Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 22

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Home and Away Spoilers

Unencyclopediac Home And Away-cruft. Also questions over the whether the info is verifable. Midnighttonight 03:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as there are no references in the article to verify content. Kevin 03:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic, and of course, there is also the possibility of hoax spoilers to generate publicity and viewing figures. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 03:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic, unverifiable, perhaps crystall ballism, perhaps a hoax. -- Kicking222 04:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencylopedic. Cedars 06:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 10:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Chuq 12:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable list of future Home and Away episodes. I don't know whether we have WP:NOT a tv guide but that might be appropriate. Capitalistroadster 12:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 12:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic and there are no references. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment almost certainly a copyvio. The article is spoilering the UK's transmission (which is, what, about 18 months behind the Australian original). Still delete as essentially unencyclopedic, but this isn't crystaballism or unverifiable. Vizjim 13:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge If verifiable, merge into Home and Away and delete. Else, just plain delete as unencyclopaedic. jgp 16:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft Hughcharlesparker 19:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 21:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge I agree with Jpg. Try to merge the spoilers with the main Home and Away article. Bye --Starionwolf 01:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystal ballism M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete particularly unencyclopaedic article. --Roisterer 14:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. -- That Guy, From That Show! 22:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark and Friends

A web comic with no incoming links [1] or references that google knows of [2]. The website's pageview counter is currently just above 600, and [3] indicates that this is the correct number of visitors so far. Zocky | picture popups 00:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Zocky's research. Searching on Alexa & other engines confirms this webcomic's inherent unnotability. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 00:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per excellent nom. -- Kicking222 00:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 00:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing wrong with the page. Mostly Rainy 02:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kevin 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Skinnyweed 16:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Hughcharlesparker 19:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Five results excluding Wikipedia. It's on Freewebs. It just isn't notable enough to have an article. Jude (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, none of those other five results is for the webcomic, apart from wikipedia mirrors and the website itself. The others are about Joanna Dark from the videogame Perfect Dark and her friends, "Jennifer Dark And Friends Doing Groupsex" on a random porn website, and Dark Smith, James Duval's character in the movie Nowhere and his friends. There may be other web references for this webcomic, but there seem to be none whatsoever recorded by Google.Zocky | picture popups 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep -- Longhair 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Floriana basketball club

This would fall under the non-notable criteria (not that I've read that section or anything, but still, if I had read it, then I'd still probs AFD this). A Maltese sports club, this is. Fair enough, it is probs more important than such British gems as Locks Heath F.C.. What was the question again? Ah yeah, delete this. Talented Wikipedian 00:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As the club is affiliated to the Malta Basketball Association, it is as notable as a team affiliated to the NBA. It also helps fighting systemic bias. Carioca 01:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep They play in the National League's 1st division - seems notable enough. Kevin 03:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - a first class sports team.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sports clubs are notable. If you ain't interested, don't read the article - there's another 1,100,000 to look at. Markb 10:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notability is established. --Terence Ong 11:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Though not very notable, the article should be expanded while voters vote to keep it.--Jusjih 13:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, while it's a little bit of an exaggeration to assert that this club is as notable as a team member of the NBA, the notability of this one is real and as such, it deserves to be kept. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 14:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per Carioca --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penis banding

This is a strange activity, and there's no assertion that it is practiced by anyone other than the authors of the two linked webpages. I can't seem to find any reliable sources for this. It seems to me that this may be a type of obsessive compulsive disorder in which the sufferer is obsessed with castration. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT a how-to. Erik the Rude 00:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, research shows support of nominator's proposal. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Mostly Rainy 02:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable as written. Kevin 03:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just because it seems strange or bizarre to us doesn't mean it's not notable. This practice is actually practiced alot in the SF bay area in certain communities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Insanelygreat (talk • contribs) 06:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Note. Above is user's first edit. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 11:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep This is practiced in certain sections of society in the world. Granted that this practice is strange and not well known, it has been practiced before. Moreover, references have been provided as well for this article. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as above. moreover if only those two websites exist and they only have a few thousand members it is important to the wholeness of the information present in round about ways to this issues. While this is not the case since this is an ancient practice as sourced.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 18:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per Siva1979, else redirect to penectomy. Very difficult to verify by its very nature but, like any paraphilia, there's plenty of questionable internet source material on the subject. — AKADriver ☎ 13:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Searching "Penis banding" together gets 65 Ghits only.--Jusjih 13:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn practice. Is also unverifiable. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Siva1979, but I would otherwise merge with penectomy. Just because it's bizarre and you've never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 18:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as the sources given are absolutely unacceptable as sources. Wikipedia is not the internet, I have no doubt that there are people who have done this, but "truth" has nothing to do with whether something should have a Wikipedia article or not. This article is basically original research which is unverified by reliable sources. Mak (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Give me something beyond a beyond a personal site saying "this is what it is and this is how I do it" and I'll reconsider my vote. But if this counts as verifiable then I have a bridge to sell you, er, some web pages to create. Cburnett 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not referenced enough for me. People do strange things to themselves, but the fact that something is possible (and practiced by a handful of people) doesn't make this notable. Grandmasterka 03:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: This entry still has no reliable sources, nor is there any information on how widespread it is or even if it is important at all. If those voting "keep" had sourced it or provided some information on how widespread or important it is, I wouldn't have minded seeing it kept. I just don't like it when people make up activities, give it a name, and put it on Wikipedia. Erik the Rude 17:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. -- Longhair 10:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Dunkadelic Era" In America, 1984-Present

Long, rambling, idiosyncratic pop-culture history essay, created by Dunkadelic Education (talk · contribs). No real sources cited. "Importance" and "reference" tags have been added and removed -- twice -- and prod tag added and removed, all without any comments. Seems to be related to Dunkadelicious (see its AfD -- author removed AfD tag from article) and to Dunkadelic. Calton | Talk 00:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'll give him credit: This guy's original research is quite lengthy, and also rather original. -- Kicking222 01:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete attempting to use wikipedia to promote own "movement" --Bachrach44 01:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. Kevin 03:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Peta 04:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete basicly a revisionist take on basketball and hip-hop history to fit into some company's marketing scheme. --Eivind^t@c 07:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 11:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom and my reasons to other AfD by the same author here. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 14:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR, possibly WP:VANITY considering the article's name... jgp 16:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Hughcharlesparker 19:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Dunkadelic? That sounds like a term made up from the Simpsons.--Folksong 20:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 03:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lionel Portier

Appears to be a vanity page. The only claim for notability is an unsourced statement that the subject has been published "around the world" jmd 01:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - WP:BIO, WP:NN, WP:RS Crum375 01:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per above. -- Kicking222 01:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Yanksox 01:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. The subject and author seems to be related by name, and there's no verification of notability Kevin 03:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as A7 non-notable. Having a webpage hardly qualifies as "being published around the world" in any serious sense. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 23:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dunkadelic

Contested PROD. Original research, neologism, possible spam by User:Dunkadelic Education Erik the Rude 01:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm actually quite amazed- pretty much every single Google hit for "All-Dunkadelic Team" is a post one of a great number of message boards. And, judging from the user names on those sites, I honestly wouldn't be shocked if every post was by this same editor. -- Kicking222 01:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete attempting to use wikipedia to promote own "movement" --Bachrach44 01:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. Kevin 03:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my prod. --Eivind^t@c 07:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam, original research. --Terence Ong 11:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article shares its authory and subject with the one posted above. The activity of this editor should be watched closely just in case he/she attempts to recreate this material or make new adittions to the "topic". Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 14:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. jgp 16:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto

This page has been recently deleted within the last 48 hours as a speedy for copyvio; it was speedied through admin intervention in a regular AfD. The original AfD nom, which I support, is non-notable. In addition, Gregorykay (the main contributer), has repeatedly deleted a second speedy notice claiming that this is a different page. Adding to AfD for discussion Hobbeslover 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As nominator Hobbeslover 01:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do NOT Delete There is NO REASON THAT PAGE SHOULD BE DELETED! Im just annoyed because everyone all day is saying to delete it just because at the beginning it was copyright infringement but it no longer is. Just say why it should be deleted, is there a reason? Or you just saw that someone else nominated it for speedy? Because this article is diffrent one from the one that was originoly nominated. Sorry if i sound rude i am just a bit annoyed--Gregorykay 01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are still bits and pieces that are copyvio. The sentence structure has been changed but elements remain of copyvio (check it against the website). - Hobbeslover 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (see below) Delete - promotional ad for a business. WP:NN, WP:RS, WP:NPOV Crum375 01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentDon't count me i already voted but in rebuttle this is not a buisness it is a non-profit organization. It is a Synagogue, it is not a buisness looking to advertise.--Gregorykay 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• a. Non-profit != non-business; and b. Most synagogues definitely do collect money and advertize. Crum375 01:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete Individual churches/synagogues/mosques are generally non-notable (WP:NN, perhaps specifically WP:CORP) except where special circumstances entail (e.g., prominent leader, notable attendees, historical significance, very large congregation); I don't see such circumstances here (there is, I imagine, an argument to be made that each individual religious house of worship is as notable as any individual school; inasmuch as it seems well-settled that schools [at least of secondary level] are notable per se, I can imagine a reasonable argument for keep). Joe 01:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Keep I concurred in Crum's note that the synagogue would be notable were it one of the largest in North America and were we able to verify such size per WP:V and WP:RS; I am convinced that such verification is now possible, and so the synagogue, to my mind, meets with WP:NN. Joe 20:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is the largest Synagogue in Toronto.--Gregorykay 01:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That would probably be notable, if it comes from WP:RS Crum375 01:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It comes from the synagogue website bayt.org--Gregorykay 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you point me to it? (I couldn't find it on the site) - and BTW WP:RS means some neutral reliable source would have to say so. Crum375 02:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.bayt.org/ at the top under about us, Our history

Sorry - I read again the entire history and probably missed it again :P - can you quote something that I can search? (not that it matters - it's POV etc but for the record) Crum375 02:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were asking were i got most of the information from, i didn't realize you were specificly asking about where i found it is the largest synagogue in toronto. As for that information i dont really have a source, as an active member within the Toronto jewish community it is a known thing. But i guess that is not a reliable source.

• keep and massively cleanup We tend to keep houses of worship, as long as there's some small claim to notability. (As an NP patroller, I can assure you this isn't even the most tenous claim to notability I've seen this week). The page currently has a lot of self-promotion. If we can clean it up using WP:RS and only verified info, it should be okay. (note to anyone who wants to clean it up: take a look at other articles in Category:Places of worship in New York City - there are some in there which are very good.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bachrach44 (talk • contribs) 02:04, May 22, 2006 (UTC).

• Weak Delete It seems to be kind of non-notable to me. If it gets kept, it needs to be NPOV'd and cleaned up. --Flyne 03:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Page needs cleanup, but I see no reason to delete it. Mostly Rainy 06:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the user who AFD'd the original (as "BAYT"). The content is written in a somewhat more encyclopedic tone now, but still has significant lack-of-notability, POV, and sourcing issues. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I attempted to clean up and copyedit and called it a stub. It could become an article if independent sources are provided. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• There are still no reliable neutral sources citing this specific institution's notability. That should be the focus. Crum375 11:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Personally I think all religion is nonsense, but that doesn't mean religious buildings and the groups associated with them are not notable. Markb 10:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, if cleanup and verified. --Terence Ong 11:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This Is from the synagogue website so it is POV but...." Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto (BAYT) One of the largest orthodox synagogues in North America." it says this under links on this page http://www.bayt.org/calendar/ . But i think this site would not be POV it's neutral I think http://www.cjnews.com/pastissues/02/nov28-02/community/community3.htm it was an article for the synagogue in a newspaper. And here; http://www.jewishtorontoonline.net/home.do?ch=events&state=organizationSearch&Submit=show&organization=1060 is another site with some info --Gregorykay 14:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, a reference which is a catalog listing cannot vouch for 'notability', as the criteria for inclusion are unclear. Much better would be articles mentioning the institution (not necessarily in a complimentary fashion). All that's needed is notability (or notoriety as the case may be), IOW 'claim to fame' mentioned by a reliable neutral publication - i.e. why is it special. Crum375 15:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But the newspaper article would be reliable and near the bottom it says "It has since grown to become one of the largest Orthodox synagogues in North America", that is its claim to fame

• That was my point, but the catalog reference is not useful and the article as of now still reads like an ad. The first sentence should probably say "...one of the largest Orthodox synagogues in North America...", and there should be reliable neutral references backing it up. Crum375 16:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• ' Delete - pretty nn as far as I can see. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 20:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If it can be shown (via neutral verifiable source) to be one of the largest of its kind in NA, I would consider it notable for that. Wouldn't you? Crum375 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, has been successfully turned into a decent article. - SimonP 21:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe we are looking at different articles. The one I see right now is just an ad for a business. No claim to fame (e.g. one of largest per above), nor citations of neutral publications justifying such claims. As it stands it is still WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:NN to name a few, i.e. delete candidate. Crum375 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry im kinda new to wikipedia, how long until the process is over, and if its decided that the article will be kept, will these tags be added to it; {{not verified}} {{Expert}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorykay (talk • contribs)

The AfD was created on the 22nd of May, and will close on the 27th of May, unless an administrator closes it early. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

kk thnx--Gregorykay 04:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. One of the largest Orthodox synagogues in North America. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Much better now, good job. It would be nice to have the source of the 'one of the biggest' available online. I just changed my vote to Keep (on trust). Crum375 20:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per SlimVirgin. Well on the way to becoming a great article. -- JJay 20:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve.--Shlomke 02:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it is becoming a great article now Yuckfoo 19:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Strothra 19:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 23:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O.EE

Never heard of this drink and a quick search shows no evidence for it. Think this is some sort of prank, but even if the drink does exist it seems unlikely that every brand of every drink should have a wiki entry! Gretnagod 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I fail to understand why this article is deemed unacceptable. It is factual.

• Delete google test fails - Hobbeslover 01:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If it can't be verified, it can't be on WP. -- Kicking222 02:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as per nom, this is a stupid article. Librarianofages 02:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of notabiliy, and no sign of any truth to it. Kevin 04:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mostly Rainy 06:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 12:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per the nomination. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Jusjih 13:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find anything about the beer. No articles link to O.EE either. --Starionwolf 01:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The page is a reference to "Olde English" or "Olde E." I doubt anybody uses this spelling, but if they do, this could simply be a redirect page. Zepheus 07:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as listcruft. Royboycrashfan 03:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Xavier Institute students

Not memorable, TERRIBLE precedent - Xavier Institute is a school in India John Broughton 01:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT. Definition of listcruft. -- Scientizzle 01:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DakPowers (Talk) 01:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Peta 02:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is so listcrufty, the phrase "listcruft" should be changed to "ListofXavierInstitutestudentscruft". -- Kicking222 02:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete tagged as an a7 group which does not assert why the students are notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 03:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 15:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chipmunk DJs

• Delete: Non-notable term developed "primarily on the internet" - except there's only 6 hits on Google: 2 from WP and 4 in blogs. Prod was removed with an edit summary admitting that there's no such term as Chipmunk DJs. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no verification that this term is in use anywhere, except a few blogs. Kevin 04:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wknight. -- Kicking222 04:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 08:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 12:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Jusjih 13:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment people might want to take a look at DJ Rankin, an article linked to by this article. Might warrant deletion.--Drat (Talk) 15:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename there is no doubt that the culture described in the aricle exists, though the name given to these people varies. A visit to mixstreet.net will show you exactly the kind of things in the article. Re-titling the article would be more constructive than deletion Eltyrub 19:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep agree with above; I have heard the term 'Rip Off DJ' used more prevalently than 'Chipmunk DJ', though the information is still 100% accurate 217.206.85.3 11:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd recommend giving some sources for some other term if you want anyone to change their vote. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While this probably does exist and might be applicable to one of our many articles about dance music and/or online music, the article as written seems more like an attack page, particularly against the people who are specifically named there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete.. Agree with sentiments above. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Royboycrashfan 03:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darkflame Studios

• Delete: Non-notable studio. All Google hits appear to be blogs and discussion boards. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 02:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

All the AfDs in this section have now been individually closed. --Ezeu 05:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish summer camps and local organizations

Note: The manner in which this vote has now been set up requires that you click on each of the names and place your votes and comments into each one individually.

Two or three days ago User:PZFUN was nominating some Judaism-related articles for deletion during stub-cleaning. Together with mostly summer camps he inexplicably managed to list a number of rather notable Hasidic rebbes. Predictably this led to some nasty finger pointing and name-calling on the administators' noteboard and on AfD itself.

The full helping of bile is here and here.

I am re-listing the articles (minus the rebbes of couse) here in the hope to restore civility. Intentionally no rationale is given why any article might be delete-worthy. Please read the articles and make your statement on the worth of the article itself. Rude remarks and blanket statements are discouraged, those are never helpful. Dr Zak 02:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I consider it highly impolite at best to remove with a keystroke all the efforts of many, who commented and voted on many of these AfD's. I think the vast majority of the comments were very civil and objective. To start from scratch, tossing away many hours of work by many caring people because there was suspicion of POV or GF on the part of the nominator (which I believe proved to be a false alarm) is simply wrong. Crum375 02:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. I think all the previous noms should be closed as either no consensus, or reopened where they were. -- JJay 02:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• The votes at the various VfD for the articles were going along fine until the Dr. came along. There was absolutely NO acrimony on the voting pages themselves, everything was very civil. The results would have been either "no consensus" or "keep" because enough "keep" votes had already come in. Almost ALL those who voted "keep" gave far more detailed and researched reasons than those who voted "delete". It is puzzling, to say the least, why this new very unusual listing is now needed. Those who have voted on those VfD pages should be informed that this move was taking place. IZAK 03:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree about the civility, though not necessarily about the potential outcome. Personally I think there should be consistent WP policies about all clubs and organizations and their grouping, if any. But leaving that aside, I totally agree that this re-listing is most improper. The work product invested by people by researching each case and voting, and the ensuing civil discussions, cannot just be tossed aside on someone's whim. Crum375 03:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• This is all silly, wikipedia is big enough for all of these jewish summer camps. Camps for Jews are an important part of both european and american jewish history. 24.60.163.16 05:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• This is all WP:POINT and never should have happened. PZFUN deserves to be blocked. But now we're here it may be useful to review these cases, as summer camps have intrinsic notability and WP:V problems. JFW | T@lk 07:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• It is time to stop the crusade against perfectly non-obtrusive and non-offensive articles about legitimate topics. What is the problem with keeping them? That Wikipedia will be more complete?? Keep them all and let people improve the articles. -- Olve 08:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Is there any reason why these shouldn't be merged into ... oooh, lets say Jewish summer camps and local organizations. A paragraph mentioning what they generally have in common (constituency, activities, staffing), and then a list with locations and any truly important distinctions noted there. -- GWO
  • GWO: It's simple, because there are too many of them, they are very diverse, and they have different histories and facts surrounding them. Basically all the information about them would not fit into a normal page. IZAK 10:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Some of them are unique, but a lot are basically the same. Camp Galil, Camp Gesher, Camp Miriam -- are these really more different than they are similar? Their differences could easily be summarised in a list / table at Habonim Dror summer camps. Much of the additional information is completely superfluous. I mean, do we really need to know where Camp Geshers flagpole is, or how many baseball diamonds each camp has? -- GWO
      • GWO: Obviously we are not focusing on the "flagpoles", the point is not just what you and I may think of these camps, it's obvious that there are plenty of other readers who are delighted to get this information and anything else that can be added to it in the years to come. In the USA going to summer camp is almost a way of life for many Jewish kids, it's part of their fun connection to Judaism in many ways, and it cannot be minimized and should not be trivialized and certainly should not be deleted. Wikipedia's servers can handle it. IZAK 11:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry. I was under the impression this was an encyclopedia, not a holiday brochure. Playing softball is a way of life for lots of Americans: are we to allow every softball team a page. -- GWO
          • Oh come on GWO: Have you honsetly read all 1,200,000+ articles on Wikipedia? When all the articles about Porn stars and Nudity will go then I can start comparing things here to the Britanicca, but for now, all decent information is more than welcome as far as most people are concerned. IZAK 12:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm all for including notable pornstars, notable summer camps and notable nudity. But the criteria for inclusion is notability, not usefulness to kids planning their vacations. -- GWO
          • So what it boils down to then is what values to go by, those that value porn stars and nudists (what's notable about filth? -- it's like measuring garbage) or those that value Jewish children (who are inherently precious) and the notable institutions that serve them. IZAK 15:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Our apologies; we missed the part on the Wikipedia Main Page where Wikipedia's adherence to some interpretation of Judeo-Christian "moral values" was cited. Until it does appear, however, I'm afraid the standards for inclusion for this (or, likely, for any other) encyclopedia will revolve around verifiability and notability before it does any utterly POV-ridden concept such as "values." RGTraynor 20:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Hmmm. I'm tempted to register wholesomepedia.org and filthopedia.org, and see which gets more contributors. Pornography is massive influence on world culture -- whether IZAK likes it or not. Jewish summer camps, not so much. -- GWO
• A really pain-in-the-arse way of going about solving the problem 'if' there was much of one. I only hope that the closing admins also look at the original discussions when considering the result. -- saberwyn 11:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is an excellent example of what is wrong with AfD right now. It appears most if not all of these were nominated with no attempt to discuss the problems with these articles on the individual talk pages. Granted, what we have here are a number of summer camps and clubs, which in my opinion fall well short of current inclusion guidelines and the vast majority of them should likely be deleted if you look at them on their merits, independent of the issues surrounding the nominations. Still, if a reasonable effort had been made to discuss these articles individually this whole mess could have possibly been avoided; or at least some civility could have been retained during the AfD process.--Isotope23 16:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder if there is any good way to announce mass nominations of articles. One can discuss the merits of an individual article on a talk page, sure, but what would one do when one goes spring-cleaning with, say, ten summer camps, or student societies or porno starlets? Dr Zak 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No there really isn't a good way... which is why mass noms are not the best idea. I understand the concept if it being easier to look at a bunch of similar articles together... but really, best practice is to individually nominate and discuss each article on its merits. Mass nominations just always end up being acrimonious.--Isotope23 19:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There are a lot of articles on American Jewish summer camps appearing on wikipedia, many of do not appear to be very notable: Camp Modin, for one. If these articles are to stay on wikipedia then I would suggest that new articles be made, perhaps one for each US state, in which information about the camps in those areas can be placed, rather than having this huge number pages on camps, most of them not exceeding about 250 words in size. Martinp23 18:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. Camp Modin is one of the oldest Jewish camps in the US and was the inspiration for a recent feature film. We need many more articles like this, not less. -- JJay 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• The fact is that many of these articles are onyl a few hundred words long, and should either be expanded or amalgamated. With all the camps from a state in one article, it will be easier for the reader too compare the camps, and look and Judaism in these areas. The more notable camps shoudl have their articles extended. Camp Agawam is really a tiny article which should be combined with others into a new article. Martinp23 21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Please expand them then if you think they need more information. However, I would be happy to see stubs on every camp in the US, even the non-Jewish ones. -- JJay 21:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Grouping by state is a poor taxonomy, as I see no reason that geographic location (certainly on a scale smaller then "regional") would significantly differentiate them. If anything, group them by ideology/mission. Better yet, have a single article. --Nmagedman 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge As per WP:BREAK, a Best Current Practice for page development is to start with a single page, to create sections as needed, and to fork those sections off into their own articles as the parent article matures. Here, however, we find a large number of stub articles with little indication of their individual importance. Repeatedly, the argument was made below that the camps are notable because they have been around for many years and have had an impact on many peoples' lives. I accept that argument for the camps as a whole, but see no justification for articles on each individual camp. I therefore propose that the camp articles be merged into e.g. Jewish-American camp movement discussing the significance of these camps (as a whole) on the Jewish-American experience/culture, with sub-sections for each camp indicating how it substantively contributed to or differentiated itself from the rest of the movement. --Nmagedman 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I fully agree with this - just because they have affected lots of people doesn't make them notable. There are many people in the world, teachers and doctors for example, who have had a HUGE impact on many peoples' lives, but are not considered for Wikipedia. Martinp23 16:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Jewish summer camps do not merely "impact peoples' lives" in the secular sense of "having fun" or whatever. These camps are an integral part of the Jewish cultural experience. They are not just about playing baseball or swimming in the lake. Those things might happen, but the main purpose is to provide a place where Jewish children and youth can affirm their Jewishness in an accepting, positive environment. As such, they are more akin to feminist retreats or GLBT retreats or some other cultural minority that does not always feel accepted or able to be "out" in the greater society. Those of you who did not grow up Jewish in America (or Canada, in the case of some camps) cannot truly understand the experience, anymore that a heterosexual can truly understand what it feels like to be gay in a homophobic society. If these were gay or feminist camps, would we even be having this conversation? Because the pattern of these delete nominations -- and not just camps, there have been others! -- has been to target Jews or Jewish institutions that might not be known in the general public, but are nevertheless as important in the Jewish experience as a lot of other things I've never even heard of that are still here on Wikipedia. Rooster613 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

• "Going Down The Pub" is an integral part of the "British cultural experience". Doesn't mean my local pub deserves an article. One can write about the importance of Jewish Summer Camps as a social construct without detailing each individual camp. I'd love to see such an article. Of course, writing such an article is hard, and requires research. Merely enumerating and describing each camp is easy, and pointless. Guess which wikipedia got? -- GWO

• Weak Keep [note: I voted Merge above. Since the thread has grown from there, I'm adding this rather than striking what I have above.] There are at least a couple hundred articles on various summer camps on Wikipedia, not to mention high schools and everybody's pet organization. Personally, I think they are all NN rubbish and have no place in an encyclopedia. However, it is a waste of energy to repeat the "Are summer camps encyclopedic?" debate on each and every camp article on WP. Hash out the debate in a guideline discussion. Once a standard is agreed upon, then sweep through all the camp articles, applying the standard equally. In the meantime, I would not be averse to flagging these (and all) camp articles with {{importance}}. --Nmagedman 08:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Notability is Relative: By any rule of logic, reason, and fairness, one should not short-circuit the system by nominating articles for deletion, when what certain articles may need is improvement and sources, and one needs to step back from one's own mind-set and think of entire groups of articles that may be important in other contexts. I did NOT write the articles on this page up for VfDs but nevertheless if enough people feel that these topics (about Jewish Summer Camps) are important enough to write them up, it must mean that many young parents or campers or people out there WANT to read about them, so that in itself makes these articles worthy of being defended. A lot of the shouting about "notable" is bogus because notability is a relative concept, and as I have stated, when the day comes that Wikipedia will do away with articles about porn stars and nudity I will know that it has become a "real" encyclopedia. Why are Jewish Summer camps "not notable"? They play a major and very significant role in the lives of hundreds of thousands of Jewish kids growing up in North America for two months out of every year. Jewish kids love their camp experiences more than they like school. Camp fees for two months are often the equivalent of an entire year's yeshiva or day school tuition, so summer camps are important features of Jewish education and life! In fact it's surprising that there are so few of these articles, there will surely be more by new editors unaware of this fuss who will just write new articles in the future. Sure, the articles are wishy-washy and are obviously often written by people who want to get attention, but how is that different to other areas? Sure, in the Jews and Judaism sections we have articles that need work, is that not true everywhere on Wikipedia? There are editors who have spent hundreds of hours devoted to improving the articles, but they are few in number and it will take time, maybe even years. It is not wise to ignore the broader picture and to not take the long-term view, and "delete on sight". There is now a new self-justifying rationale that one can just skip the "needs improvement" requests on article pages and just put "VfD" on them with the excuse that they just are doing it to "get the attention" of other editors -- "The New Deletionism". To expect action and solutions within days is not realistic. It will take months and years to improve things. Writing and editing takes time, not to mention all the man-hours spent on debates and discussions on talk pages on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has come a long way, and there is a long way to go yet, but we should not let deletionists to throw the baby out with the bathwater with articles in the name of making Wikipedia more "encyclopedic" when in fact, notability is relative, and more caution and care is called for. Wikipedia is not a "finished product", it is definitely a "work of art in progress" and no works of art are produced overnight. IZAK 16:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Holy living shit. You really believe that wikipedia will be improved if it discards everything that does not fit your moral code. That's a scary, scary, scary idea. Thank God you're in a minority of one. -- GWO
  • GWO: Who the heck said anything about a "moral code"??? I was citing examples to make a point, that while some people think that porn stars are notable, others do not, and by the same token while some people think that summer camps are important and notable others do not. That's it in a nutshell. If I was truly worried about "moral codes" I would spend my time someplace else other than Wikipedia. I am not detached from reality, so please don't make it sound like that. Not everyone sees things the same way. There all kinds of "encyclopedias" out there, depending on one's interests. IZAK 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • while some people think that porn stars are notable, others do not -- and you're telling me that your railing against porn and nudity (nudity ?!?) isn't based on morals but ... what, exactly? Incidentally, if you think wikipedia's going to become cleanopedia, I suggest you investigate how Bomis makes its money. -- GWO
      • GWO: So you think that Bomis's X-rated history should guide the fate of Wikipedia? Anyhow, it's a poor argument to believe that because Bomis is what it is that therefore Wikipedia is the same. People are free to be moral, immoral, or amoral, but that is also not the point of my argument which you insist on twisting. My point is that "notability" does not have the same meaning or definition in all situations and is not the same for all people, something which should be very obvious but which is often ignored. One could just as clearly say that while some people may think that different species of rare insects may be "notable", for those who couldn't care less about bugs, "bug xyz" crawling in the Mojave Desert is simply not notable -- whereas something that does interest them, like the things that revolve around the education and development of children, such as Summer camps, is extremely notable. My only argument here is that the notion of notability is relative. IZAK 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
        • My point is that "notability" does not have the same meaning or definition in all situations and is not the same for all people, something which should be very obvious but which is often ignored. -- No. Your point is further than that. Your point is that notability is relative, but your concept of it is the one that should apply to wikipedia. i.e. remove the famous, notorious, filthy, obscene, unpleasant-but-widely-known pornstars whom you find so distasteful, but keep the non-famous-but-thoroughly-wholesome summer camps because they're so super-important (at least to the middle-class Jewish boys from the midwest to whom they cater). My point (if I still have one) is that that's hilarious. -- GWO
        • GWO: What may be "hilarious" to you is pathetic to someone else. No need to make fun of "middle-class Jewish boys from the midwest" which I would say could be construed as a very offensive statement or worse, don't you think? Oh my, why do you put words into my mouth. I have never proposed any of the things that you attribute to me. I was pointing to examples of differences of perspective that prove that there can never be a universal standard to guide notability. Not everyone watches or has an interest in porn stars, nor should they, but the only thing that I have maintained is that no-one on Wikipedia or anywhere can decide upon universal rules for notability, nothing more and nothing less, and please do not attribute words to me that I have not stated specifically. IZAK 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
          • GWO: No need to make fun of "middle-class Jewish boys from the midwest" -- I didn't make fun of them, or even say anything derogatory about them, except to say that an individual camp that caters exclusively to them might not be particularly notable. So take your faux-outrage and implications of anti-semitism and go and write a good article about the cultural importance of Jewish Summer Camps, and fewer descriptions off their individual amenities. -- GWO

Comment - Setting aside dogmatic debates between deletionists and inclusionists, I think that a) the fact that an article is still a stub does not make the topic non-notable; and b) it takes some nerve to nominate for deletion articles that the nominator clearly has no knowledge, and in some cases didn't even read. --Leifern 00:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me under CSD-A7. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 15:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew linde

Reads like an advertisement (the original author appears to be the subject or someone associated) and does not establish notability. Crystallina 02:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - No assertion to notability. Librarianofages 02:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - 20somthing yr old with no notability - Peripitus 03:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable vanity page. Kevin 04:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 08:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable.--Jusjih 13:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audra Williams

Non-notable vanity article. Homey 02:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Morgan Wick 02:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It looks more like a user page and should be moved to whoever created user page and the article. -- Mostly Rainy 02:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• When relisting an item that's been up for AFD before, you should provide a direct link to the original debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audra Williams. Now, that said: the original debate concluded less than two weeks ago, and you haven't presented any new reason to reopen the matter so soon. That ain't how things are done around here. Keep unless you can present a valid new reason to revisit this twice in less than a month. Bearcat 03:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The article at present is somewhat shorter than it was during the first AFD. Almost two weeks ago I asked for sources for several claims. None have been provided and the paragraphs in question have been hidden as a result.Homey 03:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Bearcat. Ardenn 04:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've certainly heard of her. - SimonP 04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While I've never heard of her, the article certainly seems a good job of asserting a lot of notability. And, assuming that the vast majority relate to this person, 9,360 Google hits is plenty. -- Kicking222 04:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep barely notable. Any remaining unsourced claims can be removed after the AFD. If that leaves a short stub, that's fine. People can add back material with sources. I added back some (not all), just now, so people could see what's being voted on. Also, if anybody edits this article, please do leave edit summaries if you can. --Rob 05:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC) On review, I see I can't vote keep, due to the lack of independent sources. --Rob 20:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not (yet) a collection of random non-notable information. Bwithh 05:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per my previous comments before on the article's talk page. I always said I did not believe there would be a consensus to delete on an AfD; hence I avoided taking it here, but now that it's here, I believe the subject falls just short of notability. (I also missed the last AfD, by the way.) TheProject 07:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I still don't see how she is notable. --Eivind^t@c 08:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, entirely nn. Web forum moderator? Activist? What has she actually done? Wikipedia is not a repository of mini-bios on liberals with consciences who can use a computer. Inclusion = systemic bias. Deizio talk 09:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and just to get systemic bias out of the way -- Wikipedia is not a repository of mini-bios on conservatives with consciences who can use a computer, either. TheProject 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete her article, though she herself sounds lovely. 100% agree with Deizio. She may be good at generating Google hits but she herself has not yet achieved anything of real note. Vizjim 10:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 13:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I know vanity when I see it 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC) (added by User:Medico80)
• Delete NN - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Deizio. RGTraynor 20:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO in my view. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 15:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. see this discussion Wiederaufbau
  • The definition of vanity is "written by the article subject themselves". This article was not written by Audra; I know the person who wrote it and he's neither Audra nor a personal friend of hers. Bearcat 22:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • According to Wikipedia:Vanity; "Most often, vanity edits are edits about the editors themselves, their close relatives or their personal associates". You have thus far failed to convince me, and may fail to convince others, that this article does not fall within the bounds of that particular guideline. Deizio talk 22:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
      • What part of "the person who wrote it has no personal association of any type with Audra Williams" are you finding difficult to understand? The person who wrote it is not Audra, or a friend of Audra's, or a relative of Audra's, or a personal associate of Audra's. The person who wrote it meets no criterion that would make this a vanity article per Wikipedia:Vanity. Bearcat 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Serves pretty much the same purpose (and I'm not convinced the principal authors are not connected with Audra, even if only in a virtual way ie exchanges with each other on the same chat boards, emails etc,) For instance, this article was discussed on the babble strike board, Audra expressed her desire not to see it deleted and has posted to that effect on the talk page. When someone campaigns not to have an article on themselves deleted that tells me the article serves the same purpose as a vanity page. See [27] Homey 00:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 12:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regatta Implementation: Preliminary phase

No concensus was reached on the last AFD on this article - not for want of delete votes. The textbook-styled text is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia, delete--Peta 02:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, WP:NOT Librarianofages 03:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 03:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Medico80 15:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. -- Longhair 23:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Carroll

This might be a vanity article. This guy's name doesn't ring a bell to me.

• Delete. Mostly Rainy 02:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, looks notable enough to me:
  • [28]
  • [29]
  • [30] --Liface 02:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep First of all, I have no idea how this is being AfD'd. This guy would only be non-notable if it was a hoax, which it's not. Carroll was already mentioned in the Michelle Kwan article before his own article was even created. He's listed on the official figure skating sites given by Liface above. "Frank Carroll"+"figure skating" brings up 12,200 Google hits. Need I continue? The coach of a large number of notable figure skaters (including Olympic and World Championship medal winners) is certainly notable. -- Kicking222 03:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Definitely notable. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (yes, from me, really) as notable. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kicking. Joe 04:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Yep, another keep as per Kicking222. Vizjim 10:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 13:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Are you kidding? Coached Michelle Kwan, Timothy Gabel. AfD also not formatted properly. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 15:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Kicking222. jgp 17:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 22:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew M. House

Non-notable author, can't even find anything about him on google [31] Liface 02:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as A7, he seems to have one book. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable author Bwithh 07:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 08:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.--Jusjih 13:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find much about the auther either. No articles link to it either.  :( --Starionwolf 01:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 12:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Stinger Report

Contested speedy deletion. No vote. --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Given the article originator, seems like a vanity piece. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete extraordinarily badly-written advert for nn newsletter. Vizjim 10:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/spam. --Bachrach44 12:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as per the above. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It looks like spam or an advertisement. --Starionwolf 01:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 04:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fresno Dragons

DELETE Minor, non-notable soccer club, didn't even qualify to get into the league they were trying for. Librarianofages 02:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Perfect example CSD:A7. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yung Money

• Delete Non-notable artist or needs a lot of work. Blahm 03:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless heavily expanded "Yung Money" brings up 14,400 Google hits, but the article asserts no notability at all. -- Kicking222 03:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless heavily expanded per Licking222--Jusjih 14:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No allmusic entry, no titles for sale at Amazon. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any information about the artist either. --Starionwolf 01:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 12:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of terms used to describe NATO in Serbian media during Kosovo War

Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information, never mind an unsourced list which is clearly trying to push an agenda. Listcruft. wangi 03:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unreferenced. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 08:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced and VERY POV Ydam 10:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Unsourced dictionary definitions in a foreign language with no assertion of notability, AND listcruft. It's like a competition to see how many guidelines one article can break. Oh, and as it stands, it's just a tad POV. Vizjim 10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Some of this might be BJAODN-worthy, however. jgp 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Holy cow. Us NATO folks are pretty nasty, huh? Tony Fox 20:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No citations or refernces.
  • Keep & Clean-up - With Citations a/o references I would be happy for this to be kept possibly with relevant links made on euphemism, or alternatively a war eupehmism page created with some of the verifiable, often used ones added. IMO I think that this is some of the stuff, (when verifiable) that Wiki does best, some of the more left-field "cruft" type information that would be difficult to obtain anywhere else. Librarianofages 02:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all those monstrous fascist impotent evildoers. I wonder whether someone started to collect nicknames of politicians here, this would be good material to steal. Pavel Vozenilek 20:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft Order of Battle

This page is a mess, and confusing for a non-expert. - however I'm mostly listing it because I found the broken AfD notice. Neutral SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - mostly a duplicate of information in the far better article Strategic Air Command Aircraft. Without references can't see how you could sensibly merge this one - Peripitus 07:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Peripitus. It looks like a duplicate of Strategic Air Command Aircraft.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starionwolf (talk • contribs) 11:24, 23 May 2006.

• Delete as per Peripitus. - Rudykog 23:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Put it out of its misery - with a conversation sloshing from the Talk Page to the article, it's time to delete it. Even without the conversation, the article cannot stand on its own. B.Wind 13:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Bellone

Non-notable person (WP:BIO). Also non-verifiable (WP:V). Speedied, but speedy was deleted by the user who created (and has made all of the edits on) the article). Jesuschex 03:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with as much non-speedy haste as possible. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Look like a user page. Mostly Rainy 07:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 08:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Doesn't meet WP:BIO (though he does have lovely teeth). Delete without offense to article creator. Vizjim 10:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Jusjih 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I suggest someone try to merge some of the text into Babylon (town), New York, if possible. If not, delete it. I do agree with Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Starionwolf 01:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable. --Nlu (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Gao

Lack of notability, few relevant google hits. Deprodded by anonymous IP. cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Precious Time of New York, Inc.

Appears to be not sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't meet WP:CORP. Dr Zak 05:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ranks up there with Dougs delivery service for notability - Peripitus 06:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 08:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn.--Jusjih 14:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is not notable and has no references. --Starionwolf 02:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vista Way

Bizzare and unencyclopedic evaluation of an appartment building, has been though afd once, but the article hasnot been touched since and is still unfit for an encyclopedia.--Peta 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dr Zak 05:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (where is the other AfD, anyway? Shouldn't it be here?) Hbackman 05:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, it sounds like an advertisement or brochure. --Starionwolf 02:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (and cleanup) or merge with Walt Disney World College Program as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vista Way 1. This is an apartment complex controlled by Disney for the college program, and is "notable" given Disney's impact on the Orlando area. I would help clean it up but if it's just going to be deleted there's no point. --SPUI (T - C) 03:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'll try to merge the article with Walt Disney World College Program. Thanks for sharing the info SPUI. --Starionwolf 06:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanawat wansom

Unclear if the article is about a person or a copmany, it reads like a copyvio and there is no demonstrated encyclopedic value.--Peta 04:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Tanawat is MD of Channel [V] Thailand but only scores 33 Ghits ( of which some are wikipedia and mirrors ) so seems to have no impact outside of Channel V related press releases. does not meet my interpretation of WP:BIO - Peripitus 06:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Peripitus. -- Kicking222 14:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Jusjih 14:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Tanawat wansom isn't a notable person. I can't find many articles on him or his company. --Starionwolf 02:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Tyrenius 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"

Verbatim reproduction of eight "commandments" of a parody "religion", allegedly based on a book that appeared this year. Generally unencyclopedic as textdump, non-notable and nonsense. The existence of these commandments is already noted at Pastafarianism. Contested PROD. Sandstein 04:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge!. I am also interested in this subject and would not have found the "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" if it weren't for this article. NAer 21:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Notable parody religion I think, but FSH probably only deserves to have one or two articles. This information should only exist at the FSH article. DarthVader 08:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Gospel_of_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster This does not deserve it's own article Ydam 10:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Gospel_of_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster. Vizjim 10:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Hilarious, but primary source and mergeable with GFSM. JFW | T@lk 14:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I can think of few short, simple writings that better advance the argument against basing a science curriculum on a religious text than the Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"
• Merge and redirect per above. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirct per above. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with other FSM articles. I was genuinely interested in this material and it would be unencyclopedic to delete it. MithrandirBooga 20:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per above Billvoltage 22:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Gospel_of_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster per every one else's advice. --Starionwolf 02:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per above Tachyon01 04:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge but Keep any notable religion or parody of a religion sould be kept, it isnt like wikipedia is running out of space. If it must be deleted it should at least be moved to a special article that contains all parody religions. just thoughts ZOMFG MUFFINS
• Merge with Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and/or Pastafarianism. - CNichols 21:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article should be thickined with information from Gospel_of_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster, but shouldn't be merged as it is useful to have a seperate article for this topic. - Mimsyboro 16:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge It's relevant... --24.145.134.20 13:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with The_Gospel_of_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster It's interesting and not included in The Gospel article. --Cybercobra 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Whether or not FSM is a parody religion is beside the point, this article documents, admittedly in a humourous way, serious efforts to combat those who seek to insinuate religion into the science curriculum of schools. Pastafarians do believe that these commandments embody their beliefs. Wikipedians should not be imposing moral judgements on the validity or otherwise of the stated belief systems of others, even if they choose to use humour in the exposition of those beliefs. Nick Thorne 22:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, else merge. Important source of beliefs for this religion. - Corbin ^{Be excellent} 01:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge Everyone should know about our Condiments anarchistica
• Keep or merge Is hilarious and i would never have known about them otherwise. It's because Wickipedia has info on random things like this that it's so great.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.234.4.1 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep or merge Would also be appropriate under GFSM but should not be deleted Enigmaedge 20:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or mergeIt is a beautifully written piece, I personally would like to say that this article inspires me to go out into the world and do good things for people without expecting anything in return.

Keep or merge. -a wanderer

• Merge with Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - Barryap 05:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if the ten commandments get thier own page- then so should the 8 "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"- parody or not. Sarahgal 17:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 16:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Senor Fraser

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Returns only one hit on Google (not counting the article itself). No assertion of notability in the article. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Additional note. The full text of this article was originally located at Jim Fraser and nominated for deletion, which decided to revert to an earlier version about an Australian politician.User:JohnJacobs has subsequently been involved in move-warring aimed at replacing the text of Jim Fraser with the current text of Jim Senor Fraser and is borderline 3RR on that article. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'd think the article to be speediable, but the Pan Am Games participant claim should likely be construed as an assertion of notability; notwithstanding that, the claim appears unverifiable, and I'm disinclined to think participation in the Pan Am Games necessarily to convey notability. As AD well notes, nothing else in the article comes close to demonstrating notability. Joe 04:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 08:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Jusjih 14:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If he won an event at the Pan Am games that would make him notable, mere participation is not enough. JoshuaZ 01:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The editor(s) of the article have been given enough time and guidance to develop the article's notability. Most of the article is contingent on internal school documents or figures to support it, like the school's website or "notable" alumni, of which the two editors actively working the article are. I was even asked what my hidden agenda was when I tried to help them out. KC9CQJ 16:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was The result was Speedy Delete under A7. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taylor McCleskey

Unverfied and non-notable, delete --Peta 04:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Speedy Delete CSD A7. There's nothing here that indicated this person has any notability, and he/she fails the Google test in the most miserable way possible. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete CSD:A7. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 08:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 16:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teemo

Non-notable neologism, which for a teenage subculture has a pathetic 29k google hits, the top hits having nothing to do wiht said subculture, delete.--Peta 04:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree, it's a newly fabricated neolgism. An incredibly annoying one at that. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Dr Zak 05:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above as neologism. DarthVader 08:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NEO Ydam 10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but if this is a real word, maybe it should be briefly described in a line within the Emo (slang) article. Amazinglarry 14:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support very informative. 58.169.127.231 06:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 01:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Original research, POV fork, indiscriminate list with vague requirements for inclusion, redundant see:9/11 Truth Movement, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 DCAnderson 04:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Should't you have stated that this is a second nomination? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People questioning the official American 9/11 account. --Lambiam^Talk 11:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Title is "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report (2nd nomination)".--DCAnderson 12:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my original nom.--DCAnderson 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• or Weak MergeLooks like delete is not going to happen, but I'm willing to settle, as my main concern is that this shouldn't justify it's own article.--DCAnderson 23:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - How is this original research? —204.42.17.151 11:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Oh, come on... not again. As I said on the article's talk page when this was proded eight hours ago, these reasons for deletion don't hold water. 1 - "original research" - If the claims are properly cited then it's not original research. Since we have the citations for the people being kept on this list it's not original research. It's as simple as that. 2 - "POV" - What POV? How is the article expressing a POV by listing those who question the report? It's not. 3 -"redundant see:9/11 Truth Movement, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11" - The people listed on this page need not be part of the Truth Movement, need not be scholars or reaserachers. So how is it redundant? This is a much more inclusive list, therefore it doesn't fulfill the functions of more specialized lists. 4 - "vague requirements for inclusion" - If people question the report they're in. What's vague about that? -- noosphere 04:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• CommentThe article is a POV fork attempting to avoid the scrutiny of the more heavily enforced 9/11 pages. It is also very indiscriminate in definition, as it means if you have questioned the 9/11 report at all you're automatically lumped in with the controlled demolitions and conspiracy theory loonies.--DCAnderson 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Where's the POV? Can you answer that? -- noosphere 05:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• The page exists to show off how many people disagree with the official account. The POV is that there is something wrong with the official account. It's a fork because it is a POV seperated from the other 9/11 pages describing the official account.--DCAnderson 05:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Where does the article express the POV that "there is something wrong with the offical account"? Listing those people that take such a stand doesn't mean Wikipedia is endorsing the stand itself. Otherwise we should delete the 9/11 Commission Report article itself as endorsing the POV that "there's nothing wrong with the official account", which is ridiculous. -- noosphere 05:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• The definition of "POV fork" is the creation of a separate page solely to cover one viewpoint. There's a small section at WP:NPOV and a whole article at WP:POVFORK if you desire more information. jgp 18:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• WP:POVFORK says, "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner." So, once again, I ask what POV does the article express? -- noosphere 15:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as POV fork. Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 is enough. Dr Zak 05:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• What point of view does this article express? Where and how does it do so? And why must Wikipedia limit itself only to reasearchers questioning 9/11 when there are plenty of other people doing so? -- noosphere 05:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• CommentWikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--DCAnderson 05:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• This article is not indiscriminate. -- noosphere 05:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, or vice versa. -- GWO

• How can we merge when these aren't researchers? -- noosphere 14:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• No vote yet. Question: can you answer the assertion that the article is an "indiscriminate list with vague requirements for inclusion"? Because it seems like one to me. I'm satisifed, however, that this is not original research (fully verified and sourced throughout), it does not push a particular POV within the article, and I can understand that there is a difference between the pressure group Scholars for 9/11 Truth, professional researchers working full-time on their particular conspiracy theory, and this grouping of random individuals worldwide who have questioned the 9/11 events. Vizjim 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per every single word writen by Noosphere, im feel really happy that there are people who what to defend wikipedia from this kind of afd. Keep up the good work! As for "indiscriminate collection", it is not. Ther are "researchers" that question. A researcher researchs new facts. Ordianry people only agree with the facts researched. See list of christians, List of humanists, List of transhumanists, List of anarchists, List of communists and List of people by belief. Any more questions? There is not a single valid reason to delete this. --Striver 10:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a lot easier to judge whether someone is say "a christian" or "an anarchist" because they would refer to themselves as being members of these groups or ideoligies. This article is very vague, because as near as I can tell you could make just about any criticism of the report, and suddenly you're a feather in the hat of the "9/11 Truth Movement".--DCAnderson 12:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So it's not vague at all, since you've just stated the exact criteria for inclusion. You just have a problem with with those people being in the article, which is a different criticism than having a vague criteria for inclusion. -- noosphere 15:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are ideologies. Criticising the 9/11 Commision report is not an ideology. i.e. Anarchists and Christians share a set of world views and philosophies on life. Criticising something just means you expressed an opinion about one specific thing. This doesn't represent an all-encompassing view on the world.--DCAnderson 17:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you just lost me. Are you suggesting that only people expressing "all-encompassing views on the world" could be included in an article like this?

Also, you did not address my point, which was that the criteria for inclusion wasn't ambiguous since you yourself seemed to have no problem applying it when you said, "you could make just about any criticism of the report, and suddenly you're a feather in the hat of the "9/11 Truth Movement"." That means that you know, unambiguously, when people fit in to this article (which isn't the Truth Movement, by the way... but the point holds for this article as well). -- noosphere 15:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11--MONGO 11:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. More original research based on conspiracy theorists. Capitalistroadster 13:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge this page with Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, where a lot of this page's content is duplicated anyway. Rename the resulting page People who have criticised the 9/11 Commission Report. One of the problems I have with this page is its use of the present tense - implying that all of the people listed on it continue unchangingly with their beliefs, whereas some of these appear to be rather off-the-cuff or done for satirical purposes. I think that the divide these articles make between "researchers" and "other people" is largely false, and that it would be better to collect all this data in one place. The suggested route ensures that no information is lost on Wikipedia. Vizjim 13:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• That seems relatively reasonable. Only I would rename it to People who have criticized the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report or People who have questioned the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report, so that certain critics of this article don't get a bug in their butt about some of the people listed in this article not calling the report by name. And, maybe to make it even more obvious that they need not question every finding: People who have questioned one or more of the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report -- noosphere 15:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• People who have questioned the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report would get my vote. Vizjim 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote for a rename to People who have questioned the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report. but this article can not be merged into the researchers article, however, maybe that article can be merged into this one.--Striver 17:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• SMerge along with Researchers into Criticisms and/or 9/11 Commission Report after taking a nice whack out of it with WP:RS. Why is this spread out over 4 crappy articles when it could be one/two decent one(s)? Kotepho 13:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• But these aren't all researchers! That's the real problem with merging it in to an article on researchers/scholars. Some of the people here are neither. -- noosphere 15:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• The researchers list is useless too, ditch it. Clarified my comment hopefully. Kotepho 15:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• So you're suggesting that the researchers article should be merged in to this one? -- noosphere 15:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report + Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 + Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report + 9/11 Commission Report = 9/11 Commission Report, with maybe Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report as a summarry=>main. Researchers might need to be merged a few other places too. Kotepho 01:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• If these lists was really merged in to 9/11 Commission Report I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I'd rather keep the article than delete it. -- noosphere 01:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11.--Bill 15:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• But many of these aren't researchers. So they can't be merged in to an article on researchers. -- noosphere 15:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's what I meant by "vice versa". Merge the researchers into the people. The researchers are people, right? -- GWO
• Delete per Kmf164--Bill 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per above. Kukini 15:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• SMerge into 9/11_Commission_Report, to the extent it meets WP:RS. (Researchers is plausible, but I think the report article, itself, should include the critism.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Merge into 9/11 Commission Report per Arthur Rubin. jgp 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, WP:OR, WP:POV, and WP:BALLS. Morton devonshire 17:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information it's not the article that this refers to, it's wikipedia itself. I guess I'm just generally opposed to lists; that's what categories are for. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 18:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. For several reason:
  • A list isn't a great format for explaining the nature of the "questioning" each person listed has. This would need to be done for each entry, as I recently tried to do for one , Louis Freeh. I added some explanation as to why he was "questioning the 9/11 Commission Report" [32] (he was critical of the 9/11 Commission for not addressing Able Danger), and it was subsequently reverted [33] by User:Noosphere.

Just to clarify, your addition came in between about twenty or more deletions of information by Tom harrison, and I intended to revert the deletions not your addition. I am actually all for adding details about why a given person questions the report. Reverting your addition was a mistake, and I've put it back in the article now. Sorry about that. -- noosphere 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• • This article presents serious problems with WP:V, and WP:RS. Even the mainstream media has problems with cherry-picking quotes from what people say, and out of context they can imply something different than what the person really intended and not capture nuanced views well. This issue of cherry-picking, misinterpretations, and misrepresentation is all the more serious with sources used in this article, such as prisonplanet.
  • Some users have attempted to clean up this article, but nonetheless its daunting and a problematic article for Wikipedia. Maintaining this article requires extreme due diligence, as these are all Living people; I'm concerned a list like this may misrepresent some people's viewpoints, or mistakenly include people. Should these very people see this page, there is potential for causing another controversy and embarassment for Wikipedia (e.g. John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy).
    • In light of a recent message from Jimmy Wales on the enwiki mailing list, he strongly suggested a preference for "Zero information preferred to misleading or false information". [34] This article is a perfect case, for where this should apply. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If we know that the information is misleading then we should not add it in the first place, or delete it. I think we can all agree about that. However, just because a quote could be taken out of context doesn't mean that we should not add information based on that quote.

We should create articles based on the best of our knowledge and not pussyfoot around living people just because they may, possibly not have meant something they said. But, of course, if there's evidence they didn't mean what they said by all means show us that evidence, and if it's valid then we'll remove that person from the list. -- noosphere 21:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I do like the idea of explaining in what maner each person questionend the reportes finindings, i think ill start doing that, as soon as i take some time. No reason to delete the entire article.--Striver 19:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete the article has been an owned article for a long time. Furthermore, it is a fork as mentioned above.--Jersey Devil 21:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RexNL 21:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Delete as per nom. --Strothra 22:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete this is a POV fork, refuge for conspiracy theories, endless and pointless listcruft. Many on the list don't belong, or are there because once upon a time they were cited saying 'something' negative about the commission - in other words, this could be a list of anyone. Bridesmill 00:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge entries for which reliable sources can be found with Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, then rename to People who have questioned the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report or similar per Vizjim's comments. There's no reason for these articles to be split, especially since the Researchers article already contains this section of "other notable people" that is more fleshed out then anything in the People article. BryanG 01:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I could agree with this merge proposal.--Striver 08:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this is a POV fork.--Aldux 14:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep list of moonbats useful for knowing whom not to cite as a reliable source in any other 9/11 article. Thatcher131 19:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per BryanG, others. - CNichols 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or at worst merge per above. 1652186 19:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete - I concur with the above sentiments; not appropriate as its own wiki entry/article in this instance. Jhamez84 23:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge the rest of these 911 conspiracy theories into one article. THE KING 04:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete conspiracy cruft.  Grue  07:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Noosphere.--Pokipsy76 09:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Noosphere and others opposing. Every legitimate criticism can be fixed in the article and most of the criticisms are hypothetical. —204.42.17.108 11:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Above anon user's first contribution[35].--DCAnderson 15:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, this is a POV fork. San Saba 13:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• To quote Noosphere, "WP:POVFORK says, "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner." " —204.42.17.108 15:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 23:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or at least clean up and merge with something else. Preferably delete, but if it's decided that it should be kept... --Flyne 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete conspiracytheorycruft. — Dunc|☺ 19:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork, non-notable conspiracy nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006_Raw_Results

Page has no content, no meaning and makes no sense. I honestly don't even know what it's supposed to be about. Jscarle 04:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It refers to results for RAW, but it's so poorly designed and laid out that it's worthless. There's a link on the RAW page to a site outside of WP for results, and if somebody cares about enough maybe they could add it here, but this page right now is completely worthless. --fuzzy510 05:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Even if it was better designed, it would still be worthless. It's not nonsense, but it is crap. -- Kicking222 05:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly written, article does not effectively describe contents (My first thought was "Who's putting their raw research data on Wikipedia?") and appears to be much better handled by at least one of the external links, as per Fuzzy. -- saberwyn 11:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Provides no context. A link in the main article will do. Author is unlikely to return to fix it. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006_Ontario_Extreme_Tour_Rodeo

Advertising, not an encyclopedia article. Jscarle 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• ... Delete Does not assert notability of event. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

(I can't beleive I stuck the db tag on here...) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per above.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as advert. - Rudykog 23:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tran Duc Thuan

There is nothing to suggest that this should be an encyclopedia article, delete--Peta 05:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It claims that he is the subject of a university subject, but the link didn't seem to substantiate this.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 05:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. - Rudykog 23:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BATracer

Prod removed without comment. entry about new on-line racing game [Alex rank 34,145] and very recent site. Not a notable site. 291K [Ghits] but nothing that looks like it makes the site suitable for wikipedia - Peripitus 05:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as nominator - Peripitus 05:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 23:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 12:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HH411

Pure spamvertisement. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oh man, that is spamirific. Delete! -- Kicking222 05:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Another user page in the article space. Mostly Rainy 07:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spamity spam wonderful spam. Serouisly delete this Ydam 10:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the Hip Hop Babes. Oh, all right then, be a kill-joy Delete them. Dlyons493 Talk 11:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Nick Y. 20:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• On the bright side, it is a shiny, perfect example of what defines Spam! Delete. --fuzzy510 21:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (no content = speedy deletion). -- Drini 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1968 in Malaysia

No content. Jscarle 05:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (no content = speedy deletion). -- Drini 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1967 in Malaysia

No content. Jscarle 05:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete {{db-empty}} added. Mangojuice^talk 05:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (no content = speedy deletion). -- Drini 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1964 in Malaysia

No content. Jscarle 05:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (no content = speedy deletion). -- Drini 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1959 in Malaysia

No content. Jscarle 05:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (no content = speedy deletion). -- Drini 05:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1958 in Malaysia

No content. Jscarle 05:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. They are already categorized. --Ezeu 01:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of piracy computer and video games

WP:NOT an indescriminate collection of information, and I doubt the majority of these redlinks will ever be filled in. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: List is not indiscriminate, as it pertains to Piracy themed computer and video games. Furthermore, there is no policy against having redlinks in an article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Categorize and delete: We have Category:Pirate films, why not Category:Pirate computer and video games? Category:Piracy computer and video games. Nifboy 06:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a category would be more appropriate. Cedars 06:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Listcruft Bwithh 07:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• comment: You may want to take a look at Category:Computer and video game lists to see just what is accepted. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 09:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Categorise and delete per Nifboy. -- saberwyn 11:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Do we really want Category:Piracy computer and video games? Because I think that would open up another layer of needless caretaking in the CVG space. It paves the way for categorising games by theme, and not by genre and so we could have Category:Ninja computer and video games and a whole plethora of others. - Hahnchen 11:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• It has already started (to some degree) - Category:Science fiction computer and video games for instance appears to be actively used. ~ Vic Vipr 12:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I hadn't spotted that, in which case Category:Piracy computer and video games should be in Category:Computer and video game themes and not its current one. - Hahnchen 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vic Vipr 12:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't agree with any of the reasons cited here to delete. The list is useful as a record of pirate-themed video games. A category is not useful unless one has already found one of the articles. Indiscriminate collection of information? How so? The list discriminates based on the titles being about pirates. How is that not discriminate? Aguerriero (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why would it be easier to find this list than the category? —Ruud 21:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Categorize and delete per above. Let's say somebody's on the Monkey Island series's page, and they say to themselves, "Hmm... what other games are about pirates?" They're never going to search "List of piracy computer and video games," but if they see the category at the bottom of the page, they'll definitely click on it. -- Kicking222 14:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Categorise and delete per Nifboy. jgp 17:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. I'm wholly against creating more lists based on subgenres. That's walking the plank towards lists of computer and video games that have a pretty dolphin in them. A category would be fine though, Kicking222 has an excellent point. Argh, maties!--Isotope23 17:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Categorize and delete. Would make an excellent category. Docether 17:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Categorize and delete per above. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 18:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, textbook category situation. Lord Bob 00:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. List is quite useful for people who want a fairly complete round-up of pirate related games in one place. Plus there is great potential for expansion. Category serves no purpose at all and should be deleted. -- JJay 00:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Indiciminate collection of information + per Kicking222. Weak do not categorise per Hahnchen. —Ruud 21:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A list can be useful for discovering games, films, etc. which do not have an article. For the most part, this seems to be done on the level of "List of games on system X", not on theme. This might be more appropriate as part of a larger article (see Cyberpunk, for example). --Lucian Gregory 12:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete as per above Wombdpsw 05:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If this survives AFD can the title be changed? I thought "piracy" refeerred to stealing, not pirates. I suggest "list of pirate computer games" or something to avoid that distinction. Hbdragon88 22:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. --Starionwolf 06:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep reasonable list of computer games.  Grue  07:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Categorise and Delete, not an article, hence NOT in the article namespace. Garrett^Talk 08:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: I don't know what article you are talking about but the list of piracy computer and video games is in the article namespace. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What I meant was that it isn't as such an article so shouldn't be in the article namespace. Garrett^Talk 22:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article has no real content and is mostly an indiscriminate list that could be better employed as a category. Kyle sb 10:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 histories, dupe article. Garrett^Talk 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rejuvenation (The Meters song)

Duplicate of Rejuvenation (album), which provides the same info and conforms to the standards of the Albums WikiProject. fuzzy510 06:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 09:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rje 16:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Janse

Possibly a vanity article. Looks more like a user page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mostly Rainy (talk • contribs) 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC).

• Comment Was it really necessary to bring it to AfD one minute after it was created? I feel uncomfortable voicing any opinion on the matter until the article has time to mature, as it certainly doesn't seem to be a candidate for speedy deletion with 700 hits on Google. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is a lot of people try to make a bio article and the ones lacking sufficiant details (like the one I nominated) often get speedy deleted. Mostly Rainy 06:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment alright I'll add some more details and then others can add their share and opinions so it will mature Franciosb
• Keep as the article stands. Good work Franciosb. THE KING 07:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep needs expansion to ensure he meets the wiki-prof test. Arbusto 09:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the discovery of Cappadoacian Greek seems adequate. Dlyons493 Talk 11:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The rediscovery of a major Greek dialect is significant, and he is full professor at what appears to be a part of Utrecht University, which is an important seat of learning. up+land 12:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lot of professors in this world... Medico80 15:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The rediscovery of the Cappadocian dialect seems to make him notable enough for inclusion. If there's going to be more information added to this page (which I hope), I'd like to see more explanation of this event, and links to media coverage. In any case, currently satisfies at least one point in WP:PROF. Docether 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments. Amazinglarry 23:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --mtz206 (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine

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}}

Previously deleted following this AFD debate, but result was disputed and this DRV debate produced a majority for undeletion and relisting. Therefore this discussion is restarted. No vote from this admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral per my comments on the last AfD, and a reminder to everybody to keep it civil and please do not vote just because someone asked you to. TheProject 07:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT for crystallballgazing and this is alpha release software. Good luck to all concerned with the project, but it is not, as yet, suitable for inclusion here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Angus. The whole page is crystal ballism. Right now, I don't think this can possibly pass the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (software). -- Kicking222 14:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, alpha release, per Angus. Perhaps in the future, when it satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (software). Docether 17:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; WP:NOT a crystal ball. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 18:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: the article can be recreated when/if this software passes the notability criteria. Still, it's an interesting project: I look forward to reading about it when it's successful. -- Karada 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now. It's premature to have an encyclopedia article on this particular topic. There isn't enough independent material yet on which to base this prospective article. Reconsider the topic for recreation of the article after it has clearly achieved notability. Rossami (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now; revisit after completion if notable. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks very interesting, I hope the project goes well, but it's not quite notable yet. (~Kylu) 207.145.133.34 21:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm a bit confused and a bit "angry" that this kind of information was deleted. Why? There has been given at least three references to media coverage (although only one/two in English). And then the main reason for deleting it is Notability. My understandig of that concept is weird since I think Majestic-12_Distributed_Search_Engine was notable. I looked up this project when I first read about it in the news (Norwegian Digi.no article). Hoping for some neutral information and different viewpoints (typically for Wikipedia in areas with diverging viewpoints). Now its just deleted by far as I can see some far fetched concepts about notability and not working project (it is in full operation with search possibilities last time I checked the site). (Sorry for repeating myself from an earlier discussion). Nsaa 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Karada's suggestion. --Starionwolf 06:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both. Mailer Diablo 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twaddlebum and Twaddle

Contested prod with no reason given. Transwikied; only backlink is from Clodhomps (see AfD); dicdef; slang. TheProject 07:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- made up word. Reyk _YO! 07:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism. THE KING 07:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kcordina ^Talk 08:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - clearly made up - no sources Martinp23 18:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - We use it all the time in the west country. The definition may be slightly inaccurate but that could be local variation. We perceive it to mean a person talking beyond there knowledge - The preceeding unsigned comment was made by 83.104.15.138 whose only other edit was to vandalise a similar afd page.
• There is also Twaddle which I have taken liberty of adding to this VfD and which is already in Wiktionary (wikt:twaddle). Delete both. - Mike Rosoft 20:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Why has twaddle been deleted when it can be found in any English dictionary. I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to provide a definitive resource of English words?

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clodhomps

Contested prod by anon with no explanation given. TODDS (transwikied orphaned dicdef slang). TheProject 07:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Reyk _YO! 07:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kcordina ^Talk 08:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 23:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Longhair 23:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tarcoon

This page is a spoof. Tarcoom is a location, but it would not have more than 5 houses --Grahamec 07:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: agreed. Change vote to Keep now article is revised to reflect reality. The Cobb & Co Heritage Trail describes it as defunct: "Tarcoon (remnants only). Once a thriving town, with a Cobb & Co hotel called The Exchange, Tarcoon later became an important rail station. Today, all that remains are some building foundations, posts and the rubble of the past". Tearlach 10:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have rewritten this into a stub based on the Cobb and Co heritage information found by Tearlach. There is also a Tarwoon Road in the district where a major car accident occurred in 1979 killing 8 people. [36]. Capitalistroadster 13:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 13:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster's good work. Vizjim 13:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster, and place names are notable regardless of how few residents they have. Smerdis of Tlön 14:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Capitalistroadster. Cnwb 23:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As above. I am moving to Tarcoon, New South Wales and recategorising. Grahamec 00:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 01:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German-Jewish Gay rights movement and antii-semitiism

Even if the title was spelled right, and the glaring bias cleaned up, this still has no chance of being encyclopedic material. Reyk _YO! 07:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Quite so. THE KING 07:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Del - glaring factual errors (Engels was not Jewish, etc.) If such an org. ever existed, the article will have to be started from scratch under a proper title. This one is hopeless. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not bad an effort, and the topic is interesting and deserving an article. This one is not that article. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 08:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete When I read this I thought to myself it really should be merged somewhere. Then I looked at the source material, and it doesn't verify what's here, unfortunately. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 08:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete When I first read that title I thought it was a joke but I don't see how this couls ever be encyclopedic Ydam 10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and other reasons above. PJM 13:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unrescuable. Vizjim 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as attack piece. Possibly allowable under a different name with respectable sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Strothra 19:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, yet another garbage dumped here by User:John robinson. There is at least one on AfD now. Pavel Vozenilek 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopaedic, POV, poorly-written garbage. Unsalvagable.--Charles 03:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  RasputinAXP  c 19:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doom squad

A so called 'up and coming' organisation about all things 'doomy'. Seems nn to me. THE KING 07:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- yup, non-notable all right. Four members, devoted to doing "ummm nothing". Reyk _YO! 08:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Surely this is Patent nonsense Kcordina ^Talk 08:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, its legible, in a recognisable language, and relatively coherent. Delete with all reasonable haste per nomination, or speedy delete A7 as a group or club with no assertation of notability provided. -- saberwyn 11:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above Ydam 10:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. Vizjim 13:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above and the writer couldn't spell at all Martinp23 18:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy and delete. --Ezeu 01:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachelle Arlin M. Credo

Author began her career only in 2005, Ms. Credo should not be described within a year as someone who "has garnered some coveted awards," "co-authored with other eminent poets and writers," or "an established magazine columnist and freelance writer." Links to these "coveted" awards and "eminent" poets and writers are not provided. External links in the entry are basically personal pages (a yahoo account page, for instance). User:Raeshylle, the writer of the article seems to be the author herself. Entry appears like a vanity article. No links from major universities, books, publications, studies and theses. No studies about the author from important critics and writers. No mention about the author in important discussions on or about Filipino, Visayan or Cebuano writers. Accomplishments not comparable to widely-regarded Visayan or Cebuano authors like Resil Mojares, Erlinda K. Alburo and Marjorie Evasco. Author appears promising but she should wait some time before she can be considered as a Wikipedia entry. 7258 07:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination and Wikipedia:Notability (people), unless it can be proven through the use of externally verifiable information cited or referenced from reliable, third party sources that the above author meets the WP:BIO notability inclusion guideline. Best of luck to her, though. -- saberwyn 11:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete May become notable enough someday, but publications are currently too limited. Dlyons493 Talk 12:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete Unsourced, non-notable, and considering she's writing her own resume here, there's certainly concern about whether the article is accurate, much less verifiable. -- Kicking222 14:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• You'd delete the author of Surviving Heartbreak Hell and Tips in Choosing the Right Sunglasses? (Userfy per Kicking222) Smerdis of Tlön 18:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Saberwyn. shadow box 00:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep -- Longhair 22:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aleksandar Vasiljevic

He is not a famous footballer, not a Serbian International, and playing in lower division Matthew hk 07:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I have rewritten the article to be about the Serbian general who testified at Milosevic's trial and found some references. Unfortunately I know almost nothing about the person, so it's still only a stub, but I think the guy is notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. as a footballer this probably destined for the bin. After Sjakkalle's rewrite we have the stub of a good article - Peripitus 08:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle's rewrite. PJM 12:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle's excellent rewrite. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now, move to Aleksandar Vasiljević. Pavel Vozenilek 20:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 02:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darkain

This is a clear vanity article. It was started by an Anon that looks like Darkain himself. There have been no substantial changes since it was last listed for deletion 6 months ago. Lod 08:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The forum he runs doesn't have an article so I can't see how he can be notable. plus one slashdotting does not a notability make Ydam 10:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; yet another pseudononymous hacker, ho hum. RGTraynor 15:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom shadow box 00:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am attempting to update this page with Darkain's projects including his recent works. Xnolanx 19:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as not notable enough. - Rudykog 23:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delaware County Intermediate Unit

non-notable, see WP:CORP Ioannes Pragensis 08:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 23:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, nonnotable advert, cut-'n'-paste from userpage. Garrett^Talk 23:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandino

This seems to be a cut-and-paste job of a press release. In other words, advertising. Chaser (T, C, e) 08:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advertising.--blue520 09:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question Does anybody know if there's a way I can list content like this for speedy deletion? Or would that be inadvisable? --Chaser (T, C, e) 18:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Who needs a speedy tag when I'm online? :) Garrett^Talk 23:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve sauve

self promotion, non-notable and poorly written Robertsteadman 08:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 09:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom.[37]. PJM 12:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom.Robertsteadman 13:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as self promotion. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom shadow box 00:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• I wrote this article on this local artist and he does alot of work with children and his music is wonderful. Just because he is not widely known doesn't mean that he cannot be part of this community. It is not self promoting as he has nothing to do with it. I mentioned the links because it is work that he has done and his websites are on it as well. I am not the best writer in any way, so all help would be greatly appreciated, don't delete article because lack of knowing the person, it is not fair to the rest who do. (Diane Gagnon)
• Delete - self-promo. --Sunfazer | Talk 20:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 10:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Www.hayaser.net

Originally prodded by User:Rory096 on May 9, 2006 with a reason of "non notable website, alexa ranking of 2,253,287. doesn't meet WP:WEB" Removed by User:Hayaser, whose username indicates that this article is about his own website. I agree with User:Rory096 with his original reason to delete. Copysan 10:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB and vanity advertising Ydam 10:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. THE KING 10:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 11:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy Aside from it being an ad for a non-notable web site, the article is quite terrible. -- Kicking222 14:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Rory096 03:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete horrible alexa rank. possible vanity as well, but the user might just have been a fanboy. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 02:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Ramah

Its a summer camp organisation. It organises summer camps. There is no claim to notability except by proxy to one of its sponsors, and after that is removed, we are left is "We are summer camps. We do summer camp things". Unless the article can explain, through the use of verifiable information taken from reliable third-party sources, how this summer camp organisation (or its component summer camps) is significantly different from the standard, run of the mill summer camp organisation (or summer camp), there is nothing we can do that the camp's own site cannot do better. -- saberwyn 10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• If kept, should be moved to a name implying that this is a collective organisation running several camps, not just a single camp as the current title implies. -- saberwyn 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Conceeded. -- saberwyn 02:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Umm ... if "Camp Ramah" is the name of the organization, then that's the name, whether it seems misleading or not. I do believe the article's a mess -- for one thing, how about some actual locations? RGTraynor 15:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Then where does the "National Ramah Commission" come into it? -- saberwyn 22:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's the governing body, but if people are looking for an article about these camps, they are much more likely to look under Camp Ramah than National Ramah Commission. Under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) it would seem that Camp Ramah is the more appropriate name, and even if someone moved the article to another name it would still be necessary to leave a redirect at Camp Ramah. So I would leave the article where it is. --Metropolitan90 02:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Vizjim 13:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and expand The article isn't particularly great as it currently stands, but Camp Ramah is a very important organization. I'm not very Jewish, but where I'm from (New Jersey), literally every single conservative Jew I knew went to Camp Ramah. Has anyone bothered to check the SIXTY THOUSAND Google hits [38]? The camps have existed for a very long time, and are spread through North America. In my opinion, they're quite notable. -- Kicking222 14:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

674 unique Google hits, pretty notable. Will change my vote if someone updates the article. Vizjim 14:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep A google search gives many valid hits implying its notability, although the article does require more references. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 21:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An organization that oversees summer camps- that's exactly the type of article we need here. Reminds me of the articles we have on school accreditation agencies. -- JJay 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per JJay and Kicking222, but not withdrawing nomination. -- saberwyn 23:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and expand. Ramah camps are one of the best-known, most influential, and best-documented educational programs associated with Conservative Judaism. A large number of academic books and papers document the Ramah educational vision, and its influence on North American Jewry. You could make a pretty strong argument for the case that Ramah, as an institution, has had more influence than many of the Conservative rabbis listed in Wikipedia. That said, the existing article makes it sound as though Ramah is nothing more than an administrative office in New York, overseeing activities at a dozen or so camps around the world, and that these camps are places where kids have a lot of fun. The article would benefit greatly from describing the history of Ramah camps, the role of Hebrew and Zionism in camp life, the influence that camp had on the evolution of egalitarianism within Conservative Judaism, the very large number of Conservative Movement leaders who have been campers and staff members at Ramah, and educational theories and practices that were devised as a part of camp, among other things. The article needs to be expanded quite a bit -- but the skeletal quality of the existing article shouldn't fool you into thinking that Ramah is unimportant or undeserving of a Wikipedia article. Reuvenmlerner 21:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep - notability is established in the first part (unlike the other summer camp articles in the AfD listings), but the article is in dire need of rewriting to get into encyclopedic form. More description and less listing are needed. B.Wind 13:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was 15 to delete, 3 to keep and 7 to merge (including the vote to Keep but rename or merge). Those who support merge argue well, but there is no agreement on where to merge. There are also some voices to rename and rewrite the article. A better written and less POV article under a different title will certainly be started. The votes to delete are plenty and well argued, so I close this AfD as delete.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ezeu (talk • contribs) 12:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

[edit] Australia's alleged East Timor cover up

This article has been a blight on Wikipedia since the middle of last year. It is a horrendous example of gross bias and unbridled original research. I doubt very much that the subject would warrant its own article in any case. cj | talk 11:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - much as it's a nice read. 4 newspaper only references, zero non POVpushing ghits means no verifyability and no possibility of balance. Articles like this are for anti-government newspaper articles not wikipedia. - Peripitus 12:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It could possibly form the basis of a reasonable article but it is very POV as it currently stands. Capitalistroadster 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR, WP:NPOV & WP:NOT. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated above. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as someone who has tried to make it better, it ain't worth it. Delusional paranoia. Lao Wai 15:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - any article that contains the word alleged is by definition not encyclopaedic--Kalsermar 18:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kalsermar.--Tone 20:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete obviously.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Although it's badly written POV and OR there are sufficient sources to rewrite and I'll make a beginning. Grateful if you could hold off deletion until I've spent some time on fixing it. Mccready 02:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per above, and also because of inherent problems with verifiability Fluit 03:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Hi Guys, since my post of 02:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC) below, I've done quite a few hours work on the article. We are now looking at quite a different beast. Would appreciate your revised input. Does anyone have the Des Ball article? Thanks. Mccready 08:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rename or merge. As is, this is not an article. It needs to be pulled together under a stronger common theme with a different name, or perhaps merged to another page. Maybe one of the people/reports referenced on this page might qualify. But at the same time it doesn't seem to be OR, and the material covered does seem to be encyclopedic. There are plenty of other wikipedia pages that do deal with allegations - so long as the allegations are serious enough and at least potentially true, that's OK. POV is reason to cleanup, not reason to delete an article. Finally, I remind people that AFD is not a vote. It may be 'obvious' to you that the article is/is not worth keeping, but that is not a useful comment in our attempt to reach consensus. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Is there anything in the article that is actually untrue? I don't think so. Certain questions have been raised by certain people and these people are senior whistle blowers. A suicide is involved. Certainly more work is required, but such is the nature of the Wikipedian beast. Yes the article is problematic but these issues have yet a long way to go before a clear view can be had. Deleting the article will only frustrate future researchers. The references are all quite valuable. The article can be utilized in building a clearer picture of this history. Deleting it amounts to suppression of information. --Wm 12:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been reluctant to reach a final conclusion on this because although it has been a POV problem in the past, and probably still is, it does cover some stuff that should be covered (Lance Collins, for example, who was widely covered in the media, is currently covered nowhere else on WP but here). I think in the end however that it would be better to start again from the ground up and not have to work off the legacy of this article. Some users have volunteered to help with working on this, I'd like to add my name to the list but invite them to start from scratch rather than trying to fix this article. As per the old AWNB discussion, it would be more appropriate at somewhere like foreign relations of Australia with East Timor, to tie in with the main article foreign relations of Australia. --bainer (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I really can't believe wikipedia is giving over an entire article to such unfounded allegations. John Smith's 15:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: soapboxing. Pecher ^Talk 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The problem with the article is not that the writer has a POV (that's generally a given and not grounds to delete). The problem is that the article is more about the people who have made accusations, than about the accusations. It's more of a list than an article. Assuming that all these allegations are to do with East Timorese Declaration of Independence (currently a redirect to East Timor) perhaps that article should be resurrected and expanded and these allegations be dealt with there. Alternately, they could be dealt with in the East Timor article itself, but that wouldn't feel right to me - just a little off topic. As I said above, this material may be uncomfortable for some people, but that is not a reason to delete it. Yes, it's POV and soapboxing and yes, it should be cleaned up so it deals with the issues (independance/genocide/cover up) and mentions the accusers, rather than the other way around, but none of that is not an excuse to delete it either. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, develop, has been a recurring theme since the 1970s. Could possibly be renamed but I can't think of a better name.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork, some verified information might be an OK addition to History of East Timor or Foreign relations of East Timor.--Peta 00:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete title is fairly POV i would have to say. if kept rename, but i think it should be deleted. THE KING 04:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete as per above. Wombdpsw 05:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Ben Aveling above or develop more fully. Article could explain the history of the allegations, the arguments put forth, and the responses by nay-sayers. Other allegations and conspiracy theories are covered here and can be done well (chemtrail for example, is a perfectly acceptable article). Matt Deres 19:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested above to Foreign relations of East Timor. If the article is cleaned up, and better explained then weak keep. The sources don't appear bad at first glance. And just because alleged is in the title does not make a topic unencyclopedic. A move would be nice however. Falphin 19:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Falphin, after POV removal. B.Wind 13:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Rename somewhere! The information is sourced, the grouping of information is logical, but it doesn't really feel like it would fit at Foreign relations of East Timor. A less-POV title than "cover-up" and a more descriptive and neutral treatment of the subject is absolutely necessary. Ziggurat 00:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If its merged into Foreign relations of East Timor, it would only be a few critical sentences beneath a new section on relations with East Timor. Other information would include just the basic facts, and where the relations currently stand. Falphin 01:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Foreign relations of East Timor, or start Australia-East Timor relations in the same format as plenty of other articles like Anglo-American relations, Australia-New Zealand relations --Astrokey44 10:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)