. I checked out those two hits, and they both refer back to the Wikipedia article for the text. RGTraynor 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong merge These things exist, only they are called cenotes. --Andrew c 20:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Redirect This sounds very much like a mishearing from the recent BBC Natural History series 'Planet Earth'. These pools were mentioned (I think in the 'Caves' episode if memory serves) and there was reference to the 'two kinds of water' which is an optical illusion caused by the convergence of salt and freshwater flows, and can mislead divers to believe they are seeing an air pocket. Yummifruitbat 00:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Apologies, not sure why I said merge, I meant redirect... IMHO it is a plausible misspelling as evidenced by the fact that someone has misspelt it thus. Yummifruitbat 17:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per the fruit bat. --Ginkgo100 03:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a plausible mispelling, and no information to bring across to Cenote. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. The fact that someone *did* mispell it thus means that it's plausible. zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So yeah, apparently one person did. But is it more plausible for this meaning than for, say, synod, or sign out, or C-note? I'm generally in favor of a liberal approach to redirects, but not when there's no reasonably unambiguous interpretation for them. --Trovatore 20:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Delete Trovatore has me convinced. Yummifruitbat 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without redirect. Not a plausible search term, no info to merge. Zunaid 14:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, second paragraph a bit silly. Stifle (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per nom's withdrawal, withdrawal of all delete votes, & comments.. --Hetar 00:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trigonosaurus

Hoax dinosaur. On first appearance looks genuine, but Google turns up no reliable sources. If exists(or existed) it's unverifiable. Changed to Keep after sources & interwiki link provided. Apologize for any toes I stepped here. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As nominator. As above --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unless it can be verified.. Keep, references added. PJM 13:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This author has caused a lot of problems with incorrect information in various dinosaur articles. Fan1967 15:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm not so sure on this one. A couple google hits seem to show this as a new classification. Fan1967 15:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Week Keep. Recently describe "new" dinosaur, looks like the Dutch Wikipedia has a longer article. A problem may be verification as there seems to be only one paper published so far.--blue520 15:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I really do not think this is a hoax. Firstly, assume good faith on the part of the creator of the article, User:Elmo12456. He contributes a lot on dinosaurs and added this article because it was listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/missing. It was added to that list on the 27th April 2006 by User:Dracontes, who again contributes an awful lot on dinosaurs and is also a native speaker of Portugeuse. The journal referenced by the Dutch Wikipedia article is Arquivos do Museu Nacional, a Brazilian journal. Dracontes would be able to read that. RupertMillard (Talk) 16:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Also: Please do not assume (standard) good faith on the part of User:Elmo12456. Nearly every contribution written by this user has had to be re-written. This user's contributions need to be regularly monitored; despite his long list of contributions to dinosaur articles, only around four have remained unmodified.--Firsfron 22:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per RupertMillard. -- Kjkolb 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Brand new diosaur that hasn't percolated through google yet. Use the literature, not google! See [15].Dinoguy2 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since shown not to be a hoax. However, I can't fault the nominator here, as we can't take chances on hoaxes, and we do see plenty of those. Good research all around, folks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This one's real, although so new it's pretty obscure. Author who created this WP article did in fact create a mistaken or hoax article, so it's nice to see someone was watching.--Firsfron 21:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. 22:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucky Zion Designs

where do i begin? vanity. advertising. non-notable in the extreme frymaster 14:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The website's Alexa ranking is greater than 800,000. As per the nomination the article itself is just unencyclopedic advertising for a website. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speedy candidate under CSD-A7, surely. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & TheKoG.--blue520 15:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Merge/rename discussion can be done on the article's talk page. --Ezeu 07:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plato's theory of refraction

The theory of refraction attributed here to Plato in his Timaeus does not appear in the Timaeus, nor is it attributed to Plato in the mainstream literature on the history of optics. The account seems to fit the experiment described by Ptolemy in his optics, and most accounts see it as a case of typical Ptolemaic "data smoothing," in which measured data is smoothed in terms of Ptolemy's prior assumptions about the bending of light. This article should be deleted. It conceivably could be revised and retitled "Ptolemy's theory of refraction," but this is too small a part of Ptolemy's work to merit a separate entry. SteveMcCluskey 15:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I am going for delete as hoax unless some sources come to light. Batmanand | Talk 15:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ptolemy if someone is willing to rewrite as necessary. Otherwise, delete. Maestlin 18:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hold it. This goes all the way back to a text contributed to the article History of science in February 2005 by a serious user, now a respected admin. I've asked for clarification but he may be a bit busy at the moment. The attribution may be wrong, but I don't think it was intended as a hoax. It is a mystery, though, where the attribution to Timaeus comes from; this was not in the article Pre-experimental science the text was lifted from. LambiamTalk 21:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename, and repair - I spent several weeks in one of my Science, Technology, and Society classes at MIT replicating this experiment. I checked my course notes, and the theory was indeed of Ptolemy and not Plato. I'm not sure how that mistake made it into the encyclopedia, but it's good that it was finally caught. This is an excellent and well-documented example of a non-scientific method, and I think pre-experimental science should mention it. The text now at "Plato's theory of refraction", once factually corrected, would actually make a good start on a history of optics, which is currently wedged into the history of physics. Detailed explanations of obsolete scientific theories and methods are of themselves interesting and quite educational, whether or not they are a significant part of a famous person's biography. Ptolemy could simply link to the revised and retitled article. Thought experiment also links to this article as an example; that any any other inbound links will need to be adjusted. -- Beland 22:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Lambiam for filling in the original source of Beland's essay. I still see two problems with it:

  • First, the judgemental tone criticizing early science for not measuring up to the expectations of modern science. Such judgemental attitudes violate the Neutral Point of View standards of of Wikipedia. Incidentally, such judgemental attitudes are also criticized by historians -- and especially historians of science -- as "Whig history" and by anthropologists as "ethnocentrism." Any rewrite will have to seriously address this judgemental tone.
  • Second, as Beland notes, he reproduced Ptolemy's experiment in an STS class at MIT. This suggests something is lacking in any discussion of it as an example of "pre-experimental science." I've already suggested on the History of Science Project that the "pre-experimental science" article be rewritten with a more neutral title -- perhaps something like "ancient science."--SteveMcCluskey 22:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
These are indeed problems, but they are repairable; for example one can "neutrally" observe that apparently the methods of earlier natural philosophers are not precisely the same as those of modern scientists. They probably did not keep proper lab notes either :) In any case, not a ground for deletion. LambiamTalk 00:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It's high time Wikipedia had better coverage of history of optics, and if renaming this page will get it started, I'm all for it. There are many fine Wikipedia articles that began life this short or shorter. Having the article in existence might pressure editors to improve/extend it. Maestlin 19:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Maestlin's suggestion sounds good: rename as History of optics and revise extensively. The present material on "Plato" (i.e., Ptolemy) and Alhazen, of course, will only be the beginning of the revision. --SteveMcCluskey 18:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename as per Maestlin's most excellent suggestion after suitable dePlatonization and rePtolemification, and delete the resulting redirect page after fixing incoming links, such as from Thought experiment. --LambiamTalk 20:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to refraction Ewlyahoocom 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's more appropriate to treat this topic as a historical one rather than as a scientific one and make it the starting point of a renamed entry on the History of optics. But then, I'm a historian :) --SteveMcCluskey 22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Is there one source on the page?? OSU80 03:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

[edit] Eirik Johnsen

De-prodded. Subject is not notable. Google searches for "Eirik Johnsen" +Gee, "Eirik Johnsen" +Johnsenbanden or "Eirik Johnsen" +"Sirkruss 06" yields 3, 1 and 1 hits respectively Punkmorten 15:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete, doesn't sound particularly notable. JIP | Talk 16:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I must be spending too much time at Wikipedia, because I've never heard of his band nor seen any of his films/commercials despite the fact that he lives in a neighbouring town. The strange part is that google hasn't heard of him either. Probable vanity, mos def nn. --Eivindt@c 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --TM 19:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maglide

Promotional (history appears to show that the inventor created the article [16]). No evidence of notability or importance. Google test does not help. Edcolins 15:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nom, i.e. me. --Edcolins 15:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Inventor did not create article. Google is catching up. Invention is patented in US and UK with application for WO. Invention is unique and technically sound as per article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.59.104 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 May 2006
  • Speedy Delete per A7, no assertion of notability. 216.140.95.130 18:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete An invention that is not actually being used is not notable. (The pictures on the website are amusing, though.) Fan1967 18:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There are many inventions which have not as yet fully come to market. In additional to the practical applications for which the invention can be utilized the use of a tuned generator to act as a retarder is worthy of inclusion—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.59.104 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 May 2006 8
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. What may be done with this invention, or the potential of the invention, is irrelevant. Inventions which have not yet come to market are not notable. Fan1967 18:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Tawker 05:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Metzger

see belowTom 15:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This guy is OLD news and VERY un notable at this point. He isn't worth the 15 15mb of storage, IMO. Also, I wouldn't have to revert the vandalism everyday :) Tom 15:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above Tom 15:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Clean up and Keep. Historically notable just because of the Dees litigation, and Wikipedia has many listings for far less prominent Nazis. The vandalism should be addressed by banning the "van down by the river" poster, who hasn't contributed anything else other than autobiography. Wikipedia is far too tolerant of disruptive posters. Why did you add the inaccuracy tag? -- FRCP11 15:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Man, I am adding ANY tag I can get my hands on at this point :) Seriously, I have drawn a line in the sand on this one and the BEST part is this guy appears to be SCUM (Metzger). Anyways, I have spent WAY too much time on this but its more of a learning process on Wikipedia procedures than anything else. Can't an admin just drop a NUKE on the TheKingofDixie (just kidding) :) I know that this is the FIRST of many battles to come if I am serious about this project so I am trying to learn the procedurial ropes and play by the rules. Thanks!! Tom 18:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • NB Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Lee Clary, which I've added, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheKingOfDixie, which Tom started. -- FRCP11 17:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This guy made a big splash in California around the time I graduated high school; I recognized the name instantly. While on the one hand it's a pity to do anything to slow his slide into richly deserved obscurity, he definitely meets the Pokemon standard, and the resource should be available for people doing research on that moment in history. --Trovatore 16:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per FRCP. I agree that Wikipedia has means to handle pervasive vandalism other than deleting articles, and they should be employed. RGTraynor 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't see a basis for delete here. Gamaliel 18:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Entry needs significant NPOV & formatting work, but WP:NN doesn't apply here. -- MarcoTolo 18:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The person appears to have been notable. If this is a vandal magnet, it should get protected instead of deleted. Jamoche 20:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote here as I'm pretty sure I was the first to create this page. At the very least, the work of other members should be checked and revised. It's a shame that some people have put up questionable information. --RobbieFal 21:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. This should be kept. If reverting is burning someone out... well, i don't know. But this is good and important info. I'm just some random 'net user, and came here looking for info after following the fascinating (and sometimes revolting) imagery at http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/default_graphics.asp -- This unsigned remark was left by 69.19.14.27
  • Keep. This is a relatively long and interesting article. It would be a shame to delete it. MikeWren 18:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corruption in India

Delete - seems inherently POV. Most of the content looks like original research as well. Wickethewok 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom unless it's brought to NPOV and seriously sourced. This also might not be a useful stand-alone article, as opposed to merging it into a general Indian Economics/Business article. RGTraynor 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A soapbox-like rail against India, highly unlikely to become a legit article. Grandmasterka 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now article has been in existance less than 24 hours. Initial author has made edits to attempt to improve. It is too early to judge that deletion is needed. I think sourcing is the most important change. See also WP:BITE GRBerry 21:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Truth be told, I don't see the relevance of how long the article has existed, and I am likewise curious as to what provoked waving the WP:BITE flag. It is a completely defensible position to not find this subject worth a stand-alone article, no matter how well-written or how long it's been around. RGTraynor 14:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Response The nomination claim wasn't that the subject isn't worth a stand alone article (ie, non-notable or non-encyclopediac) - it was that it is inherently POV and mostly OR - a very different pair of statements.
As to the short duration bit, the first three sentences are a rough syllogism. Short duration + being improved = too soon to judge.
WP:BITE is relevant because the original author is a newbie, and this nomination fails to do any of these: "Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is about before defining what he/she is doing as 'wrong' or 'substandard'."; "treat newcomers with kindness and patience"; "Don't slam the newcomer; remember, this is a place where anyone can edit and, in a very real sense, it is therefore each person's responsibility to edit, not to criticize or supervise others."; and "Assume good faith on the part of the newcomer. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!" (All of these are quotes from WP:BITE). GRBerry 18:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Response - Indeed, but just because someone is new does not change the fact the premise of the article is not inherently POV. My issue is that the article does not really have a encyclopedic basis. Wickethewok 19:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Response -- Alright, I'm still curious. In which way does the nomination fail to treat the newcomer kindly, not assume good faith or slam the newcomer? I rather hope you're not one of those that presume WP:BITE requires us never, ever to do or say anything that any newcomer might conceivably be construed not to like. There is nothing in WP:BITE requiring us to ignore WP:NOR or WP:NPOV so long as an article is written by a newbie, and it does newcomers (and, as to that, Wikipedia) a huge disservice to try. RGTraynor 02:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lines like "India is a fairly corrupt country." and "sufficiently weakened British might and arrogance" don't make me very hopeful of this becoming an NPOV article any time soon. GarrettTalk 23:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC) -- restoring vote, the article hasn't changed since the Afd listing. GarrettTalk 00:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Something might be done on this in the medium-term future, but this article looks impossible to clean up and, believe me, impossible to source. Hornplease 23:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article was nominated for deletion approximately 13 hours after it was first created. The guy tried to get consensus for the article on the talk page and was ignored by three of the people now voting to delete it. Deletion for the sake of deletion. Not one person has even attempted to improve this article before nominating or supporting its deletion. --TheMadTim 03:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Response - I don't think an article on corruption that may or may not exist is the best approach to developing an encyclopedic article. I'm fine if its recreated with completely different content and a different title. But thats called a deletion. Wickethewok 06:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Response No, that would be called editing an article. If you think the title could be better, why not discuss it on the talk page? If you think the content could be better, why not discuss it on the talk page? You have nominated this for deletion without even attempting to discuss it on the talk page first. --TheMadTim 11:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Response Because the content is impossible to fix, as it now stands. In certain circumstances, we need to start from scratch. This is an enormous field of study, and there is a vast amount of published research, none of which is cited, and much of which uses a completely different structure from the OR approach in this article. Thus, an ideal deletion candidate. Hornplease 14:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jet Deck

Unintelligible statistical information on some equestrian's steed. Included without any context by anonymous user. Folajimi 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unsourced, unencyclopedic, presumably NN trash. Anonymous IP's sole contribution, seven months ago. RGTraynor 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. Someone advertizing a stud stallion's services. Put it out to grass. Anthony Appleyard 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Dr Gangrene 17:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN horse Sc147 20:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should have been proded; don't waste AfD for this.--HereToHelp 23:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, there is still time to make a convincing argument for retaining this entry; if you can do it successfully, you shall have my support. Folajimi 01:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete - can be rewritten from scratch if desired. Tawker 05:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political change

Delete - An opinion piece for the most part frought with original research. Wickethewok 15:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete per nom. Someone ought to flag down the editor with WP:NOT. RGTraynor 16:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. Hornplease 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (I don't buy into all that 'strong' and 'weak' keep and delete crap.) Once again, deletion is the route taken without giving the main contributor a chance to bring the article up to an acceptable standard.--TheMadTim 03:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Response - the article would need to be re-created from scratch with a different title and I really don't know what content it would have. Thats why its up for deletion - because its an article with no real encyclopedic idea behind it and no real content. Wickethewok 07:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Original research is original research is original research. It is not allowed on Wikipedia, at all, period, however skillfully the author writes it up, and AfD is absolutely the proper remedy for it. RGTraynor 14:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well!! I think the article should stay because it provides a solid framework and structure for political change analysis to scholars as michael porter's framework provides for business analysis. Please do not over police. Rather provide ideas to make it relevent and more useful. The eagle 11:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The last comment was provided by the article's creator, and seems to suggest that it is, indeed, unsourced and OR. Hornplease 14:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - The article's creator wants it to be a source of original analysis, which is not what WP is for. If you want to completely change the premise of the article and re-create it with new content and a different title, I would have no objection. Wickethewok 19:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, possible copyvio. Stifle (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biganimal

Non-notable design and animation studio - mainly known for Dogshitter wants. Does not meet WP:CORP. 206 Ghits many of which are for 6 foot blondes.


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zichron Kedoshim, Congregation

Scarce material available on on Google[17], nor any evidence in those results of notability nor any notable size. Kuzaar 16:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Very true. That last part of the article has been bothering me. I'm going to delete it if nobody minds. --JGGardiner 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most individual religious congregations are not notable, and most of those which I have seen come up on AfD have been deleted. Some of the articles cited by JGGardiner also look worthy of deletion. --Metropolitan90 03:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. San Saba 15:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep While I have not personally prayed at this place, I've visited this synagogue, know members, and know that it is a well established institution that while I do not know if it is notable for anything spectacular or have notable members or past-members,it still can claim to be a legitimate place of worship by the thousands of people over the years. Can somone point me to a previous discussion of what the minimun standards of notablitly are required for places of worship? For instance, membership in the tens or over ten thousand people? W/R to JG 'lack of substantial information' claim, I am not aware of size of article ot age of stub tag to be reasons for deletion. Will try to get more info soon to fill in the blanks. Please keep open for now. --Shuki 19:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fabrizio Bernardi

Totally not relevant entry. The user adding it (Berfab) is the same Fabrizio Bernardi. He added a single article about Quero with an automated, very poorly written translation, and later waned off. Attilios 16:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nubitory

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang you made up at school one day. Gwernol 16:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayn Rand cult

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

Delete from the (removed) prod notice: "the article is nothing but unsubstantiated nonsense, blatant bias, and attempted smears coupled with racism", what little is not inherently POV is already in the Ayn Rand article Gwernol 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • POV and racism. Delete it please. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 18:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep article needs time to mature, but is a good start. Superbeatles 18:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Objectivist movement, looks like POV fork to me. But where you found the racism in the article is beyond me. --Eivindt@c 19:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Found mention of race in history, my apologies. --Eivindt@c 19:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The text mentions "white, young men": therefore it is racist, agist and sexist. LambiamTalk 21:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, original research, racist overtones, many "facts" are dead wrong; this article was deleted once before; it was, for some reason, re-created LaszloWalrus 01:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- what little can be salvaged could be merged under the article Objectivism under a "Criticisms" section, and the title has to go as being too inflammatory. There is a fair body of evidence (including the words of Nathaniel Branden) that points towards Randist Objectivism having cultish qualities, if not being a cult of personality outright, but this is not the article to discuss it. Haikupoet 03:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Change vote to Weak keep and rename to something like "Cult allegations in Objectivism" -- rewritten substantially, just needs a new title and a link in tObjectivism article. Haikupoet 04:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Objectivist movement; there is a book called The Ayn Rand Cult, so it's not unthinkable as a search term. --phh (t/c) 19:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; two parts patent nonsense with one part original research 216.120.8.254 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Note JRobbins and 64.167.172.163 are sock puppets of 216.120.8.254. BRussel 15:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Info on the cult accusations have been added to the objectivism articles recently to make them more NPOV. However, there has been a bit of inconsistency between them, and I recently suggested that we create a central article for this controversy to improve the situation. Please do not delete such a needed article; we can always improve it to fit a better standard. If we do delete it, we will only allow the objectivists to get away with making another POV deletion to clean up their cult's image. -- LGagnon 02:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article was nominated before it had a chance a develop. The racism allegation is ludicrous, if the cult had/has little or no African American members, or Hispanics, or Asians, it's not the author of the article who is to blame (but rather the vast right-wing conspiracy ;)). I do however think that the change from "white, young men" to "inexperienced youth" was an improvement. Also - there is more scholarly work written about the Ayn Rand Cult than there is scholarly work written about Objectivist philosophy. -Dna4salE 19:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Note I can list twenty scholarly books off the top of my head dealing with Objectivist philosophy. I can think of only a couple of books, both non-academic, dealing with a purported "Ayn Rand cult." LaszloWalrus 06:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Ya know, the Ayn Rand Institute is more pseudoscholarly than anything else. BRussel 15:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Cambridge University Press is "pseudoscholarly"? LaszloWalrus 09:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; Firstly, "Ayn Rand cult" is inherently a biased title; secondly, this article is full of opinions presented as facts; thirdly, this article was deleted once before. You might as well have an article called the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy," quote Hilary Clinton, treat it as established fact, and note that a lot of white men were invovled in it. JRobbins 22:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Note the above comment was left by JRobbins who has made 4 edits to Wikipedia, all to Ayn Rand related articles. BRussel 15:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Note 216.120.8.254 and 64.167.172.163 are sock puppets of JRobbins. BRussel 15:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The article can be moved to a less biased name. It can also be cleaned up to be NPOV. This is a needed article whether the objectivists like it or not, so let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. -- LGagnon 20:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

*Keep; verifiable *and* notable. BRussel 15:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Note there is no user BRussel, the above comment was left by 213.80.1.162 who has made 4 edits to Wikipedia, all to Ayn Rand related articles. Gwernol 14:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom 64.167.172.163 04:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Note 216.120.8.254 and JRobbins are sock puppets of 64.167.172.163. BRussel 15:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Are anonymous votes even allowed? They are very easy to sockpuppet. -- LGagnon 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original synthesis. Gazpacho 20:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete On the one hand, I have a philosophical disagreement with Rand's philosophy of self-interest uber alles (Why can't self-interest and altruism ever be merged?) but the article reads as being too POV. I would like to see a source, for instance on the "prohibited books" list that Rand was supposed to have kept. And besides, calling them a cult in the title itself is just asking for POV charges, as it makes them sound like the People's Temple. Pat Payne 21:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note that Objectivism's name is POV to begin with. They're hardly objective, despite what their name implies, and that alone is highly controversial. Just naming the Objectivism article by it's name creates a certain amount of POV. And that's no more than what this article does. -- LGagnon 02:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment' Almost every philosophy or ideology's name is POV by that standard, but there never was anything called the "Ayn Rand cult" anymore than there was an Evil Atheist Conspiracy or a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Should we have an article called the Existentialist cult because existentialists allegedly belive that Sartre and Camus are the aribiter of "final truth." Should we pretend there was something called "Existentialist psychology" used for "thought control." (There never was "Objectivist psychology.") Are Hegelians and Kantians also part of a cult? Let's leave the cult term for actual religions, not merely any philosophy with which many people disagree. LaszloWalrus 19:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Was there ever any controversy surrounding Existentialism claiming it is a cult? Objectivism is unique in philosophy in that not only is it rejected by academia (which makes calling it a philosophy POV as well), but in that there is a controversy over whether or not it is a cult. This is a very real controversy, unlike you hypothetical Existentialist cult; there's actual cited sources in this article to prove it. If Wikipedia were to ignore this then we would have a serious POV problem on our hands beyond anything this article presents. -- LGagnon 22:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have worked on the article, and it is now more NPOV and better referenced. I think we can build it up from here into something that we can all agree to keep. -- LGagnon 21:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ridiculously POV and full of original research. Not to mention the title of the article itself is inherently biased and POV. AscendedAnathema 02:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Inherently POV as a page. Appropriate for inclusion within the context of the Ayn Rand page, but definitely not in of itself. Imperator2 02:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note that both the Objectivism and Ayn Rand articles are getting a bit large now. It would be for the best to use this article as a fork to lighten the load on those articles. And again, any POV problems can be solved with simple editing. -- LGagnon 22:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep First of all, there is already a section on the Ayn Rand page that covers this topic in brief and links to this in-depth article fork. Second, many people are demanding deletion not because of the merits of the article, but because they are huge fans of Ayn Rand and would like to remove anything that makes her look bad. Therefore, the most we should do is NPOV the article. Al 03:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I have edited the article and I believe it to be more neutral, however, I agree that this issue can be covered in the Objectivism criticism section. Source 22:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed vote to Weak delete Source 18:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep ..if we have War on Christmas... Myciconia 02:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable. Based on the Google research, it is unlikely that there is any way a future article will be kept either, until such time as the subject moves beyond "up and coming". Turnstep 22:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steven pottorff

Contested A7 speedy. Author provides no information indicating how this individual meets WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Google search provides no viable hits other than a personal website.[18] Delete as per Wikipedia is not a self-promotion device and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Allen3 talk 16:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyway we can edit this article so that it may be fit for Wikipedia inclusion criteria and no longer be considered for deletion?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikisteven (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment Provide some links which verify that he is notable in some way. Fan1967 17:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can find absolutely nothing on this guy on google, with the possible exception of the Xanga profile above, which matches the full name, but says nothing about being a musician. Fan1967 17:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 17:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As it is at the moment it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC & seems to meet the criteria for speedy deletion CSD A7.--blue520 17:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. From looking at the user name and the self references in older versions of the article userfying a early version may be a option.--blue520 17:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. J.J.Sagnella 18:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - no claims of notability. Any article that contains the phrase "up and coming" is basically ripe for deletion. Wickethewok 18:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. I deleted it first to expunge the copyvio. Chick Bowen 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop Kevin Vann

  • Over to you guys. Originally tagged as speedy-delete (criterion A7). — Timwi 17:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's the official website:[19]. Catholic Bishops certainly can qualify for articles, but I reserve comment on whether all bishops deserve their own article. --M@rēino 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth, which has more information about him than this article, which is basically a stub and a prayer. The prayer (presumably from his investiture) is hardly encyclopedic and has no value from what I can see. Generally, I've only seen individual articles on cardinals and notable archbishops, or bishops who have been involved in major news stories. Fan1967 17:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This article was tagged for deletion while it was in the process of be built.
    • He is the servant for the people of this diocese, therefore I belive that yes he does deserve his own article (as does anyone in a substancial authoritave role).
    • More information will be posted as I recieve it.
    • Diocese Page should list the bishops but leave the details to individual articles
    • Nexxuz 19:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Fan1967. --TM 19:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, or redirect to list or diocese if not expanded. Bishops in major churches are notable enough in my view, more notable than the average professional baseball player. u p p l a n d 20:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Contains personal info For some reason, this article contains a mailing address. I suggest that the article be deleted (there's not really much else to it to salvage), but see no reason against re-creation of a real article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you remove the prayer (copyvio) and the address (against policy) there's nothing left but a stub with less information than we already had at the Diocese article. Fan1967 21:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 conent in 5 days, copyvio pages not really notable. Tawker 05:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jifunze

Subject reads like a shameless plug for an NGO; submitted a month ago by a user whose contributions were considered copyright violations. Folajimi 17:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as copyvio and completely unsalvageable stuff. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 18:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --BillC 18:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave it to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Snowball delete. Tawker 05:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Lee Clary

Sorry but just because you do not like someone, that does not give anyone the right to delete information pages about that person, especially when they are a public figure that is in history. That is what Wickipedia is all about. TheKingOfDixie Non-notable hagiographic autobiography with no incoming links; see also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheKingOfDixie FRCP11 17:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable and definitely vanity. The article writer admits it here. IrishGuy 18:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Borderline notability, but fails vanity. -- MarcoTolo 18:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as proved vanity. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this article as a copyvio/vanity, but the article topic gets enough Lexis/Nexis hits to make me vote Keep. Gamaliel 22:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as vanity. I have to say that he's notable enough, though. He was the president of the KKK! Regardless of the KKK's politics, that's more than notable enough. - Richardcavell 23:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, he was president of a Ku Klux Klan chapter. There are 158 of those, and his chapter doesn't appear to be one of the notable ones. -- FRCP11 23:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't know what the details are. Regardless, I still think that he's notable. - Richardcavell 23:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete: Those that are voting for delete are nothing more than Neo-Nazis who are upset that there is an article on Johnny Lee Clary, who they consider as one of their top enemies. Typical of the Nazis and their supporters. -- This unsigned remark was left by TheKingOfDixie 16:35, 2 May 2006
comment as you created this article and created it about yourself, it is understandable that you would want to keep it. What is not understandable, nor tolerable, is for you to make personal attacks to and about others on Wikipedia.IrishGuy 18:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
comment TheKingOfDixie has already attempted to alter this vote by removing comments he doesn't like. Check the history. IrishGuy 07:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
comment Link to vandalism by TKOD on this page. Is there an administrator here? Why isn't this sort of vandalism grounds for an immediate block? We have a user who has never contributed anything positive, and regularly violates just about every Wikipedia rule and convention. -- FRCP11 14:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete How appropriate that I get to vote right after my arch nemisis TheKing :) j/k I am actually VERY surprised that he even came here to vote, go figure.Tom 21:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 'Borderline' is the best description I've seen. The article is vanity. Shenme 02:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is not written in an unencyclopedic fashion, suffering from the usual autobio problems: OR and POV. Someday, someone might write such a biography but they should start from a clean slate. Thanks to FRCP11 for nominating this, I've had the article on my watchlist for months waiting for this day. -Will Beback 08:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, poorly written vanity article. quadratic 05:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Snottygobble 11:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The nominator has asked that the reasons behind the decision to keep be clarified. The article was correctly identified as a copyright violation and nominated for deletion in good faith. That the subject of the article was sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article was not under dispute. During the debate the article was rewritten from scratch, thus removing any grounds for deletion. Therefore I closed the debate as a speedy keep. Snottygobble 23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Maxwell (commentator)

Content was discovered to be a copyright violation; according to the logs, initial contributor has made no attempt to salvage the entry. Folajimi 17:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, replacement stub article is at Jim Maxwell (commentator)/Temp. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • /Temp article now deleted; sorry I@n, I didn't notice your comment until after I rewrote the article. Snottygobble 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The copyvio should have been speedy deleted, however it should now be replaced by I@n's version and speedily kept. JPD (talk)
  • Speedy Replace with clean stub article as referenced above. This should be a speedy case. The articles place in the encyclopedia is not under review, just the copyvio. Ansell 12:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, article rewritten. Snottygobble 01:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Snottygobble. --Arnzy (Talk) 05:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, a marvelous entry, absolutely cracking shot! Lankiveil 05:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Vortex

Is non-notable and google turns up nothing. Looks like an advertisement. Delete. tv316 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. A game company without–as far as I can tell–a single released product. Or a functional website. (Even better, it appears I was the 23rd site visitor....). -- MarcoTolo 18:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn, advertising, et al. Superbeatles 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Gwernol 23:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN and advertisment. Beno1000 00:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Melchoir 22:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johann david kohler, now moved to Johann David Köhler

Content was determined to be a copyright violation; based on the initial contributor's username, I suspect it may also be a vanity article. Folajimi 17:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Wallace Koehler is the co-author of the text from which this is supposed to be a copyvio, so assuming he is identical with article author User:Wallacekoehler, he can probably release the text under the GFDL and we could just ask him for a confirmation (I don't see any messages on his talkpage yet). The notability of Johann David Köhler is not really in question – he has articles in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie and its successor, the Neue Deutsche Biographie (the German counterparts of the NDB and ODNB).[20] Note that if there is a relation between the author and article subject, there is still about 250 years between them. I don't see that as a problem bad enough to delete the article. u p p l a n d 19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I posted to the author's talk page but this is his only contribution since February. The pdf containing the copyvio has his affiliation, so it shouldn't be too hard to drop him an e-mail in the real world. In the meantime I think we would be safe to restore the "copyvio" version, it needs cleanup and wikification anyway. Thatcher131 22:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Point of information: Could it be that you are confusing articles in the mainspace with entries in userspace? The entry is not preceded by "User:", as would be the case for registered users. I seriously doubt that the subject will respond... Folajimi 01:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I posted the same comment to Talk:Johann david kohler and to User talk:Wallacekoehler. Thatcher131 01:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The odds of obtaining a response is increased by contacting the latter, who happens to be a user. You may have also noticed that it was part of the case I made for bringing the main space article here in the first place. Folajimi 10:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


Wallace Koehler writes: Interesting discussion. The process of posting new material to Wikipedia is abit unclear. It is true that I found Johann Kohler of interest in part because of his name but more importantly because of his contribution to library science. As far as I know I am not related to Johann David. In any event, my wifer and I hold the copyright to the paper from which this material is derived and we grant the appropriate GNU copyright to maintain it:

Copyright (c) 2005 Wallace Koehler and Vera Blair Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.18.162.112 (talk • contribs)

  • Unfortunately you did not log in, so wikipedia only recorded your computer's IP address, making this effectively an anonymous statement. Can you log in with your user name and password and confirm this? And sign your statement by typing 4 tildes like this "~~~~" which creates an automatic timestamped signature. Thanks.Thatcher131 12:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That hardly makes a difference. He is not less anonymous just because he logs in with a username such as User:Wallacekoehler; he would be only if the username can verifiably be connected to the real-life Wallace Koehler. In any case, the IP belongs to the State of Georgia/Board of Regents, and WK works at a state university in Georgia.[21] I don't see much of a problem here. Wikipedia trusts users with much less evidence of authorship every day. u p p l a n d 12:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Taken care of off-wiki. I got an e-mail from Mr. Koehler and forwarded it to the foundation, although I agree that was probably overkill in this case. Thatcher131 12:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, no problems with copyright now. Stifle (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team Cornwall

Non-notable group of publicists - created by their Economic Development Officer.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a minor claim to notability, but not enough to cut it in my view. --BillC 18:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's promoting business. - Richardcavell 23:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Transfer to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Francis Laboon Sr.

Entry lifted about nine paragraphs; no other information present. Folajimi 18:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematically entangled

This is not a widely used or well defined phrase in mathematics nor physics. The only person that I have seen use this phrase at all is the creator of the article. Creator has a history of creating pointless and redundant articles, but this time I don't see that this article could be usefully redirected. Nonsuch 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Term returns 12 google hits even before we go to uniqueness. Most of the hits are forum posts. One or two of the hits such as [www.cs.caltech.edu/cbsss/2002/pdf/quantum_morali.pdf] look like they are from genuine sources. I however, have never heard the term before and I have some (minimal) knowledge of the area. It looks to me like a neologism or protologism. JoshuaZ 19:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Dunno. The term is used in Uncertainty principle in the opening paragraph, in the sense described in this article, and likewise in Virtual particle. I think the term as such is confusing, because it is not related to the "entangled" in entangled particle, a term used in the same article. I suspect that mathematical physicists who wrote about such topics have a better term for this; the name John C. Baez comes to mind. If someone finds such a term in his or other writings, (a) rename this article to the better title; (b) add a source and if possible, improve the present text; and (c) adjust the text of Uncertainty principle accordingly. Or if this is indeed the most common term (even if rarely used), just keep this name for better or for worse; it might help though to add a note that this "entanglement" is not related to quantum entanglement. LambiamTalk 21:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The phrase was added to opening paragraph of Uncertainty principle by the creator of Mathematically entangled this morning. Nonsuch 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I found this text on wikinfo, a Wikipedia look-alike:

Generalized Uncertainty Principle
The uncertainty principle does not just apply to position and momentum. In its general form, it applies to every pair of conjugate variables. Two variables are conjugate if the associated operators do not commute. An example of a pair of conjugate variables is the x-component of angular momentum (spin) vs. the y-component of angular momentum. In general, and unlike the case of position versus momentum discussed above, the lower bound for the product of the uncertainties of two conjugate variables depends on the state the system is in. The uncertainty principle becomes then a theorem in the theory of operators (see functional analysis). The uncertainty principle also applies to the pair of variables time and energy, but the mathematical treatment of this case differs somewhat from the operator approach mentioned above.

The terminology used here seems a lot more plausible. As to time and energy, here is an interesting exposition: The Time-Energy Uncertainty Relation – John Baez. I hope a domain expert (which I am not) can do something useful with this material. LambiamTalk 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The best option, in my non-expert opinion, is to work some version of the wikinfo paragraph into a new subsection of Uncertainty principle, adjusting its opening paragraph and that of Virtual particle, and delete this article. Any experts out there? LambiamTalk 07:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Mars (Lost)

  • Delete Minor, deceased character on Lost. Information already included on Characters of Lost page Danflave 18:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete there is so little information that it is good enough to include on the long list of minor characters --Joe 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. Ral315 (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons in nomination. -- PKtm 19:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Characters of Lost... could have just been done as a bold editorial move.--Isotope23 19:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete character died in episode 3. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete and redirect to Characters of Lost page, as this article is completely redundant. He is yet another of the many characters in Lost which as of now we know next-to-nothing about. Wikipedia:Fiction says: Non-notable minor characters... in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters."—LeflymanTalk 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Characters of Lost --Easter Monkey 08:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect, doesnt deserve his own page, only played a minor role in the first few eps. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 02:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cindy Chandler (Lost)

  • Delete Minor supporting character on television series Lost. Information already supplied on Characters of Lost page. I don't believe her surname has ever been given as "Chandler" Danflave 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. Ral315 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons in nomination. -- PKtm 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'd say redirect, but as far as I can tell the surname isn't WP:V.--Isotope23 19:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as even the article title contains unverified information. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge delete the article and merge the few very small bits of information that is known about her for sure . ArgentiumOutlaw 23:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the entry should remain. There is a growing significance with her character and her relationship with Gary Troup. It would see that his nonfiction work and discussions about Hanso and Valenzetti will also have more significance. Also, her place in the lexicon of Lost hasn't fully been realized. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.34.232 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 5 May 2006

I dont know about you, but right now it doesn't look like the series is going anywhere near this character (just an occasional reference to Troup's script). IF her involvment is growing, it won't be significant enough in this season anyway, and since it is about to end, I foresee 6 months of no mention of this woman. ArgentiumOutlaw 12:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HPAC

Non-notable group - Pentecostal HPAC gets 56 Ghits. Deprodded.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 18:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- In desperate need of rewriting before deletion is considered. Article reads like an ad. Haikupoet 03:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert, probable copyvio. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vincent (Lost)

  • Delete This page is about a dog featured on the television series Lost. The dog is a minor character and its information is already included in the Characters of Lost page. Danflave 18:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. Ral315 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons in nomination. -- PKtm 19:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Characters of Lost.--Isotope23 19:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons in nomination. Rillian 21:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable character Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the info is already in Char of Lost, ....and the dog never actually does anything, what's the point of this article? ArgentiumOutlaw 23:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Characters of Lost. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IHUSTLE Clothing Company

The page seems to consist of a rant about trademark issues. No claims for notability are made. Anirvan 18:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Wow. That's impressive. Certainly Delete, maybe even speedy delete. Almost fits the 2nd definition in Wikipedia:Nonsense, but since roughly half of the page is mostly complete sentences it might be tough to justify SD. -- MarcoTolo 20:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I must say that this is most certainly worthy of Deletion Beno1000 23:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steelhawks

Despite its horrific prose, the article covers a roller hockey team that only receives 15 Google hits. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, hard to fathom this team being notable if there's that little Google coverage. Stifle (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails notability. --soUmyaSch 18:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 since we appeared to have exhausted the comic potential of the anon copy-and-paste delete comments. Either this is a genuine university (i.e. keep) or it's a degree mill as the article says (i.e. grounds to delete is false). Either way it's a keep, as per 100% of historied editors' input below. Just zis Guy you know? 12:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canbourne University

I am a Canbourne student, and studied for almost 10 years, have all my books and good grades, I just do not think It's fair to say that the University is a degree mill without having any proof of that. Also, the contents in this articles are very prejudice for everyone like myself that have studied at the University. —Dinandes de Souza Dinossauro 16:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like some proof that this is a real university. The "tuition" page has lump sum payments for "degrees" and this "UK" school only has prices listed in US dollars.[22] Arbusto 07:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Week keep with the condition of a rewrite. I think it would be wrong to delete an article that has to deal with an institution of higher learning, but the article does present a NPOV viewpoint and unorganization. The article should be kept but rewritten. Failure to rewrite the article in a timely manner should bring it back here for my reverse vote. (Notorious4life 18:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC))
  • I know realized that the "college" is pathetic and that the nominator is arguing about the contents of his precious school from which he paid to get his degree. (Notorious4life 03:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep, maybe could be written more NPOV but the sources used seem valid. BryanG 18:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Somebody please Speedy keep this. This is not a nomination for deletion, and has been placed here by mistake. - CrazyRussian talk/contribsemail 19:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article has been periodically attacked by whitewashing or blanking vandals. This is an obvious diploma mill, and the reason the nominator wants to have it deleted is the fact that it is portrayed as such in the article, and that this article gets high Google ranking. It claims to be a British university, but appears to be operating illegally in the UK (possibly catering more to American and other foreign students), has no legal right to award academic degrees in the UK, and it has stolen a significant part of its website content from the website of a real (if obscure) British university. That the article says so describes reality and is in fact a neutral point of view. u p p l a n d 19:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. From what I can see, calls it like it is. I don't know what this place is, but it's not a British university. Language could be made a little less POV, provided the main thrust (that this is, or seems to be, a Mickey Mouse con operation) is retained. Badgerpatrol 00:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the reasons state by u p p l a n d. Cedars 15:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This page has been white washed several times and the afd nominator is a new user only editting relating to this article. An afd is not for a content dispute. Arbusto 04:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • COMMENT ON DECEIT: The nominator Dinossauro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) purposely changed the spelling of this degree mill from Canbourne University to Cambourme University[23]. Arbusto 04:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, bad faith nomination. Just zis Guy you know? 08:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia should have an article about every diploma mill with enough students that an employer might actually encounter one, and say that they are a diploma mill in the first line of the article, where google will show it. Calls it like it is. JeffBurdges 14:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETION

Well everybody is talking about the Canbourne University, once again, does anybody has any proof against the University ? And again It's not politically correct to accuse without any proof, if the University was really a fraudulent university, why the UK or Us government did not closed down the University ? It is really easy to go out and accuse all you may think that is not correct, but without any proof I can not really proof anything, Do I ? I could go and put up an website, perhaps saying that the Wikipedia is a fraudulent site, based on the following: Wikipedia can be altered by any individual. I have registered with Florida state and got approved for my CPA, now If was fraudulent, the Florida state should not refused me? For me that is ridiculous. Sergio Ricardo Teixeira DELETION ***********—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.74.38 (talk • contribs)

I'd like to see proof that Florida recognizes Canbourne University. Arbusto 00:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • ***Speedy Deletion*********No proof............ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.157.149.238 (talk • contribs)
  • SPEEDY DELETION* COMPLETELY AGREED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.74.38 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, but rewrite to an NPOV. For one thing, the article should not lead "Canbourne University is a degree mill". Stifle (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETION* SORRY NO LEGAL PROOF THAT THIS UNIVERSITY CAN NOT AWARD DEGREES.
  • DELETION* NO PROOF AT ALL, DELETION.
  • Deletion* Well, Can somebody please tell me how the UK government does not take legal action against these people if they are an illegal body? They even told me that I could register their diplomas with any UK Consulate in order to be legal outside the UK. Seriously, I do not know who to believe, therefore I would like to see legal proof against this subject. Can the administrator of this site do better researches? Perhaps if he finds something I will decide to study again and obtain other degree.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.144.90.119 (talk • contribs)
  • Will you give it up already? The article's going to be kept despite your vacuous arguments against the validity of the degrading truth about this alleged institute of higher learning. If you actually learned anything from the degree you bought, you'd be smart enough to realize that you're wrong, and unlike the college your arguing in favor of, Wikipedia has standards. Please cease your deletion comments concerning this article. — Я не имею никакой жизни 06:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Despite 208.157.149.238's claims, Canbourne is not an authorized school and their diplomas are not recognized in the UK.[24] Also after further research this is an Israeli based diploma mill. Arbusto 08:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETION* Mr. Arbustoo, why dont you proof anything, all you do is accuse, nothing else, them stop with your bull and give us some proof.
  • DELETION* OR rewrite the article should not lead "Canbourne University is a degree mill.
  • DELETION* OR rewrite the article should not lead "Canbourne University is a degree mill.

DELETION OR but rewrite to an NPOV. For one thing, the article should not lead "Canbourne University is a degree mill".

  • Speedy Deletion* Where are the proof ? Simple as that, no proof cant be accuse.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 07:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CROSMAN 664X MODEL 664SB BLACK

Non-encyclopedic, non-informative content Shadikka 18:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • MERGE to Crosman. THE Crosman PAGE HAS A LIST OF OTHER GUN MODELS AND SOME BASIC SPECS. Oops, I left my caps lock key on. --Elkman - (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge to Crosman. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Mr. Friendly" (Lost)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Tawker 05:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethan Rom (Lost)

Delete This is a minor, deceased character on the television series Lost. His information is already found on the Characters of Lost page. Danflave 18:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Gale (Lost)

Delete Secondary character on the television series Lost. His information is already included on the Characters of Lost page. "Henry Gale" is also not the actual name of this as-yet-unnamed character, but rather an alias he used when lying to the castaways. Danflave 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. For reasons in nomination. -- PKtm 19:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Characters of Lost. --Isotope23 19:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable minor character as stand-alone article per WP:FICT. There is far to much content to be dumped into Characters of Lost. Characters of Lost should only have concise descriptions of all the characters. We should have "list of character" articles, but we should not have "composite articles", which is the problem with Characters of Lost is. If Henry Gale (Lost) isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article, he certainly isn't notable enough for that much space in the larger article (which distracts from the rest of the content). People should be able to read "list of character" articles to get a quick grasp of who everybody is, without being forced into extensive detail of individual characters. --Rob 20:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Character is not notable enough to have his own page. "Henry Gale" is not a likely search term so this page is pretty useless. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep', important character from the TV series, and yes, it's very likely people would be searching for this name. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable character for more than one reason. Since the season hasn't ended yet, its hard to determine exactly how important he actually is. So I vote keep for now until proof that he is not notable. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable character on Lost. He's a current character, and may even develop into a major minor characters. He's been featured in every episode since his discovery, so he's pretty notable. Morhange 21:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete and redirect to Characters of Lost page, as this article is completely redundant. Those arguing for "Keep" are doing so for entirely un-Wikipedia reasons. He is yet another of the many characters in Lost about whom we know next-to-nothing. At the point at which this minor character becomes notable, then he can merit a separate article. (In this case, however, everything he's stated about himself, including his name is a lie.) Wikipedia:Fiction says: Non-notable minor characters... in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters."—LeflymanTalk 03:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep to expand. Arbusto 04:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Leflyman. --Easter Monkey 07:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge to Characters of Lost. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of Lostcruft. Stifle (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Characters of Lost. This is a show in progress. We have no idea who will become a major character and worthy of a separate article. Let's give it some time. Rillian 01:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - character is not notable enough to have his own page --MaNeMeBasat 10:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep well, obviously hes now a big character, and is returning for season 3, so he should stay.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cauldron of Clyddno Eiddyn

An object claiming to be one of the Thirteen Treasures of Britain, but really the invention of author Bernard Cornwell from his book The Winter King. I'd make it a redirect, but the novel has no page, so Delete. Cúchullain t/c 19:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom drumguy8800 - speak 00:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, no context and nowhere to redirect to, unencyclopaedic. Stifle (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OK delete.--Rhydd Meddwl 20:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Sullivan (professor)

WP:VANITY Telso 19:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete doesn't appear to be WP:VAIN as it was apparently written by a student, but he fails WP:BIO and WP:PROFTEST if you choose to apply the latter. Not surprising being that he is a 1st year associate formerly at Kettering/GMI.--Isotope23 19:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notablity is demonstrated. Arbusto 04:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, references provided by Ace Class Shadow. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powerpuff Girls: Relish Rampage

Delete. Very unnotable game. Marcus2 19:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 00:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if verified, just about all video games are notable. Stifle (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • But not this one. Marcus2 12:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I verified as requested. A simple wesearch was all it took. Anyone here heard of Google? This game is real. Not real good, but real. A little interest is all that's required to save this page. I'll do that if i must. BTW, if this pafe is deleted, it'll be based solely on the bias of Marcus2. Check this out to see what I mean. ACS (Wikipedian) 02:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rekesh chauhan

Abstain. Just wanted to put this up for discussion. Google only gives a couple of relevant hits. Rajesh Chauhan (his father) seems to appear in Google mostly as a cricketer, not a vocalist. I didn't want to speedy delete because he might be more notable in India. discospinster 19:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The cricketer is a different person. I don't know of a vocalist by that name but what I know on the topic can be written on the back of a postage stamp. Tintin (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If he can, in fact, play the piano and guitar simultaneously, that would be notable, but I suspect that's just some poor phrasing. Fan1967 19:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Geogre's Law. Stifle (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

keep


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evo Technologies

Was originally a user page. Moved to article namespace and tagged as speedy. Not really a speedy candidate so PRODded. PROD tag removed and a justification put on talk page that reads in part: "If there can be articles about Microsoft, Sun, Dell, etc. there can be articles about our company..." Article appears not to meet WP:CORP. Note: technical nomination after removal of PROD without change to article. No opinion from me. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 19:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete no evidence that it meets WP:CORP. Google finds only about 65 unique (200 total) hits, and that includes other companies (a website developer and a maker of softball bats) using the name. Hundreds of companies are jumping into VOIP. Nothing to show this one's notable. Fan1967 20:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sans any verifiable claims of notability, this doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP to me. Regarding the quote above, when Evo Tech is 1% as notable as Google, Sun, Dell, etc., then they justify a page. Heck, even 1/100 of 1%. -- MarcoTolo 20:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fan1967. (Notorious4life 21:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC))


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 08:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lori Klausutis

It appears that this article was supposed to have been deleted all ready. Only 631 hits on google, most of which are message boards, reccomend speedy delete. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. What was actually deleted in that AfD was a redirect to Joe Scarborough. This is a new article, not a recreation. Gamaliel 19:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Still, only 631 hits on google, many of which are BB's, means this article is not notable. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - already covered more than enough on Scarborough page.--Tbeatty 21:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Flip a coin - If it was notable, it would be on the Michael Moore page, too. What's on the Scarborough page should be sufficient. On the other hand, there's lots of other articles on Wikipedia of similar non-notability that I would delete; there may be some merit to a page that refutes some of the conspiracy theories. -- FRCP11 23:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Smerge per FRCP11. Stifle (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the media coverage. I think this is one of many mistaken uses of Google hit counts. Many topics with tens of thousands of google hits are less encyclopedic then this. --Rob 22:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is obvious defamation against Joe Scarborough. 172 | Talk 06:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rob's reasoning. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Big Ugly Review

Spam. Non-notable online magazine Sc147 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete worthless drumguy8800 - speak 00:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. feydey 11:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Stifle (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donn Harms

Neither meets WP:BIO nor WP:PROFTEST. Not a "major local political figure who received significant press coverage". Edcolins 19:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 19:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this person is notable, it would be more being the founder of the American Patent and Trademark Law Center than anything else. Although from reading the text in the article (written by the subject, incidently), I'm not entirely clear about whether he founded the company or just created the Website. ScottW 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ScottW 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars The Journey

This appears to be a Star Wars-themed Warcraft mod. The article states it is in development: wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When it is finished and has been reviewed or discussed in multiple independent publications (not its own web site) then it may be considered Notable enough for an article. Thatcher131 20:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, when I tried to save the article with the Afd notice, it choked on a link to a blacklisted web site, whatever that is. Delete Thatcher131 20:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the subject of the article does not exist yet. - Richardcavell 23:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless it can be proven through the use of verifiable information, taken from reliable, third-party sources, that the uncreated game mod meets the notability inclusion guideline for internet-based materials (WP:WEB), and/or the current incarnation of the proposed guideline for software (WP:SOFTWARE) -- Saberwyn 23:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Mods aren't notable until they're finished. -LtNOWIS 01:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable, repost of deleted content, consensus. Protected. The JPS talk to me 00:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sdw

  • Speedy delete, re-recreation of nonsense. Speedy deletion contested on talk page. Weregerbil 20:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this "article" please. Nonsense, unsalvageable content, racist language and so on... <_< -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

note this isnt a rasist thing: these are the ideaoligies of this society—Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederikhak (talk • contribs)

  • I've speedied (that's my vote, btw) it once already tonight. The JPS talk to me 20:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable, unverifiable nonsense. Speedied twice already. Accurizer 20:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and protect. good lord, that's awful. bikeable (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. WP:PN, and probably WP:NOTMUISOD. -- MarcoTolo 20:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Uy... Speedy delete and protect {{nn-club}}. Grandmasterka 21:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and protect per the above comments. Gwernol 21:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable, repost of deleted content, consensus. The JPS talk to me 22:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FlipBoy

Calling all Canadians! This article is failing to assert notability, other than in a plea from the author that people from Montreal will vouch for the chap. Can someone here confirm or is this the CSD-A7 its gone down for once already? No opinion from me. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 20:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Non-notable. Has 0 google hits. MyNameIsNotBob 21:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please keep this article on Wikipedia, FlipBoy (Roman Bascao) is a well-known artist/musician in Montreal. He may not be Hollywood celebrities, but in Montreal, he's a really big star to us. A lot of people will like to know and learn more information on him. Wikipedia is the #1 place to find all the information you need and it would be nice if people could actually search for him and find all the info they need to know aobut him. I know a lot of curious people will type "FlipBoy" on this site to find information on him. Many people consider him as an inspiration. In Montreal, we are proud to have celebrities like him and we would like to share FlipBoy to the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherandrews (talk • contribs)

Concerning All Montrealers, Roman Bascao (FlipBoy) is a great Rap Artist's In the Great Montreal Area. Please, do not let this article be delete from Wikipedia. Many Of you might want to learn more about him so please do not delete this.

This is not a neutreal point of view, i am just real close to Roman and i am one of his good friends. He has given me permission to write and talk about him on this site.

Flip Boy(Roman Bascao) is a great Montreal raper on the rise and bein on wikipedia will help in his growth. His art is promising and will gain recognition in due time.

  • Speedy Delete. I cannot find anything relevant on him online. At issue here is verifiability by outside sources, as well as WP:MUSIC (which FlipBoy does not appear to pass anyway, even if he is verifiable.) And admitting that he was "repeatedly booed off stage" doesn't do wonders for his credibility either. ;-) Grandmasterka 21:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am not Canadian and cannot vouch for every aspiring rapper from Montreal, but this sounds like pure vanity. Comments on the page like "Early life: coming soon," "Life Before Death," and the general children's-storybook writing style further support the fact that this material does not belong on Wikipedia and should instead find its way to either a paid domain or free webhosting. Fabricationary 21:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. It is apparent from the entry itself that this person is not notable. The article is also contrary to WP:NPOV. Fluit 21:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry, but this musician is not notable, per WP:BAND Gwernol 21:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, we are truly dissappointed for wasting your time. If you truly beleive this site is not the right place to put an Article on FlipBoy, then we'll just have to find another website. We are not gooing to argue further more about keeping this Article alive. We just wanted to help our fellow Celebrity grow in the <World Wide Web>.

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

[edit] Flashback Characters of Lost

Delete. Information is duplicative of information already on Characters of Lost. Not notable. Same user has created over a dozen articles in the last two days, with no discussion about this proliferation PKtm 21:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge any useful info back into Characters of Lost. Failing that, delete outright. -- Saberwyn 23:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge any applicable information back into Characters of Lost.Danflave 17:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, maybe I'm mistaken, but a lot of this info doesn't appear on the Characters of Lost page. So I think we should put most of these characters intact, into Characters of Lost. I do think though, that it is overkill to keep a section on some of those random characters that only appear in one episode. So for the one-liner characters, the table in Characters of Lost is just fine, but for characters like Christian Shepard and Helen, I think we need to keep the info from this page. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Ewlyahoocom 19:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy close and transfer to WP:TFD. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Lostflashback

Delete. Information is duplicative of info on Characters of Lost. No need to proliferate articles just to have more. PKtm 21:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This will never be used on more than one page, so having a template is completely useless. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'd actually prefer it speedy deleted, but it's not quite that bad. In any case, there is no such word as "Lostflashback," so I hope this cruft goes away quickly. Danflave 17:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake - I thought someone actually created an *article* entitled "Lostflashback"! In any case, delete it. It's duplicate information. Danflave 17:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and for once in my life ...per Jtrost. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is misfiled. WP:TFD is two doors down on the right. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 repost Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 16:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern gnostic mysticism

Can anyone verify this stuff? Has that new research smell. Tagged "unsourced" but removed by anon. An article by this name was speedily deleted earlier as recreation, is this the same article? Weregerbil 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Has the smell of recreation of deleted material under a new title. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Gnosticism. The Talk page from that article was moved to this one, which certainly suggests continuity. Can some admin look at the deleted article and see if this is the same one? If so, speedy it. Fan1967 22:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Never mind about the move. I got some similar article titles confused. There are so many forks here I can't figure out what came from what. Fan1967 22:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is the same article that was earlier deleted by Tawker, yes. --Cedderstk 22:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This article has enough references and links, so if someone's nose cannot 'smell' this smell, I suggest simply ignoring the article, or - studying the referenced materials. So it is certainly not 'unsourced' and that tag is inapropriate. Btw, I don't mark for deletion everything that I don't like the 'smell' of.Ndru01 22:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The article has wikilinks but nothing to show that the ideas in the article are not original research. Like saying the Moon is made of cheese — that sentence has links to individual concepts but no references to support the combined claim is verifiable. Please see WP:V and WP:CITE. Weregerbil 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a recreation of deleted material. --Hetar 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy - creation of deleted material. The JPS talk to me 23:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What 'ideas' in the article? Can you please be more specific. Combining that physical and non-physical interact, or that soul/mind is a 'driver' of the vehicle. You consider that as a 'combination' never-ever combined/known before?Ndru01 23:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - I know a bit about gnosticism, though none of this seems relevant in the least. but there was a lot of effort put into it if its really just fake.. and who would believe what it said enough to be "tricked"? There doesn't seem to be anything wrong here except unverifiability.. no hidden agenda per "hoaxes". drumguy8800 - speak 00:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Hetar Tom Harrison Talk 00:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How can someone that knows just a 'bit' about gnosticism decide about something gnostic being deleted?!? Ndru01 00:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What policy !?! YOU are violating all possible policies here. Plus Fuzzypeg was even offensive and disrespectful towards me in some of his messages (which is for sure an additional violation), while I treat everyone with curtsy. And when it was first deleted it was contrary to the policy. There was no consensus on deletion.Ndru01 00:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


I contributed several times to the discussion regarding this article providing references and links but I see you all are pretending to ignore me. This is an extreme violation of ALL Wiki's policies. I also asked to give me some more days in order to fix the article and add every link and book references that are needed, but you ignored even this !!!!! THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!! YOU ALL ARE VIOLATING ALL WIKI'S POLICIES !!!!! skysurfer 7:00 am, 2 May 2006

Thx, skysurfer. Ndru0105:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems forced and reeks of pseudo-science without a clear link to the religion it associates itself with beyond the title of the article; is also slightly NPOV to top it all off. If Skysurfer and Ndru are so adamant about having this information present, try to make it as a small section of the modern gnosticism page--it'll get vetted and reviewed by others watching the page, and everyone will be happier. -Mance 06:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)



  • Keep and expand Oh, you must stop Witch-hunting. I will fix the article and add some further ones, links to books and websites. You can't stop me, I will not violate any policy for sure, unlike you all. skysurfer
  • Comment: Sky-surfer, in that case you may want to copy it to your user space to work on, as the page itself is subject to various reverts and probable deletion. In a previous edit you made (now reverted), you added a bit of context: "Modern gnostic mysticism... is a term commonly used in New Age literature". This needs to be much more specific. I'll leave further comments on Talk:Modern gnostic mysticism), but if you can't find Reliable sources, there will be no point in trying to salvage anything from the article. --Cedderstk 12:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 20:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yaotl

Yaotl was a name given to numerous legendary warriors in Aztec and Toltec mythology.. It's even clearly referenced as Source: myself. It seems clear to me that the word means "war" or "battle" in Nahuatl, but I can't find a reference to legendary warriors. Prod tag (not mine) was removed without comment and re-added, so I'm bringing it here instead. Weak delete, unless someone has better references at hand. bikeable (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless verification is forthcoming. Bucketsofg✐ 23:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - could possibly be expanded per Urban Dictionary definition.. though the ones there are varied enough and unverifiable enough. the name seems to be popular, there may be some legitimacy. drumguy8800 - speak 00:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per WP:WINAD, and references thin the ground. Stifle (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Echelon

Uncited; original research, if not a hoax. Tom Harrison Talk 22:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete if the author doesn't defend it within 5 days. - Richardcavell 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable secret (and thus unverifiable) society. Bucketsofg✐ 23:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bucketsofg. Also google search returns nothing of relevance.. drumguy8800 - speak 23:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and drumguy. - FRCP11 00:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Apparently this is a running joke in Trinity circles. 83.71.144.13 11:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Conor 12:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • On the Trinity College Page on Bebo, theres a Dark Echelon club with (currently) 19 members, and a seemingly associated club called the "Cult of the Chosen" with 159 members. Most of the conversation in the "Cult of the Chosen" forum seems to involve the fact that none of the members actually made an application to join. Both clubs "homepages" on Bebo can only be accessed by members and the Trinity page only by members of that College (as per typical Bebo college club configuration). A Recent posting seems by a Moderator suggests that some of those in the Cult of the Chosen will gain membership to the Dark Echelon via some unspecified exam. 134.226.1.136 22:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep pending revision and references. Society is known to exist within the college.
  • Delete, secret societies are inherently unverifiable. Stifle (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Sensenbrenner

Unsourced, not-notable, page seems to be part of political smear campaign--creator and editors have been vandalizing Rep. Sensenbrenner's page repeatedly with false claims of Klan association FRCP11 22:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Assuming any of these is even true, I don't see anything worth an article here. Gamaliel 22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable person. - Richardcavell 23:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, unverified, and likely smear (could probably be speedied). Bucketsofg✐ 23:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable. probably a smear, per Bucketsofg drumguy8800 - speak 23:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 00:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Part of the smear campaign against Sensenbrenner. --BaronLarf 05:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OCNative 08:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete A7. Tawker 05:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VARSYS Solutions

nn IT company with 13 Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Tawker 05:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unibrow

Unsourced, original research, and impossible to accurately define (article says "abundant hair between the eyebrows"- what is abundant and what is not?). Probably a majority of people would have joined up eyebrows to some extent if they didn't pluck (so it is not really an unusual characteristic of eyebrows). Merge any useful info to Eyebrow (which needs expanding anyway) and redirect. Arniep 23:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as insensitive to the football team unencyclopedic original research. Bucketsofg✐ 23:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Tom Harrison Talk 00:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per nom, BECAUSE so many people have or would have them. The different acceptances among cultures has the potential for an informative article above and beyond what Eyebrow should cover. — GT 00:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- article has plenty of links from other articles. That suggests it's not exactly original research, but rather a common term (which is probably still unsourced). In any event, it isn't causing harm. --Elkman - (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Just becuase quite a few (not a huge number) of articles link to it doesn't necessarily mean it should be a separate article to eyebrow. Arniep 00:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - though I've only ever heard the term "monobrow" used for them. close to a third of a million google hits suggest that this is worthy of an article. Grutness...wha? 02:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not sure why this would be considered original research, it's a pretty well-known topic with hundreds of thousands of Google hits. According to this, the word is cited regularly by the press and has been in use at least since 1988. Plus, the article has Helga Pataki. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable sort of facial feature. Haikupoet 03:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - a legitimate, notable topic. I don't view this as legitimate research. But please, if there are any Wikipedians out there with a unibrow, think of the children and shave or pluck the bridge between the eyebrows. This has been a public service announcement by Mark 06:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
don't shave or it will certainly grow back twice as fast and twice as thick. Arniep 19:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If someone wants to be specific, let them. DougOfDoom talk 01:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Alphax τεχ 04:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons articulated above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not original research, and a notable sort of topic. --Knucmo2 19:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep It's encouraging & noteworthy that many people regarded as beautiful are unibrowed. Ghosts&empties 14:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Interesting information._Anglius DeleteShould be merged with Eyebrow.--Anglius 03:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bamboos Pourgol

Non notable singer. Fails WP:V as well. Last Afd was closed as No vote. Relisted again. --Ragib 23:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: as nominated ... --Ragib 23:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment the last AfD was actually closed as "keep" following my "no vote" nomination and one "tentative keep" vote. No vote again this time. Thryduulf 10:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ! Records

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. drumguy8800 - speak 23:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: as nominated drumguy8800 - speak 23:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. Beno1000 00:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, WP:MUSIC. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, mainly because all the bands except one are redlinked, and the blue link is to something completely irrelevant. Stifle (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


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