Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 22 May 24 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

[edit] May 23

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 13:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eğitişim

From WP:PNT, where nobody has translated it in more than two weeks. Entry from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • From New page patrol. Well, I can't read Turkish, but I'm pretty sure this is Turkish. Judging from the phone number? at the bottom, it is an advert? But I'm not sure at all , just a guess.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I can't read Turkish, but it looks like a list of names of firms. Anthony Appleyard 10:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't read Turkish, but I sure can tell that this is spam. My guess is that it's a advertising agency. --Eivindt@c 00:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't read Turkish, but this is about a "Kariyer Enstitüsü" - "Career Institute" - which placed people into all these great companies (Oracle, Adidas, Ogivly, Garanti Bankası Stratejik Planlama Müdürü Alpogan Erdoğan, etc.) and the phone number is at the bottom. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I have solicited two familiar Turks to come on down and clarify for us. Hopefully at least one will. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I checked the article Eğitişim upon request of CrazyRussian. Written in Turkish language, it is about a commercial institute for carreer planning. The text sounds like an advertising. To my POV, there is no need. CeeGee 07:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep looks a bit like listcruft, with all the slashes M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 01:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete unless it can be translated to english ASAP. -- stubblyhead | T/c 01:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pending advice from Crazyrussian's Turkish advisers. At the moment, it doesn't send terribly notable to me but a rough translation would clear things up. Capitalistroadster 01:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not transwiki to the Turkish Wikipedia. It's very unlikely that this is something either the English or Turkish Wikipedia needs, at least not with this format. --Metropolitan90 02:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. Tachyon01 04:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The phrase Being Marketing Genius and phone number at the bottom are a giveaway. Peripitus 04:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Bleck... Get this out of my sight! --Dakart 07:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete – it's as CrazyRussian said: basically an ad for a commercial company. The last sentence reads "If you want to meet the team of Eğitişim Career Institute, you can go to [some address in Istanbul], or call [some number] or go to [some web site] to get detailed information." --LambiamTalk 07:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete now that people who know Turkish have said it is spam. Kimchi.sg 09:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per spam Ydam 10:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam. --Terence Ong 10:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not English and not translated.--Jusjih 13:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
That comment was a bit redundant, along with a little repetitive. Steveo2 19:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It could (in theory) have been translated from English to Turkish, making it then "not English but translated". --LambiamTalk 05:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Based on what I've read above, I don't think it would make sense to keep it even if it was in English. Steveo2 19:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is the English language Wikipedia. Perhaps notable at the Turkish Wikipedia, but not here.--Folksong 20:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not English Avi 20:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the many varied reasons listed. Staxringold 20:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Lots of reasons to delete, none to keep. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete CrazyRussian ask me to make a comment about this article. First of all google has only 34 exact results and also i've never heard their name before, its not notable even in Turkey. If it'll be created in tr:wiki, it would probably be deleted in AFD process in tr:wiki --Ugur Basak 08:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's only advertisement. This company is non-notable in Turkey and it's not taking part at Turkish Wikipedia. --Renegade-tr 09:19, 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 delete as author's request. Kusma (討論) 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good vs. Evil: The Animated Series

A web-comic that "had to be removed from the internet." And is now "being turned into an animated series." (I'm not sure exactly what that means in terms of publication, but in this case it likely means something on the high school level). Relevant Google search details and prod information available at Talk:Good vs. Evil: The Animated Series. I am recommending delete based on a lack of notability and reliable sources. --Hetar 00:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like the picture posted GoodvsEvilPoster.jpg deleted as well, if you're going to get rid of the Wikipedia entry as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoodvsEvil (talk • contribs) .

  • DeleteThat means delete the damn thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodvsEvil (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox (UTC) 10:08, 28 May '06

[edit] Eatfruit.com

Claims to be a "popular" website. 538,600 on Alexa. Andrew Levine 00:16, 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 A7. Royboycrashfan 02:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Charisma

With 28 google hits for "Billy Charisma" [1] of which only one is the subject of this article, I find no notability at all. Also, as the article creator is named Billy.charisma, I would say this falls into vanity as well. IrishGuy 00:38, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:09, 28 May '06

[edit] List of on-screen deaths (by actor)

Speedied, but author Friendship hurricane (talk · contribs) has recreated it and insists that it gets its day in court, so here we are. Deizio talk 00:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - The list does seem to follow the precedent of the aforementioned articles, particularly the List of songs with particularly long titles. Keep it.--Felldestroyed 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Friendship hurricane (talk · contribs) is the author of the article, and if the first time contributor Felldestroyed (talk · contribs) isn't a sockpuppet of Friendship hurricane then I will eat my hat, your hat, your grandfather's hat and the hats of all your male cousins on your mother's side. Deizio talk 01:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I have contributed to other articles in the past (including extensive edits to the ridiculous errors on the Ngugi wa Thiong'o article), but have only recently created an account. Sockpuppet? Nope.--Felldestroyed 02:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I see. So you created an account to vote on this AfD, then did nothing for 30 minutes before using your 2nd edit to deny being a sockpuppet. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not reaching for the ketchup just yet. Deizio talk 02:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I can understand why this would be suspect but this user shares a cable connection with me. See User talk:Deiz for more.
  • I didn't know that I had to edit or create something within the first 30 minutes of my account. But I actually just got done adding information to the stub on Barry Siegel if that makes you feel better.--Felldestroyed 02:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • One roommate [2] creating an account and immediately voting to save his roommate's article is about as fishy as it gets. Under the terms of WP:SOCK, that's more than suspicious enough to regard this as possible sockpuppetry. However, you guys can keep your votes (I appreciate the offer from Friendship hurricane to strike one), as I pointed out earlier I hoped this process would be both insightful and interesting for you, and so it is proving to be :) Deizio talk 02:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, mistook this for a list of actors who had actually died on screen. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete So we're going to list every character in the history of movies who ever died? Ever? That kind of the definition of "indescriminate list of information." -- Kicking222 02:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The harder it is to keep a list up to date and comprehensive the more I think it's not a good idea. This one sounds really hard. Delete ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A lot of people die in movies, so it's not an unusual occurrence. (Though I did work to improve the list by including Bambi's mom.) Delete this list. --Elkman - (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As much as I like the list, I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. --Starionwolf 03:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. I am always doubtful as to the encyclopedic nature of lists, except when truly warranted, such as when including a list in the main article would make the substantive article too long (such as the List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States for Supreme Court of the United States). I can't see this list necessarily being a part of some other substantive article. Fluit 03:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: listcruft that would be impossible to maintain and completely worthless. --Hetar 03:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, there are far, far too many characters who die in films to make this remotely maintainable. The list would also be far too long to be of any conceivable use. Average Earthman 04:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a worthwhile article. Hdtopo 05:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete there has been a gizzilion and a half of on-screen deaths, would be unmaintainable list even if it only contained a percent of the total number. --Eivindt@c 05:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. SorryGuy 05:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it would take an enormous amount of work, would be original research to some extent and would be enormous if even only a significant fraction was completed. -- Kjkolb 06:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Just how long would this article be if it were even possible to reach a fraction of completion? R.E. Freak 06:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - This would become even more ridiculously long list than one that would have included only on-screen deaths of prostitute characters. It was deleted a while ago - Skysmith 10:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this list is too indiscriminate Kevin 10:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT. --Terence Ong 10:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:WING Avi 20:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as crazy long (potentially), random, and just silly. Staxringold 21:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I mean, come on. Playing a character that dies is hardly something notable or rare. --UsaSatsui 00:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not. -- That Guy, From That Show! 17:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, endless listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 20:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Uyuyuy! Endless, useless, random, indiscriminate collection of information, all of the above. Grandmasterka 03:45, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:09, 28 May '06

[edit] Metroid Prime: Stalkers

The author provided absolutely no source for their claims of this supposed game. In addition, Google turned up absolutely nothing about it. This is, in my honest opinion, a hoax. ~ Hibana 00:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete speculation Josh Parris#: 01:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "announced by Nintendo to an anonoymous source"? Almost certainly a hoax. BryanG 01:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. My searches came up empty as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete either someone is really well informed or its a hoax... but for some strange reason, I feel like reading up on MJ12 now. Master of Puppets That's hot. 01:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If it is real, wait for an official announcement rather than speculation. R.E. Freak 06:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete', unverifiable. --Terence Ong 10:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete anonymous sources and Wikipedia don't seem to go well together. Kevin 10:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unverifiable. splintax (talk)
  • Delete Positively nonsensical.--Folksong 20:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as patent nonsense. Staxringold 21:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. --UsaSatsui 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - either non-existent or non-notable. Metamagician3000 11:57, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:10, 28 May '06

[edit] Fr. Raymond Guiao, S.J. (1 of 2)

Delete NN HS music director. Creator removed prod and prod2 without explanation. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Creator's a bit angry. I advised him to review WP:BIO. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, apparently well loved and talented but nn band director. Deizio talk 00:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Deiz. and no WP:RS Crum375 01:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sure he's a really super guy, but he doesn't meet WP:N. -- stubblyhead | T/c 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Save This gentleman look slikes he's proven himself as one of the top high school chorus instructer in the country, as evidenced by his groups awards. If this can be verified, deleting this would be eliminating a key gateway entry to Wikipedia's system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.119.132 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete for reasons already stated. DVD+ R/W 01:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. ScottW 02:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 10:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn--Jusjih 13:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems like a nice guy, but just not notable enough for a Wikipedia article.--Folksong 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP Any Jesuit is worthy of Wikipedia space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.119.132 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - nn plus not a npov.
  • Delete as quite nn, as others have noted. Staxringold 21:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • SAVE I did some research on this guy, he is one of the most active Jesuits in North America and has had many articles written about his start-up programs in magazines from Crossways, America, and Ignatius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.119.132 (talk • contribs)
  • What I don't understand is why people thing they can get away with using unsigned sockpuppets. Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 10:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. -- That Guy, From That Show! 17:41, 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 delete. — FireFox (UTC) 10:10, 28 May '06

[edit] "Cat-o'-Tonics" (2 of 2)

HS Choir. Midwest U.S. Champions for High School Acapella. Is that enough for inclusion? Probably not. Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn unless some serious proof that the State and Midwest Championship for High School Acapella confers serious notability on its winners. I also can't figure out where the justification for calling them the "#1 all-male singing group in the country" comes from? Deizio talk 01:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:N. The #1 group claim sounds like POV to me, but of course it's impossible to tell without sources. -- stubblyhead | T/c 01:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Saint Ignatius High School. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless some kind of significant source is cited for the #1 male singing group claim. ScottW 02:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as much as the a cappella singer in me wants to find some way to justify it. --fuzzy510 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Saint Ignatius High School as per above. --Dakart 07:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 10:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as more nn high school material. Staxringold 21:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. If, on the other hand, this had been a choir of actual cats, it'd be welcomed with open arms. --Agamemnon2 10:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. -- That Guy, From That Show! 17:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I know most of the members of this group personally, and even I must say this-nn-Hornandsoccer 20:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)-sorry for not signing earlier


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox (UTC) 10:11, 28 May '06

[edit] Phil Stout

This article cites no references and does not, to this musical novice, assert the importance of its subject. Furthermore, it has been tagged for cleanup since May of last year. It was suggested on the talk page that the material could be merged into Beautiful music. Mackensen (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - only [174] Hits for "Phil Stout" and music with none of them I can see demonstrating importance or third-party verifiability of the info on the page. Peripitus 10:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete insufficient assertion of notability Kevin 10:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 12:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn--Jusjih 13:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are at least two notable bands called "The Hi-Lites" (The Chi-Lites and Ronnie & the Hi-Lites), but with a casual search I can't find any evidence that Mr. Stout belonged to either group. The column might qualify him for authorship guidelines if the paper's circulation were high enough, but to determine that we'd need to know which paper it was. I did find some mentions of him in two books about the history of easy-listening music. [3] [4], but I don't feel informed enough to say with certainty whether that's sufficient. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Staxringold 20:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Jdcooper 16:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. -- That Guy, From That Show! 17:43, 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 delete. — FireFox (UTC) 10:11, 28 May '06

[edit] Jack's Back - The Live Comeback

fails WP:MUSIC, plus is unreferenced, poorly wikified and deadly boring Josh Parris#: 01:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no need for this to have a seperate article Ydam 10:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Scott 15:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A live album recorded on the "Jack's Back" tour after John Farnham released his Whispering Jack album which is one of the best selling records in Australian history would certainly meet WP:MUSIC. However, I can find no verifiable evidence of the official release of such an album and his article doesn't mention it. Ironically, we don't have an article on Whispering Jack itself but we have had a rash of this bogus Farnham albums of which this is one. Capitalistroadster 00:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. For some reason, hoax John Farnham albums often pop up on wikipedia. Cnwb 08:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. --Roisterer 14:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. -- That Guy, From That Show! 17:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- unless verified as being an actual release. - Longhair 22:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:00, 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 speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 02:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bradford Plumer

Doesn't seem especially notable. Perhaps in later years he will become so, but I don't think he's quite there yet. Crystallina 01:17, 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. Deizio talk 02:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Schaufeld

A local dance teacher who is a "company member at Michelle Ferraro's Dance USA." I'm not sure what being a company member there means, but this individual has no direct claim to fame. Someone else who went to Michelle Ferraro's Dance USA was a finalist on "So You Think You Can Dance?" but that doesn't make anyone associated with the place notable. --Hetar 01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete because the article does not assert notability. Someone has speedied it. - Richardcavell 01:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. No actual assertion of notability. Also, it's already been speedied twice before. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete vanity. Aplomado talk 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 delete. — FireFox (UTC) 10:12, 28 May '06

[edit] Strategens

NN card game. External links lead only to user's own website. Francs2000 01:28, 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 merge to Royal Canadian Legion. It is already mentioned there. --Ezeu 05:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legion Athletic Camp

This is an nn article about a camp at the International Peace Garden. It is writen in pure advertising copy, and only receives 566 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 01:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete awful narrative, not a notable subject, not encyclopaedically useful. No redeeming value that I can discern. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Royal Canadian Legion, if there is anything worth salvaging. Ted 05:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - done all I can with this then Redirect. I can't see anything else that I can verify and is salvagable beyond the scant remaining sentence - Peripitus 10:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Royal Canadian Legion. --Terence Ong 10:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox (UTC) 10:12, 28 May '06

[edit] Flaming Pine Youth Camp

A nn article about a summer camp in Minnesota. It is almost entirely original research and gives no indication about why this camp is notable enough to be included on an encyclopaedia. It also gets only 42 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 01:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete original research (such as an informal review of the camp's food, etc) of which little content falls outside of, and that that is factual is not referenced. Frankly, also, there isn't anything to say why we need an article. Perhaps we need some sort of List of American summer camps to try to prevent these rather encyclopaedically useless articles remaining. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Ted 04:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, original research. --Terence Ong 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn--Jusjih 13:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. -- That Guy, From That Show! 19:07, 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 delete. — FireFox (UTC) 10:21, 28 May '06

[edit] Camp Yamhill

A nn article about a summer camp in Oregon. It appears to be almost entirely a copyvio from here, and besides that, contains no information about why this camp is notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedia. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 01:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete reads like an advertising factsheet, and is more or less a copyvio. No assertion of notability; no encyclopaedic value. NPOV almost irredeemably lacking - the whole thing would need scrapping for NPOV compliance, thus delete. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable and no logical place to merge it. Ted 04:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn camp. --Terence Ong 10:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn--Jusjih 13:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, non-encyclopedic. Steveo2 19:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Osbus 21:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I know the guy who wrote this. It's not a copyright violation, since he wrote the same thing at h2g2, that's his page you linked up there (do you guys bother to read talk pages?). I agree that it needs major work. --Liface 20:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Move Having fairly limited experience on Wikipedia I am willing to respect the decision here, but I would like details on what each of you thought was lacking besides the generic 'reason-for-deletion' terms. First, I would like to question the primary assertion of non-notability by referring you to criteria 1 on Wikipedia:Importance and pointing out that this camp hosts thousands of different persons annually and acts as a cultural unifier for Churches of Christ in the Northwest US, which I would classify as "at least well-known in a community." Having met said criteria, "there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being: of insufficient importance, fame or relevance or... obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.)" Granted, this is an article on an obscure location, globally speaking... Perhaps this article would do better on WikiTravel as per point 3 on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I would also request examples of NPOV violations in this article so I can do better in the future; I thought this article was very neutral, as it passed rigorous editing for NPOV over at H2G2. Isle 18:39, 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 delete. — FireFox (UTC) 10:21, 28 May '06

[edit] Camp Taconic

A nn article about a summer camp in Massachusetts. Contains no references of any kind, and is almost entirely original research. There is nothing in this article to show that it is different from other summer camps in the US, or indeed, notable in any way. It got 673 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 01:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable, no real point to the article, no specialising value of the subject matter in question, and no sources. Basically, nothing really that could possibly be worth salvaging. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable and no logical place to merge it. Ted 04:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 10:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn.--Jusjih 13:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. -- That Guy, From That Show! 19:08, 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 merge to Scouting in the District of Columbia. --Ezeu 05:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camp PMI

This is a barely notable camp in Virginia. it is not written in anything resembling an encyclopaedic style, and in fact, it often borders on barely being comprehensible. Much of the information has no source, and the information that does have a source is hardly encyclopaedic (what crafts are available, such as tye dying, etc.) Only gets 928 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 01:41, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:22, 28 May '06

[edit] Camp Ogontz

This article is about a summer camp in New Hampshire, which is written in advertising copy with phrases like "nestled amidst the White Mountains" among others. The talk page states that there was a discussion that the article was a copyvio but then slightly rewritten, which still makes it a copyvio. It is unnotable, and only gets 233 Google Hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 01:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable from a cursory check; not much assertion of importance, and indeed no useful information. No external sources apart from the camp's web site. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and no logical place to merge it. Ted 04:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. -- That Guy, From That Show! 19:08, 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 keep (no consensus). — FireFox (UTC) 10:25, 28 May '06

[edit] Scholars for 9/11 Truth

DELETE - Simply, there is no claim to noteability. The article asserts no more noteability than the fact that it exists, and websites aren't entitled to articles simply because they exist. Does not meet WP:WEB. pm_shef 01:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • RESPONSE - No, it does not. The criteria listed at WP:WEB are: "1)The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. 2)The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. 3)The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." To the best of my knowledge, it satisfies none of those. - pm_shef 01:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/index.php?ntid=83698&ntpid=1
http://www.jungewelt.de/2006/02-02/037.php Rkrichbaum 15:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as it gets a colossal amount of unique Google hits and appears to be notable at least in the internet community. Here's a sample article, for what it's worth. Aplomado talk 01:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as no reliable sources describe the notability of the group -- wholly a construct of the blogosphere and a web operator. Violates WP:RS and WP:V Subsectionself-published sources in articles about themselves and WP:RS each say that blogs are never appropriate as secondary sources. Morton devonshire 01:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:V states "blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" and "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:" (and then lists several provisions). Шизомби 17:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Has been an owned article and is simply not a notable group. Google hits don't rank notability, only if their information was being published by reliable third party sources, and it isn't.--MONGO 02:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Are there any reliable sources for information about this group other than the group itself? Tom Harrison Talk 02:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This would seem to be (at least) the 3rd nomination not the 2nd AFAICS. 1st: February 2, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth; 2nd: February 25, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination). Also, there does appear to be hits for the group on Google news [5] Шизомби 02:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Mass deletions of content seem to have been made to make this article appear more deletable. There are at least a few notable individuals who are members of the group. The whole 9/11 revisionism issue is a hot one, and I don't see why the encyclopedia would benefit from removing a reference to such a group. Dick Clark 02:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the page history demonstrates that all the notable information has been removed before the deletion tags have been placed. This group is notable based on previous entries in the page history. - Richardcavell 02:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the article as it stands as no claim to noteability. - pm_shef 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into a 9/11 revisionist article (I don't know of any). By themselves, this group is non-notable. Ted 04:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:29, 23 May 2006
  • Delete NN and worthless. --Dakart 07:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, they've gotten some news mentions and have an online presence, but I didn't find any articles about the group itself in a major publication. Instead, they appear to be mentioned when a journalist needs a quote from the conspiracy side or, more commonly, when someone writes a commentary or a letter to the editor (sometimes written by the group itself). As others have suggested, an article about 9/11 revisionism might be good. -- Kjkolb 07:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough. --LambiamTalk 08:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into a relevant article about 9/11 conspiracy theories - Skysmith 10:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, not sure if this is worth an article, but it is evident that the current version has been reached through massive trimming of what appears to be a better article. Granted, even the less mutilated version needs massive work, but "needs work" is not equal to "delete". Merge sounds reasonable.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into any suitable article. --Terence Ong 11:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This article was clearly vandalised before the deletion mention was put on. If you read passed entries in the history the article lists quite a few members a history etc. --Zer0faults 13:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The organisation is notable but this article is awful. And in the current political climate on wikipedia, no move to improve it will be tolerated by some POV pushing users and admins. Much better that it is deleted until wikipedians mature a little and a proper article can be written. Seabhcán 13:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Does anyone else find it odd this article would come up for deletion after almost its entire contents had been removed including the published articles by proffesors? Links to radio shows removed, list of members etc. Oddly enough on of the members wiki page he is stated to be a member of this group yet, he was removed for it not being sourced. Who else would state its members other then the organization itself? I have reverted the article before the wholesale deltion of contents occured. --Zer0faults 14:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The organisation is clearly notable, is frequently mentioned in news articles (today hits on google news as well as yahoo news), was also described in the foreign press (e.g. Junge Welt, Germany, French articles). The organisation does not need Wikipedia to be known, but Wikipedia would loose content that is useful for the interested public. Efforts should be made, though, to keep certain users from vandalizing the article. Rkrichbaum 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 76,500 google hits and 15 hits in Google News.--Bill 14:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've certainly heard of this outside of WP, which says something anecdotal about its notability. -Jcbarr 15:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No it doesn't. Try telling that to the people at The game! THE KING 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (or merge into 911 loonies article). And if it does stay, we should highlight fact that the group has only existed for a short while, and is only a tiny little group of tin pot wacko's dedicated to the propogation of useless conspiracy theories. At the moment the article exaggerates their importance, almost suggesting that they actually carry some weight. This must be corrected. THE KING 15:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--DCAnderson 17:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can find almost no reliable secondary sources writing about this group. Absent those, we're left with repeating the group's own promotional material. Tom Harrison Talk 18:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Tom Harrison Talk 18:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You didn't look for reliable sources too hard. Plug "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" into Google and the returns (which number in the tens of thousands) include the following sources:
Dick Clark 18:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess we all should examine the results, follow the links, and judge for ourselves. Tom Harrison Talk 19:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Users need to keep in mind that the AfD states "no claim to noteability", which is what we are voting on, not if we agree or think they are sane, sorry hope that doesn't offend anyone. --Zer0faults 19:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just visited this link (which i have now removed from the article) titled 'Wikipedia: what it doesn't say'. From the website: "I have just spent several frustrating hours trying to revise and improve the entry on "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", only to discover that my rewrites were being over-ridden by someone at Wikipedia." Bottom line: This guy is a POV pusher, trying to use wikipedia as a web server in an attempt to give credibility to his project that is looking more dubious the more i look into it. THE KING 18:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
So are you suggesting that Fetzer created the article, or that he is inappropriately editing it? It seems to me that the latter claim shouldn't be grounds for deletion, but rather grounds for caution about POV-pushers lurking about. Dick Clark 18:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The latter, and i agree that that in itself is no grounds for deletion. But it is a warning about POV-pushers, hence the comment. THE KING 18:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think its even more harmless then that if you read the link listed, he was simply trying to add information to the article, albeit POV centric. However alot fo the information he tried to add that was removed is actually legitimate. Also this group obviously meets the popularity standard. The google hits alone show that. Also I used that link as a source cause Metzer himself is admitting to being in the group something one of the vandals who removed all the information repeatedly stated need citing as their member list needs to verified by a secondary source, which is pretty ludicrous assertion. --Zer0faults 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: unverifiable. Pecher Talk 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable. Not scholars. Not the truth. --Tbeatty 21:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: All but one of the members listed has a Ph.D. you dont get more scholarly then that. --Zer0faults 22:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Of course, only the first claim above is relevant to this discussion. Dick Clark 21:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - PLenty notable, google hits, MSNBC segment with Jones, etc. Strong Keep. TruthSeeker1234 21:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. They're nuts, maybe, but notable. --UsaSatsui 00:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Hobbeslover 01:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dick Clark. --Shlomke 03:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - picks up over 6 million google hits. Definitely notable. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • There's about 81,300 if you search with quotes, as many results are irrelevant otherwise. There are supposedly only 186 results that are unique (go to the 18th page), but Google tends to break down when the number of unique links is above a hundred or so, so there may be many more. -- Kjkolb 09:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep common sense shall prevail! FK0071a 06:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- so we can make way for the fourth nomination. SkeenaR 07:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP!- I really can't understand why should it be deleted.--Pokipsy76 09:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The articles about this group and there effort keeps comming in, with nearly a new entry a day. EyesAllMine 12:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep That group exists, they publish a lot, have lectures and so. Eventually merge with 9/11 Truth Movement but this article is more specific. User:Macieksk 15:25, 24 May 2006 (GMT+1)
  • Keep, of course. Google numbers show notability, and the first few hits from a Google news search finds articles or commentaries on them published in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, National Post, Canada, The Capital Times, WI, Tucson Weekly, AZ, etc etc., none of which are considered conspiracy blogs. Saying the afd is just because the article does not assert notability is disengenious. Not one of the first 15 articles I skimmed in Category:Organizations (All the "A"s) assert notability. Just because these people are kooks doesn't mean they're not notable. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, unfortunately. The group is notable, although seriously misguided (IMHO) (The article should assert the group's notablility, though, which it doesn't, at present.) The assertion that the members are "scholars" in the lead may be POV, however. Due to my view in the first sentence, I cannot rewrite the lead to meet these requirements, but I'm sure it can be done. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. We've had enough of these now... 1652186 19:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: (First, it is puzzling to understand the post above. Second, there are two grade-6 level spelling mistakes in the proposed deletion post at the top. Do enclyclopedia makers claim to be literate?) Getting to the substance of the matter, there are over 87,000 Google hits for "Scholars for 9/11 Truth". Furthermore, a May 17/06 Zogby Poll finds that "Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support a New 9/11 Investigation". Over half the American public of voting age distrusts the 9/11 Commission Report and supports a new investigation of possible US Govenment involvement in the attacks. "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" represents an organized and authoritative segment of American voters who are seeking truth about the events of 9/11, and as such qualify for an entry in Wikipedia. --PureLogic 19:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Some enclyclopedia makers may cllaim be be literalate, but methinks they just guzzled too many high-plotency dlinks and now are inebrialated. --LambiamTalk 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Much of the support to delete articles on this subject, see also [10], is obviously intended as censorship. The language used to describe the advocates of the article; ‘crackpots’, ‘loonies’, ‘conspirators’, ‘worthless’, ‘tin pot wackos’, etc., shows strong subjective bias. ‘Not Notable’ entries ignore the tens of thousands of hits on Google, proving this article outranks many other articles found here. Most impressively notable is the recent Zogby poll [11] which demonstrates extremely strong public interest. Isn’t it the purpose of Wikipedia to provide information for those who wish to learn more about a subject at hand? Does it not degrade Wikipedia to allow censorship by those who simply do not subscribe to certain views on a subject? If people aren’t interested, or don’t want to learn about this subject, they can simply bypass it. But those who are interested should find it here. After all, who needs reference material that disallows controversial subject matter?--Kolateral 05:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Excellent point. And to add to it, a lot of the initiative to close down this page and other controversial pages like it, seems to be coming from those who look to the mainstream media for what is true and authoritative. It is useful to remember that much of that media is owned by huge corporate interests. For example, GE, one of the world's largest munitions manufacturers, owns NBC. And the Carlyle Group, also a munitions investor, and with whom the Bush family has strong ties, has a huge contract to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq after those munitions companies have made a fortune blasting it to hell, on the pretext of WMD. So as far as trusting mainstream to give a full and balanced picture, remember the vested interests behind the media, and also the fact that the only unifying voice that objective and concerned citizens really have is the Internet. So let's not knock the groups they form there too much. They are not crackpots until proven so, which is why a proper 9/11 inquiry is needed. Let's have some respect here, and recognize their existence on the people's democratic Wikipedia.--PureLogic 20:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Nor is it Communism. Dick Clark 20:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge not encyclopedic, POV soapbox? Wombdpsw 05:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The people involved seem "notable" enough, and it's obviously verifiably real, not original research and not complete nonsense, so the nomination doesn't conform with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Also, the fact that it's AFD number three smells of bad faith and/or sour grapes. --Centauri 07:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to other articles on theorists. Media coverage section doesn't have any bluelinks. Andjam 09:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Actually, the Media Coverage section does have at least a few blue links (or names that are wikilinked previously in the article). Dick Clark 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as per nom and as per Pecher --Strothra 20:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
""Comment"" The sheer number of Wikipedians voting here is evidence of notability. TruthSeeker1234 02:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it's evidence that several people have been browsing the AfD list. --Strothra 03:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Rkrichbaum, Asbestos, Dick Clark, Zer0faults and Rkrichbaum. Notability has been abundantly established. —204.42.17.151 04:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete conspiracy cruft.  Grue  07:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as per nom and as per Pecher. San Saba 13:14, 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 copyvio. --Ezeu 05:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nguma Monene

Subject material is "cryptozoological", which is the study of legends, or creatures that have not been proved to actually exist. I nominate for deletion as being unencyclopaedic, but others may disagree, hence why it is on AFD. Keep in mind that yes, while the Loch Ness Monster is strictly cryptozoological, it is a famous legend. I personally have not heard of this one. Kareeser|Talk! 01:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. If articles about Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster are encyclopedic, so is this. Aplomado talk 01:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Pulls up a few other hits on Google. Also has an article on the Polish 'pedia. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as plagerism from the website it references. Every last word and word order identical. --Nick Y. 02:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Added a copyvio tag. Future votes should be based upon the past content, I suppose, although I don't know if it'll survive the copyvio process anyway. Doubt anyone will notice this one disappearing. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:19, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:38, 28 May '06

[edit] Eduard Scolburg

Article is unsourced and unverifiable. Subject is listed on List of Western Outlaws but was added there by the same author of this article. Even if a source can be found, I don't know if it is a notable figure in history. Metros232 01:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable and WP:OR. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is nothing on Google, except the wikipedia entry, to suggest this is anything other than OR. Even hoax is a possibility.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 12:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Osbus 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 2 hits on google. —Mets501talk 00:13, 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 kept Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal technicality

  • Delete - This article does nothing productive, and has virtually no potential to be an informative article in the future. The term "legal technicality" is either:
    • (1) meaningless in that if it were written from a NPOV it would encompass the whole of law and jurisprudence in every country on the planet; or
    • (2) it becomes, at it presently is, inherently POV in the sense that well-reasoned and time-tested legal principles are seen as unnecessary complexities that normal folks shouldn't need to be bothered with when they may need to be in court for some reason, or alternately
    • (3) the article as titled is inherently a POV that the exercise of a person's legally permitted rights in a court of law are mere excuses for guilty people to get off scot-free. ....Kenosis 01:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with the article, which seems perfectly informative to me in describing precisely what a legal technicality is. IMHO, the nomination strays more into POV than does the article. Regardless of the nom's opinion, there are many legal principles, however time tested or well reasoned, which are viewed as "technicalities" by people all the way up to the White House. There's a strong revisionist streak on Wikipedia, I recognize, but there's a difference between how we want the public to perceive things and how they actually do, and a valid encyclopedia should reflect the latter more than the former. RGTraynor 02:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: " there are many legal principles, however time tested or well reasoned, which are viewed as "technicalities" by people all the way up to the White House." Note carefully the use of the words "viewed as 'technicalities'" in this statement just made here. Are you actually asserting that the article should be kept, but if it is kept it should be brought in line with the fact that anyone who disagrees with another party's use of the procedural law to stop them from doing what they want in court, they almost universally call it "based on a technicality"??...Kenosis 03:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I am asserting that the article should be kept. I agree that aside from anything else, people do blame many legal results they don't like on "technicalities," and that mentioning the syndrome would suit the article just fine. RGTraynor 04:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has the potential to be a good article. I note that the U.S. Supreme Court has used the phrase "legal technicality" or "legal technicalities" in at least 13 opinions which indicates that it is potentially a meaningful concept. [12] --Metropolitan90 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - fair name for an article, but it could use a cleanup. - Richardcavell 04:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:A general analysis of the theme(s) and content of this article,, starting with the first two paragraphs: Kenosis 04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Paragraph 1:"The term legal technicality refers to the technical niceties and exactitudes of legal procedure, which is divided into criminal procedure and civil procedure. The term technicality is actually not a term of art in the law (fish describing water) and is rarely used by lawyers, unless they are trying to explain legal procedure to lay clients."...04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"technical niceties"? what on earth is that as a definition? "Fish describing water" what on earth does that mean? Where is the source for a statement such as "rarely used by lawyers" and where is the source for "unless they are trying to explain legal procedure to lay clients"?
    • Paragraph 2, Sentence 1:”Defenses based on technicalities are known as "procedural defenses." ...04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
(1)Say an old business associate takes you (or a friend or relative of yours) to court claiming that in 1956 a contract was broken and you owe them money for it. You assert the procedural defenses of laches and expiration of the statute of limitations, and the judge dismisses the case. The old business associate now goes to the press and says “it was dismissed on a legal technicality.” Are you convinced that the assertion of procedural defenses in this case are “legal technicalities”?
(2)Say you are arrested, hauled off to jail, not permitted a phone call, and not informed of what the charges are against you. Finally you get to court two years later and tell your story through your court appointed attorney who just met you, and are fortunate enough to have a ‘’competent’’ attorney who, with evidence and argument, persuades the judge that your version of events is factually correct. Note that all your arguments here are “procedural defenses”. The judge releases you. Have you gotten off on “legal technicalities”? ... Kenosis 04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Pargraph 2, Sentence 2: “It is often used in a pejorative sense to denote aspects of legal procedure which, if not attended to or followed, can change the outcome of a legal proceeding in ways seemingly contrary to the interests of justice.” ... 04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Note the use of the words “seemingly contrary to justice” as they are very telling of what is meant when people use the words “legal technicality” in public discourse. What the Wikipedia article on Legal technicality is saying is, in effect, that when people don’t agree with the outcome, they derisively refer to the cause of the “unjust” outcome as “based on a legal technicality” or “because of a legal technicality”. Meanwhile, the opposing party goes to the press and says “Thank God justice was done.” ... Kenosis 04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Metropolitan90, thanks for the link! I should interrupt the comment/analysis of content to report that the U.S. Supreme Court's use of the informal phrase "legal technicalities" over the last century (13 times minus two duplicates and one quote from a newspaper = 10 times) are as follows. All of them are used in a non-definitional way to refer to the idea of merely "complexities or technical aspects of the law"... Kenosis 05:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • (1) “The function of counsel as a guide through complex legal technicalities long has been recognized by this Court.” (U.S. v. Ash, 1973)
    • (2) ”Furthermore, during the federal habeas corpus hearing Davis showed his awareness of legal technicalities.”(footnote in Davis v. North Carolina, 1966)
    • (3) ”If recovery were denied in this case, the railroads, by the simple expedient of doing each other's work, could tie their employees up in legal technicalities over the proper railroad to sue for injuries and perhaps remove from coverage of the Act a significant area of railroad activity.”(Shenker v. Baltimore and Ohio R.Co., 1963)
    • (4) “Admiralty practice, which has served as the origin of much of our modern federal procedure, should not be tied to the mast of legal technicalities it has been the forerunner in eliminating from other federal practices." British Transport Comm'n v. United States, 354 U.S. 129, 139 .” (CONTINENTAL GRAIN CO. v. BARGE FBL-585, 1960)
    • (5) Redundant quote:“Admiralty practice, which has served as the origin of much of our modern federal procedure, should not be tied to the mast of legal technicalities it has been the forerunner in eliminating from other federal practices." (British Transport Comm'n v. United States, 1957).
    • (6) “When the Congress deliberates over this problem, as it often has, it does not worry about the passing of title or other legal technicalities.” (KERN-LIMERICK, INC. ET AL. v. SCURLOCK, 1954)
    • (7) “by substituting practical, business conceptions for the previous hairsplitting legal technicalities encrusted upon the 'found'-'present'-'carrying-on-business' sequence, the Court yielded to and made effective Congress' remedial purpose.” (UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL CITY LINES, 1948)
    • (8) Redundant quote: “Thus, by substituting practical, business conceptions for the previous hairsplitting legal technicalities encrusted upon the 'found'- 'present'-' carrying-on-business' sequence, the Court yielded to and made effective Congress' remedial purpose. (U.S. V. SCOPHONY CORP. OF AMERICA, 1948)
    • (9) “Legal technicalities doubtless afford justification for our pretense of ignoring plain facts before us, facts upon which a man's very life or liberty conceivably could depend.” (CARTER v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF ILLINOIS, 1946)
    • (10) “We shall assume that the statement, 'judicial instance and interpretative procedure ... even go out to find, every possible technicalit of the law to protect the defendant ... and nullify prosecution,' refers to the quashing of the rape indictments as well as other condemned steps. The comment of the last two paragraphs evidently includes these dismissals as so-called legal technicalities.” (PENNEKAMP v. STATE OF FLA., 1946)
    • (11) “Yet if legal technicalities rather than practical considerations are to decide that question it should be noted that the defendants were payee-indorsers of the checks.” (KANN v. U.S., 1944)
    • (12) “After the making of the consent decree and the deposit of the money in court, the situation of this case was substantially that of an interpleader suit after the making of a decree for interpleader and the dismissal of the stakeholder from the cause, with the issue as between the conflicting claimants limited by stipulation to the determination of the amount 'justly due' from the one to the other. That question, of course, was and is to be decided according to the equities of the claimants as between themselves, without regard to legal technicalities.” (MCGOWAN v. PARISH, 1915)
    • (13) “In the News, published the evening of March 19, there was an editorial reviewing the local proceedings, which concluded: 'All of this delay is aggravating to the community. The people of Chattanooga believe that Johnson is guilty, and that he ought to suffer the penalty of the law as speedily as possible. If by legal technicality the case is prolonged and the culprit finally escapes, there will be no use to plead with a mob here if another such crime is committed. Such delays are largely responsible for mob violence all over the country.'”(U.S. v. SHIPP, 1909)
The last use is the kicker here, as it is a quote from a newspaper. All these uses of legal technicalities by the Supreme Court refer to only one thing, which is in informal reference to "technicalities of the law” or “anything in the law that is highly technical” including substantive law, procedural law--everything technical. That is properly the subject of the article on law, and not the subject of a separate article on legal technicalities I would think. ... Kenosis 05:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, particularly not a legal dictionary. Ted 06:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable term. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep – the article can (and should) be improved, but I see no grounds for deletion. The quotations provided by Kenosis show several good examples of the term clearly being used as commonly understood, and not just "anything in the law that is highly technical". --LambiamTalk 08:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. An article 'not being good' is no grounds for deleting it - only if it does not have the potential to become good is it deletable in my opinion. But as above it is a notable legal term and therefore has potential. THE KING 15:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - important term related to any kind of legislation, would need good examples from experts - Skysmith 10:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable term, expand it, word is more than a dicdef. --Terence Ong 11:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Considering the point of view of a young person who encountered the phrase "legal technicality" for the first time, an explaination would be valuable. Should it be found in an encyclopedia or a dictionary? An encyclopedia offers the possiblity of fairly extended discussion of illustrative cases, so there is good reason to include the term in an encyclopedia. Gerry Ashton 21:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean-up, including use of the research done by Kenosis above. GRBerry 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean as above, not that I think it'll do any good. Few people ever go back and clean such articles anyway. --Agamemnon2 11:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The correct content is a dictdef. The current content is irredeemably biased. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:23, 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 delete. — FireFox (UTC) 10:46, 28 May '06

[edit] Daughters of Affluence

Fails WP:CORP and seems to be rather non-notable. Also, this is a copyvio from [13]. Metros232 02:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete per nom (and possibly WP:VAIN as well). A mighty 15 Google hits, and the first five are their own website, the Wikipedia article, and Wikimirrors. I recommend WP:CHILL to the site owners. RGTraynor 02:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete copyvio M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per copyvio Ydam 10:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A8 --Terence Ong 11:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio and as not meeting WP:CORP as well as verifiabilty problems. Capitalistroadster 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 23:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy - copyvio —Mets501talk 00:14, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:46, 28 May '06

[edit] Happyanimal

Contested prod, from April. Reprodded with "neologism, unsourced, prob. offensive; orig. prod tag removed by a blocked vandal"; I agree, delete. Moved here as the prod tag was actually removed and not by a banned user as far as I know, plus this will make any recreation speedyable. Mangojuicetalk 02:28, 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 delete. --Ezeu 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PCMech

DELETE does not meet notability requirements, many opportunities to rectify. reads liks an advert. see Talk:PCMech Bungalowbill 03:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - it's an advertisement. - Richardcavell 03:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep seems to meet some notability requirements. I don't think it reads much like an advert, and Alexa rank isn't that bad--around 25,000, with 1,000 pages linking to it. Compare some of the other sites that come up here, and you'll see what I mean. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:WEB. It has been mentioned in articles, but the criterion is that the article is about the site. That, I don't see. Aguerriero (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It doesn't seem like an advertisement. It describes the site's purpose and what's on it, much like the other Technology websites that are listed, such as Ars Technica, doom9, neowin, etc. --Gregg 66.109.42.170 18:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Above user's only contributions have been to PCMech and this AfD. --Ezeu 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. In spite of the Keep votes which claim it doesn't look like an advertisement, (although it shouldn't be noted that none of them actually assert that it isn't an advertisement), it clearly is an advertisement. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As far as I can tell, it has met the notability requirements. But this brings up a point: if PC Mechanic has been noted in Playboy and the Wall Street Journal, how would these mentions be tracked down / linked to since they're in print format, and not in an online format? — Hoppy42 03:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Above user's only contribution has been to PCMech and this AfD. --Ezeu 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "the article must prove notability itself" (paraphrase) it doesn't. linked articles are meer mentions, and the print articles are not proved. pictures would be proof, i would assume the WSJ could be accessed online somehow?. theres no reason to suspect either of the print articles are anything other than mentions without proof. there has been no claim they are more than mentions anyway. there have been many oportunities to give proof. 137.205.25.203 10:12, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:47, 28 May '06

[edit] Scott O'Mara

Vanity, appears to be hoax Yanksox 03:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - might not be a hoax, but it's non-notable. - Richardcavell 03:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Richard. -Jcbarr 03:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mangojuicetalk 04:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per NN Ydam 10:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:33, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:47, 28 May '06

[edit] Dusty MacLean(guitarist)

This article does not assert notability, and is unsalvagably bad writing Richardcavell 03:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete under A7. There's no assertion of WP:N. -Jcbarr 03:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 12:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, and it fails Google test. Hardly readable, too. --romanm (talk) 21:13, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:48, 28 May '06

[edit] Prkr

Artist is non-notable. No AMG entry for either the nickname or the real name (a truly unusual feat for a signed American artist), and I got a whopping 18 hits when I Googled Prkr with the name of one of his albums. fuzzy510 03:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 03:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 03:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 12:04, 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 15:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eurovision Song Contest 2008

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The contest venue and format have yet to be determined, so the bulk of the article is at this point speculative. —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I think even 2007's article is already pushing it. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Eivindt@c 05:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons given by nominator. DVD+ R/W 05:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There's not one confirmed fact in the article, it's entirely speculation. --DM Andy 06:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Author should try again when this actually exists. --Dakart 07:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Much too early and no info. At least wait till after ESC 2007, when we'll know the host country, finalists and semi-finalists. Jess Cully 08:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my original prodding. I've no idea why this was removed from prod anyway; C.Fred said it was "ineligible" but I wasn't aware there was such a thing. — sjorford++ 08:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    From the looks of it your prod was the second prod placed on the article with the first being contested, contested prods should go to AfD rather than being re-prod-ed as has been done by C.Fred--blue520 09:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    You're quite right, I should have spotted that myself. Apologies. — sjorford++ 09:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Come on guys one year at a time. Maybe we should have a policy that articles for future events can only typically exist for the next nearest event Ydam 10:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we don't know anything about it yet, why create it so early. --Terence Ong 11:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--blue520 12:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well i dont suppose this will count for much, but for what it's worth :keep. I think we should leave it there, it will develop over time and doesn't hurt anybody at the moment. THE KING 16:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it does hurt someone if (s)he clicks Random article and jumps on it. --romanm (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, look at the Olympics there are articles till 2024. Hektor 21:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • There is at least content in the 2024 Summer Olympics article, due to the bidding for the right to host it. The 2024 Olympics article is the logical place for that content; it will be historical content as contenders become also-rans. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep -Barring any incidents, this will happen, but maybe keep it short. Arbiteroftruth 07:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • ESC 2007 is worthy of an article because it's being hammered out as we speak, this one's still completely incorporeal. --Agamemnon2 11:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Agamemnon2, but perhaps not enough to put it all in bold. Peeper 14:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - there was a Eurovision Song Contest 2007 article before the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 even took place. Also, I agree with THE KING, as it is not hurting anyone, in my opinion. 13756 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Premature. I'm not a big fan of the 20-years-in-advance Olympics articles cited above, either, but at least with the 2024 games there is verifiable information. Other than "it's going to happen" there really isn't anything to verify on this one yet. 23skidoo 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I'm ok with an article on the one after the next one (on any such event), but anything beyond '08 should be deleted for now. youngamerican (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's going to happen anyways in the next few months. As long as it has already been created, there won't be a need to rehash this later. I also agree that anything past 2008 is pushing it. --Shuki 20:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as no meaningful information is available yet. The info in this article assumes that the rules stay the same, which is not 100% certain. Rain74 15:25, 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 delete. — FireFox (UTC) 10:49, 28 May '06

[edit] The Ghost Year

Album by non-notable artist. Google returns 18 hits for the artist's name and the name of the album, one of which is the article. fuzzy510 03:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. "Limited" to 100 copies, or "only had demand for" 100 copies? -- Kicking222 03:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 05:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as a cross-namespace redirect/recreated article. kingboyk 10:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiLadder

Deproded, so here we are. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. I swear I've seen a similar game before in the Wikipedia: namespace somewhere, although I can't find it right now. Inappropriate as a mainspace article. BryanG(talk) 03:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. There are three similar games listed under That infamous game in the article you cited. All of them are in the Wikipedia namespace. --Metropolitan90 03:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per obviousness. I knew I'd seen that before, too- I guess we now have #12 for that infamous list. -- Kicking222 03:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This game is listed under WP:NFT and needs to be deleted. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 04:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Gwernol 05:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons already stated. DVD+ R/W 05:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and tagged per G4 as re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-recreated material. TheProject 06:32, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:49, 28 May '06

[edit] Truth Movement

Propaganda -- no other way to put it, really -- for a whole bunch of unrelated leftier-than-thou beliefs, lumped together to look like something comprehensive and bigger. Calton | Talk 03:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Update - The page has been entirely rewritten. Keep in mind that the 'Truth Movement' is something very new. Those who might be able to define it are presently those who are participating. One might reasonably say that this would not result in an objective definition. This page was written by people with direct experience of the movement, in the sincere attempt to reasonably define a term that has recently entered the popular parlance. Logical critique will receive a logical response. 71.247.64.215 04:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Question: So how is this different from a (hypothetical) article Kindness Movement on "an emerging social movement comprised of many independent groups and individuals" working to promote kindness? What evidence do we have that this Truth Movement exists outside the minds of users Sneet and 71.247.64.215? Who determines which groups and individuals are part of this? Can you explain (from a neutral point of view) why the LaRouche Movement shouldn't be mentioned here? --LambiamTalk 15:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Truth is notable, it sometimes adds commercials on the tube, and the organization(s) seemingly try to show what bad is going on in the world, such as the status of tobacco victims. May change my vote to Delete, though. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This isn't the same as TheTruth.com, which runs the anti-tobacco ads you're thinking of. I say delete per nom. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - if it's kept, there needs to be a major POV overhaul. --fuzzy510 05:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as presently unverifiable. I'm skeptical that these groups are referred to collectively as the "Truth Movement." A Google search for +"truth movement" -"9/11" -911 -"feldman's truth" (to pare off the 9/11 truth movement and something called Corey Feldman's Truth Movement") turns up less than 1000 hits. This article is not about TheTruth.com, the group that runs anti-smoking tv commercials. Шизомби 05:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons given by nominator and Шизомби. DVD+ R/W 05:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- so much original and non-verifiable research here I don't know where to start. Violates pretty much all of the WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR rules, and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Morton devonshire 06:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the following reason. The article defines "the" Truth Movement as a decentralized network, a loose conglomeration of forces. I see no evidence that the term is used as such outside this article; in other words, it appears to be a protologism. Other objections are repairable. --LambiamTalk 08:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete we don't need two pages on the exact same topic. This is a fork.--Jersey Devil 10:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong 11:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non existent. Vizjim 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per above Wombdpsw 05:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Шизомби and Lambiam, and bordering on {{nonsense}}. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is spectacularly vague. The "Truth Movement" could include any mildly left-wing group, I guess... There seems to be no hard evidence that there is any group (or group of groups) that is referred to like this. Grandmasterka 03:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per everyone.  Grue  07:38, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:49, 28 May '06

[edit] Blue Jays Board

Delete. Advertising. Not notable. No articles on Wikipedia link to it. Potential vanity. -- Win777 04:02, 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 no consensus. --Ezeu 15:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Tim Burton Collective

Seems to fail WP:WEB. Nothing seems to make this a particularly notable fansite. This article is just an extensive summary of the community's history and members. Metros232 04:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Google shows about 24,200 hits for the result, as shown here, making it quite notable. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 04:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - SCI FI Weekly's September 26, 2005 Site of the Week. Winner of Movies.com's Second Annual Movie Site Award for a Director Fan Site. Plus the abundance on Google. Of course, the article could use some editing to remove its more superfluous content. —204.42.17.136 03:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Scrape clean and start anew - TCB seems notable enough (although I think this would be better placed in an article dealing with Tim Burton fandom), but this "article" is an unwikified mess that needs much cleanup. B.Wind 14:15, 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imsimal Burratti Lahn

Cruft from British television comedy Look Around You. Doesn't seem to hold up to Wikipedia:Verifiability - it gets 0 G-his, and that's without quotation marks. Delete unless verified by a reliable source. GTBacchus(talk) 05:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete i would say merge but I don't think theres anything saveble Ydam 10:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I want to keep, but not for a terribly good reason. A co-creator of the article, who is a fan of the show, tells me that the spelling of the phenomenon is not given on the show. I tried searching for alternate spellings, but found none. A script would verify it, but none seem to be up yet. The reason I want to keep is because I trust his judgement, and also because I think it would be nice to have all the Look Around You phenomena in separate articles, under a category. After all, there are pages for Monty Python sketches. Spottedowl 11:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified. (If verified, as per Spottedowl, merge into Look Around You, as it's not yet that long.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:55, 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 delete. — FireFox (UTC) 10:50, 28 May '06

[edit] Cereal Pest

Information in this article is already contained in Matt Tilley, and the chances of expansion here to justify giving the album is own article are slim, since it seems that it was never released stateside and comes up less than 100 times on Google. fuzzy510 05:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Ydam 10:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:03, 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 that the weak keep votes are also leaning towards delete. All in all, sentiments to delete weigh over. --Ezeu 15:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carmen Yuen

This article is a vanity page and should be moved to a user profile page. Dredscott 05:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and userfy. DVD+ R/W 05:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. 700 hits on Google suggests some notability, and the article claims she has a Grammy-winning paper, which if sourced would indicate notability. In any case, the article needs some serious expansion, clean-up, and POV-removal. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and userfy. Skeptical of the notability due to various unsubstantiated/unsourced claims such as being a music scout for The Arcade Fire and Franz Ferdinand. Additionally, all external links point to autobiographical sites. Dredscott 05:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this article ought to be ammended in two ways. First, it should have some sort of weird roll-over graphic, like those ads for insurance that are an ear of corn and the kernels peel off when you roll-over your state. Second, I was unsatisfied with the exclusion of any information pertaining to the well known similarities between Yuen's life and The Da Vinci Code. 67.86.9.248 05:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. The paper was a runner-up finalists which won a $1,500 prize, according to http://www.grammy.com/Recording_Academy/News/Default.aspx?newsID=1760&newsCategoryID=7 , which is the official site for the Grammys. I will add a sources template box to that page, though. TruthbringerToronto 05:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Does everyone who writes a paper with award sums of $1,500 or more deserve an article on Wikipedia? None of the other winners listed by the official Grammy website have Wikipedia entries.Dredscott 06:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep But she writes books at age 21. Why delete this page and keep Marty Beckerman, for example? Or Kevin Chong? Maybe clean it up so it looks like the Kevin Chong stub. Knickerbox 09:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • She wrote a diet book. I would move to Kevin Chong as well on similar grounds of vanity. Marty Beckerman appears to somewhat notable.Dredscott 02:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't belive in userfying vanity, but I wouldn't complain if it is userfied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Terence Ong 11:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity and advertisement. Medico80 13:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I was originally thinking keep, but upon further reflection, I don't think she makes WP:N just yet. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I met her at Book Expo America, where she was signing autographs. She has big book and film projects in the works. She's a definite WP entry within a few months, might as well leave this for now. Contactlense 06:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Where can you verify these book and film projects that are in the works?Dredscott 02:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. NN, van. I suggest to the author to keep the article saved on a sub-page, and perhaps to submit in a year if this person has progressed. --Shuki 20:43, 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 not to keep, as not notable on its own. Mention at Squiddy Awards.--Ezeu 15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide Squid

nn comic cruft. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Suicide Squid is a notable meme/Internet phenomenon which still retains interest 15 years after it was created. --Metropolitan90 06:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, in-joke centering around a single Usenet group, with little reach outside of it. Andrew Levine 08:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bad joke, no-one cares. -- GWO
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 12:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete single joke on a single unsenet group. Gets just 227 unique Google hits, the vast majority of which are just lists of every newsgroup (there's an alt.fan.suicide-squid which hasn't had an on-topic message in 5+ years). Not much of an "internet phenomenon", even if we relax the standards to consider its oldness. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's so notable and retains so much interest that there hasn't been a newsgroup message on the newsgroup for it in 5 years. Gee golly wow wahoo gosh. Proto||type 13:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable enough to sustain a WP article. Stephen B Streater 14:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's true information about an old joke. Deleting the article because the joke isn't told much anymore smacks of some version of recentism. Keeping accurate information in the encyclopedia doesn't hurt anything and might help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheronJ (talk • contribs) (Sorry about forgetting to sign - TheronJ 15:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete per most of the comments above. NN old joke. Fan1967 15:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with Squiddy Awards. Fairly important piece of netlore that explains the title of the annual Usenet comic awards. Smerdis of Tlön 16:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable fancruft. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not a huge cultural phenomenon, but it has its place and does occasionally show up in places other than the Usenet groups. Plus, there's what Theron said -- just because it's not told much any more doesn't make it cease to exist. Also it's a prime example of a fictional fictional character. BobGreenwade 16:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't assert notability. RexNL 17:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge per Smerdis. - CNichols 22:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Ehh. I would, however, like to point out that I was the originator of that joke (you can look it up), so don't say mean things or I will pout. · rodii · 23:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: in the light of the above. Respected and creative Wikipedian got it going. And, er, someone might want to write a PhD thesis on it in future. Stephen B Streater 20:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to Merge to be more consistent with my other opinions. Stephen B Streater 20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge First mascot for an internet group? How long does something have to exist before it becomes important? Banjokangaroo 00:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, not notable by itself. -Sean Curtin 01:13, 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midwest Workers Association

None of the claims on the current page are verifiable; reputable sources simply haven't written anything about this group. Whosasking 06:16, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:52, 28 May '06

[edit] Match Factory

News flash: A match factory is a factory which produces matches. This incomplete nomination is hereby listed here with a recommendation of delete and a note that I haven't transwikied this in spite of the transwiki tag formerly ont it, as it is a WP:DUH!-type (okay, okay, I just created that redirect) definition. TheProject 06:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - I'm lost for words on this one.....priceless- Peripitus 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. DarthVader 12:01, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:52, 28 May '06

[edit] Darktown Saints

Seemingly non-notable band per WP:MUSIC - I can't find any sort of credible press for the band. Google finds them 8,870 times, which I guess isn't terrible, but it doesn't help their cause that their official site 404s every time I try it. fuzzy510 06:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 11:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I guess they don't exist anymore. The article doesn't even have the names of the members of the group. I guess nobody cares enough about the group to write about them. This should either be expanded or deleted. --Cocopuffberman 03:17, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:52, 28 May '06

[edit] This (album)

Album by a seemingly non-notable band. Darktown Saints (the artist) also listed for deletion above. fuzzy510 06:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per NN Ydam 10:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn album. --Terence Ong 11:57, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:52, 28 May '06

[edit] Tanya Clemence

Most of the article contents are copied verbatim from Salsa (dance), do not discuss the subject, and certainly do not establish the notability of the subject. A Google search for "Tanya Clemence" yields nothing indicative of her being a "recent hit sensation", only a few hits from her high school and college days . Mglg 07:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete A7. Does not meet WP:BIO criteria for keeping - Peripitus 10:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 11:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, she is not notable. Kjetil_r 23:24, 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 delete. — FireFox (UTC) 10:53, 28 May '06

[edit] The first Shabbat spent by civilians in Hebron after the Six Day War

A bit too detailed for Wikipedia. -- RHaworth 07:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Since when is that a ground for deletion? Perhaps the article should be nominated on Wikipedia:Articles for trimming. --LambiamTalk 08:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is, however, in desperate need of a major rewrite, since it reads like someone's college term paper right now. --fuzzy510 09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I wonder what the good rabbi doctor will think of his article being described as a college term paper. -- RHaworth 13:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As the author of this article, I should like to point out that even people one would have expected to know about this Shabbat in Hebron had never heard about it. The article was therefore written not as a scholarly article but as a factual reconstruction of a significant historical event, which otherwise would have been forgotten.

This contribution was added on 19:01, May 23, 2006 (UTC) by Simonschaimcontributions|talk, who apparently claims to be the same person as author Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons, simonschaim@hotmail.co.il, of the piece at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7854/parkhotel.html. I have no reason to doubt this claim. This would make this definitely not copyvio. --LambiamTalk 09:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. An nice piece of journalism, but its never going to be an encyclopedia article. Oh, and OR. -- GWO
  • Delete this web cut-and-paste from here. Not possible to make this an encyclopediac article - Peripitus 11:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible original research, essay? --Terence Ong 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's original research. Proto||type 12:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, copyvio as per Peripitus's research. Vizjim 15:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 20:09, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:53, 28 May '06

[edit] Camp Huston

Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. Sounds nice as a summer camp, but no case is made for its notability. Delete. RobertG ♬ talk 08:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn camp. --Terence Ong 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. YAN-camp. -- GWO


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Barrie Zwicker.--Ezeu 15:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barrie Wallace Zwicker

  • Delete, I think this is a possible speedy. It is a pure fork, there is already an article of this person right here Barrie Zwicker. I would have speedied it but I couldn't find it on the CSD nor a tag for this specific speedy. Jersey Devil 08:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Barrie Zwicker per nom. Kimchi.sg 09:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is already at Barrie Zwicker. I don't see the need for a redirect, but I don't oppose one. DarthVader 11:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, of course, and I've gone ahead and done just that. Redirects are cheap, and there are plenty of examples of using them for this precise reason. Obviously the author didn't know of the other page, so what ought to happen in these cases is for some friendly person come and change the new article to a redirect, leaving the history intact so any new information can be merged. I've made the redirect and so deleted the afd notice, but if someone really cares that this was out of process, then go right ahead and finish this vote... — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 20:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox (UTC) 10:53, 28 May '06

[edit] The crush method

Somewhat amusing, but original research and non-verifiable. Delete. —Lowellian (reply) 08:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, for tips on how to succeed in life we can always turn to H. Robbins. This is unverifiable and as such OR.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong 12:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (WP:NOR/WP:V)--blue520 14:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleter per nom. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 18:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone. Not even worthy of Urban Dictionary. Haikupoet 04:33, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel kirby and Safya O'Rourke

Very likely to be a hoax. 0 Google hits for "Daniel kirby" -Wikipedia "Letters From the Hospital". [14]. Since I prodded it, an anon has changed his job description to "physicist", but "Daniel kirby" -Wikipedia physicist does not return any relevant hits either (out of 4 hits).

I'm also nominating Safya O'Rourke, an article on Daniel's close friend, for this AfD. She sounds just as hoaxy as Daniel, with the same number of Google hits (0) on her full name outside of Wikipedia. Both were prodded but disputed by the same anon. Kimchi.sg 08:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. "Very likely to be a hoax"? More like "this reeks of a vanity page." --fuzzy510 09:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The alleged book The Mind of God that he would be writing is in fact from another author: [15]. Cpt. Morgan 10:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wishful-thinking/delusion/vanity. Probably not shagging the chick from the Disney Channel. -- GWO
  • Delete both per above. DarthVader 11:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable, probaly hoax. --Terence Ong 12:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy these please. Clearly hoaxes. -- GWO
  • Speedy per Hoax, or A7 if they weren't. ForbiddenWord 11:59, 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 delete. — FireFox (UTC) 10:54, 28 May '06

[edit] Candy (whirlpool)

  • Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 08:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some sort of nonsense. DarthVader 11:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 12:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete context is very unclear, assume it relates to Whirlpool (website) due to this [16]. In general it is non-notable trivia about a forum/website, at best a small mention could be made on Whirlpool (website).--blue520 13:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - It makes little to no sense. Zepheus 20:26, 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, csd a7, nothing notable in the article. - Bobet 10:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Moeckel

He's an unremarkable person

This is clearly the case. The only editor is user:Dpmoeckel, nearly half of whose edits were on this very page. His username suggests he is very likely to be David Moeckel himself. --elias.hc 09:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy as vanity --Midnighttonight 09:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete As per clear vanity Ydam 10:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable and vanity. DarthVader 10:56, 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 speedily deleted. WP:CSD A8 - blatant copyvio uploaded within the past 48 hours. Proto||type 12:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LIP6

The article seems to be for a non-notable research institute in Paris. Large swathes of the article are taken directly from [17] and are thus copyvios. Also the article is being built like a webpage and does not comform to any Wikipedia style considerations. All in all it has been built just as one large advert for the organisation. Ben W Bell 10:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Blatant copyvio, even without checking it's obvious. NN too Ydam 10:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 10:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, copyvio, advertisment and built like a webpage. If notable, write again following WP rules. feydey 11:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, copyvio. --12:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to be notable, but rewrite. -- Necrothesp 12:31, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:54, 28 May '06

[edit] List of VJs

This is just a list of links. Such articles should not exist, per WP:EL Kevin 10:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 11:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a collection of external links, no notability established on the entries. Maybe redirect to List of MTV VJs afterward, but get rid of the history first. - Bobet 11:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository collection of links. --Terence Ong 12:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nom Ydam 12:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Couldn't this just be speedily deleted by {{nocontent}}? It's only external links. That's my vote, but otherwise... yeah, delete. -- Kicking222 17:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This should be a category, but if none of these people have their own articles, then as it stands it just violates WP:NOT. 23skidoo 21:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Change.As someone who found this list looking for VJ's, and in turn discovered Wikipedia through that i think an alternative to deletion needs to be found. -- User:Mark UK 10:10, 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 Speedy delete as non-notable. --Nlu (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yifan Zhang

As a resident of the city this comedian supposedly took by storm, I've never heard of him. A Google test shows up 8 apparently irrelevant results. splintax (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox (UTC) 10:55, 28 May '06

[edit] Aged artwork

advertising for one business (see link) NawlinWiki 11:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, advertising. --Terence Ong 12:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Ydam 12:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It looks a little like an advertisment. --Starionwolf 19:03, 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 no consensus. — FireFox (UTC) 10:55, 28 May '06

[edit] Suzan Hall

Is being a city councillor itself notable? It's close, but I'd say no. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this has been much discussed and it has been accepted for some time that city councillors are encyclopedic. We currently have 84 articles on past and present Toronto city councillors, and dozens for other cities around the world. - SimonP 12:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you cite some of that discussion? --Nlu (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgio Mammoliti, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Thompson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Milczyn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Holyday, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peter Hume, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Tillman, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Di Giorgio. Also I think articles like Howard Moscoe and Mike Del Grande prove that substantial articles can be written on these people. - SimonP 12:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think these discussions stand for the propositions that city councillors who have done notable things should be kept, not that all of them should. --Nlu (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per SimonP. --Terence Ong 12:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Are there no guidelines to solve this? The question must be: if councillors in general are encyclopedic, how big must the particular city be at minimum, for the person to be inherently notable? Medico80 13:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep above articles give precedent. I don't know how big a city has to be, but I think Toronto probably makes the cut. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Toronto is big enough to include its councillors. --Rob 18:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rob, who put it quite nicely. TheProject 03:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article says nothing about what Hall stands for or what she has done. I am not against her having a page, but this page is poorly written, and doesn't go any deeper than her title and a plug to her campaign. If she is in any way notable, please state why she is notable. This page says nothing. --Cocopuffberman 03:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. I visited www.suzanhall.com and I can not find one notable thing about her. She sounds like a nice person who is dedicated to her community. The only slightly notable thing about her is her title. Apparently, the writers of this page couldn't find out anything else worth noting about her. If every person with a political career or long title had a page on Wikipedia, the servers would fill up and there would be no room for history that is being made. --Cocopuffberman 03:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Toronto and its major inhabbitants certainly is notable enough to warrent an article. I'm also slightly baffled at Cocopuffberman's "reasoning" for deletion. "This page says nothing." Is that not precisely what clean-up and expansion is for....? -ZeroTalk 12:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Per SimonP, davidzuccaro 06:47, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:57, 28 May '06

[edit] Bruce Sinclair

After reading article, I still don't have enough information to believe that he's notable. He might be, but the article does a poor job at asserting notability. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. Were you reading the same article I was? The article says that he has played for several teams in Australia's National Rugby League, including being captain of one of them. How is that not notable? -- Chuq 13:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable sportsman in Australia, but needs expansion. --Terence Ong 13:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep! Transparently notable!! - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 14:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable player with four ARL/NRL clubs. Meets WP:BIO as professional sportsman. Article needs cleanup though. Capitalistroadster 20:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 20:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Ta bu shi da yu 22:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Could do with a better picture (light flash isn't spectacular). Apart from that there seems to be no problem at all with notability. Also, is it wise for a nominator to only be asserting a weak delete vote, shouldn't they be sure before they bring things here. Ansell Review my progress! 12:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ansell. Yanksox 05:51, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 10:59, 28 May '06

[edit] Sonic Robo Blast 2: The Legend of the Black Chaos

Non-notable game expansion, google hasn't heard of it outside Wikipedia[18]. Weregerbil 12:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn game. --Terence Ong 13:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all gamecruft! Hell, it's site is on freewebs! -- Kicking222 17:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 04:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hehe, I remember playing Sonic Robo Blast 2 when it was released years a few years ago. Crappy fangame, but oh well. Doesn't belong here. -- SonicAD (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not commercially released (as far as I can see), which would seem to be the only criteria under which level expansions can be considered "notable". Seems to amount to little more than fanfiction. Seb Patrick 13:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- gamecruft, unencyclopedic, and also vanity since the author is GCFreak. Guess who made the level? BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 14:47, 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 pending complete rewrite. --Ezeu 16:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Carter - DJ, Producer. Musician

Vanity page created by User:Chriscarter007. Possibly a notable person, however, so no vote initially. ::Supergolden:: 12:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and Move to Chris Carter (US musician). Seems notable, has done work outside of Dramarama who are notable in their own right. I'll go ahead and reformat the article so it's at least readable. — AKADriver ☎ 12:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but only if completely rewritten, and perhaps also userfy. Subject is obviously notable; article is obviously trash. -- Kicking222 17:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite; I agree with Kicking that the current article is total trash. Bill (who is cool!) 21:15, 23 May 2006
  • Comment given that the article is vanity trash, would it not be better to delete it and start over at the proper article title? ::Supergolden:: 16:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Wikipedia is not the place to put one's resumé. B.Wind 14:23, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 11:00, 28 May '06

[edit] Christopher Hire

Non-notable person, business, and 'movement', which 'has not yet been officially launched', according to the article. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Previously prodded as 'advertisement'. Delete ::Supergolden:: 12:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per advertising Ydam 13:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. --Terence Ong 13:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn.--Jusjih 13:47, 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 delete. — FireFox (UTC) 11:00, 28 May '06

[edit] Clan chaos

Non-notable gaming clan. Delete ::Supergolden:: 13:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete no claim to notability in article, easy A7 speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A7 --Terence Ong 13:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.--Jusjih 13:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Non-notable gaming clan" is redundant, but an excellent argument for deletion. Fan1967 14:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, I greatly enjoy Fan1967's vote. Second of all, DELETE ALL CLANS! -- Kicking222 17:24, 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 delete. — FireFox (UTC) 11:00, 28 May '06

[edit] Angel Rada

  • Delete - Monstrous self-publicity Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 13:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete fails to establish notability. For the record, I previously removed the speedy deletion template from this article, since from the talk page it seemed clear that whilst disputed, some people showed support for the article (and thus I thought a discussion here would be more appropriate). └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 13:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • comment to closing admin: if deleted, associated images should probably be deleted too. all are tagged as GFDL or public domain, although I would have my doubts about the accuracy of this └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 13:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 13:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment He has a homepage on geocities... not enough claim to fame? Medico80 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Aren't they self publicity vehicles? Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 14:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, GeoCities is basically a free web page for anyone. Which means that having a homepage there means nothing. Ral315 (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I was being ironic :-) Medico80 17:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable; closing admin, please check What Links Here before or after deleting, in case the user has added any (false) self-promotion about himself to other articles. Ral315 (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, db-bio. Jachin 15:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all of above. -- No Guru 23:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of people born in airplanes (WP:BEANS) Delete, to be sure, as nn. Joe 23:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete dreadful vanity.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If he is going to use WP for a vanity piece, he should at least hire a professional editor instead of making us do his grammar and spelling revisions.Juneappal 19:40, 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 delete BD2412 T 14:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Thompson

Delete (along with images). Non-notable high-school teacher. BD2412 T 13:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, nn-bio. (and the images) feydey 13:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A7 --Terence Ong 13:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn-biocruft --MishaMisha 13:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7. Actually seems to have been written as an attack page, but the attack parts have been removed (see this edit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, on the off chance that this was really a notable person, I didn;t want those bits lingering around. BD2412 T 14:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 13:56, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 11:01, 28 May '06

[edit] Yehuda Kolko

  • Delete Not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Yossiea 13:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I second User:Yossiea's nomination for the following reasons: (1) Kolko is presently being sued [19] making this a very dangerous and delicate subject for Wikipedia and (2) the article is clearly a POV attempt to add fuel to the legal issues about Kolko and (3) it therefore runs headlong into violating two crucial Wikipedia policies stated in: (a) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons ("Well-founded complaints about biographical articles from their subjects arrive daily in the form of e-mails to the Wikipedia contact address, phone calls to the Foundation headquarters and to Jimbo Wales, and via postal mail. These people are justifiably upset when they find inaccurate or distorted articles, and the successful resolution of such complaints is a touchy matter requiring ongoing involvement of OTRS volunteers and paid staff" ETC), and also (b) legal concerns and the potential violation of Wikipedia:Libel ("For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." ETC) (4) Finally, Kolko is not a prominent rabbi. IZAK 09:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This seems to be the epitome of an entry that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Mississippifred 9:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.--Jusjih 13:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for above reasons. IZAK 09:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - If (still unproven) criminal and civil allegations against him are his only "claim" to noteworthiness, then there is no reason to keep this article. --Leifern 10:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Bring up to appropriate standard or Delete. The concept of such an article is reasonable. This is, of course, what Wikipedia is about, getting any and all information on topics and making them accessable to the public, albiet in a proper standard. If we do not have a proper page, anyone interested will have to inquire into court documents. Evolver of Borg 10:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Danny 10:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Pecher Talk 14:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK's explanation. Avi 15:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK and Leifern. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 16:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Since when does an encyclopedia have articles on every suspected molester? Since when do we consider blog entries reliable sources? Totally agree that this is entry is totally unsuitable. JFW | T@lk 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per IZAK and JFW, this is not worthy for an encyclopedia. --Shlomke 18:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable pedophile rabbi. 129.10.244.136 20:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per Leifern and IZAK, particularly due to the WP:Libel issue. There is no indication that the case has even gone to trial yet, let alone reached a verdict. A mere "allegation" or "civil lawsuit" against a person is completely NN (unless the person is already notable, and even then it's questionable.) The only possible notability at this point is that he is an "Orthodox Jewish rabbi", making this a Man-Bites-Dog story. The article itself alludes to its NN, by acknowledging that the "impact [of the allegations] remains unclear." Bottom line: Delete now and revisit the issue once the criminal/civil cases are concluded and the societal impact becomes clear. --Nmagedman 11:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.250.4.151 (talk • contribs) May 25, 2006.
  • Delete although mainly because notoriety and notability aren't the same thing. And as the notoriety is based on unproved allegations, it's got to go.Ac@osr 21:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep it in, and let the jewish world beware that the good old days are over, if you molest a child you will be plastered all over the net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.35.173 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Keep I just got round to read back issues of New York magazine today. This already seems to be a big deal in the Orthodox community, judging by the letters page of the last issue, and its only likely to get bigger. About Izak's objections, I can say in response to both points, that (a) distortions and (b) potentially libellous statements are easily eliminated by Our Friend The Neutral-making Phrase, namely (say it with me) "It is alleged". If really terrified, add "unsubstantiated" and "in certain quarters". About Nmagedman's objections, yes, the point is that he is an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, with charge of a yeshiva. That's why it is a news story, and thats why it seems people are discussing it and would wish to read about it. Your objection is the same as all the people who vote to delete the articles about that kid who disappeared in Aruba because the only possible notability comes from her being a pretty blonde. Yes! Tragically, it does. Irritates me too, but nothing to be done. Live with it. The world is imperfect. Etc., etc. Hornplease 08:23, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 11:02, 28 May '06

[edit] Variational number theory

Unverifiable, probably original research. No hits on MathSciNet or Google for the phrase "variational number theory". I asked two experts on number theory, User:Dmharvey (see User talk:Linas#Variational number theory) and User:Mon4 (see User talk:Jitse Niesen#Bombieri-Vinogradov theorem), neither of whom could verify that a field with the name "variational number theory" exist. The article used to include the reference

  • H.Harrison-Hwang Ho Cheng "Functional analysis and optimization applied to Number theory" Cambridge University press ISBN 0-521-53972-7

but this book does not exist. When the author was alerted on his talk page, he removed the reference without putting another one in even though I asked him to.

On Talk:Variational number theory, the author mentions two references, both standard text books (Courant & Hilbert is, among other things, about calculus of variations). However, neither of them mentions variational number theory. I do believe that at least the first example is correct, and that it can be deduced using these two references, but it does seem that there is no field of "variational number theory", and the inclusion of a non-existing book in the references is, to put it kindly, a strange mistake to make. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:V, WP:NOR. --Terence Ong 13:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (unless the author can provide evidence that the term is well-known). Dmharvey 14:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless better sources are provided. Paul August ☎ 02:57, 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. --Ezeu 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill's Moustache

The only reference I can find for this drink is this article. Hoax or nonsense Gretnagod 13:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. 16 Ghits only for "Bill's Moustache". Not notable.--Jusjih 13:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense, nn. --Terence Ong 13:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unreferenced, does not seem notable, and is probably a hoax. PJM 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Save. It's not a hoax, I've heard of it (in real life, I live in Melbourne); but it may not be considered notable enough (at least on the internet) to warrent it's keeping --Cradle 14:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're unsure about its notability, then why do you feel obligated to save it? Can you provide any sources? PJM 14:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Or even the phone number of a pub or bar where it is available? Gretnagod 14:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's a cookbook on one of the wikiprojects, isn't there? I know that verifiable cocktail recipes usually end up transwikied somewhere... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Osbus 21:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds like an interesting idea, but doesn't seem to exist.
  • Comment: I've had one. It might also be known as a different name, I dont know. It's an interesting drink, you should try one. And it really does smell burnt. Up to you but I dont see why people should be denied the chance to read it and try one.

(NOTE to above: please sign your posts with ~~~~ B.Wind 14:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Wait 7 days for references. If they are supplied, keep it; otherwise, delete. B.Wind 14:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Save They're quite good Ploink 03:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox (UTC) 11:02, 28 May '06

[edit] Abhinav.net

Notability of website not established. A lot of unsubstantiated claims. Article admits they don't get that many hits. No Alexa rank. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn web portal. Hard to get a number of google hits as Abhinav seems to be not uncommon as an Indian name. Appears to be an WP:OWNed Article, and the main contributor has done little more than edit that page and vandalize users' pages when they prod it. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:WEB (and also fails WP:CORP if anyone feels that's more applicable here) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 23:01, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 11:02, 28 May '06

[edit] Abhinav Chopra

Notability not established. Related to AfD nomination for Abhinav.net, a non-notable website the subject is involved with. PROD tag removed by author. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete--only claim to notability is via abhinav.net, which is itself nn. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn website = nn webmaster. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Kicking222 17:32, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 11:03, 28 May '06

[edit] List of unusual deaths

This list is inherently unencyclopedic. It assumes that there is a common standard for "unusual", and includes a number of deaths (just for starters, Commodus, Attila the Hun, Clement XVII, Giles Corey) that are not unsual or are at any rate are not unusual in context. Kept to the low standards that the list currently manages, being basically all-inclusive, this is an infinite list and is therefore an indiscriminate collection of information. Vizjim 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - This list is perhaps one of the most interesting works on this project. Do not use AfD to debate whether certain specific entries should be included or not - take that to the Talk page. The list is factual and captivating. -- Netoholic @ 14:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Netoholic. I've always found this one of the most interesting articles in the project. The JPS talk to me 14:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I was originally looking for an article to delete, but article looks significant and interesting. It covers only notable people with unusual deaths, which is not clear from the title, and unusual is not well defined as Vizjim pointed out. I would like to tidy these up. While I'm criticizing, I would like a cite for each claim, perhaps a web link to a respected source. Stephen B Streater 14:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Check towards the end of the article (e.g. the last entry). A lot of the people listed here are not famous. What standard of fame would you apply? There's an NBC reporter who died of an embolism there - that's embolism, as in "thing that kills thousands of people every year".
      • I begin to see your point better. However, the vast majority of the pre 1900 entries would fit the most curmudgeonly of criteria. Do you object to more than (say) 10% of the pre 1900 entries? If not, then I suggest the issue is with frequent editing the article to delete the chaff, rather than deleting the whole thing. Bathwater and babies? Dweller 15:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Having referred back to the article from your list above ("Commodus, Attila the Hun, Clement XVII [should be VII?], Giles Corey") I think you're just too picky. Dying of a nose bleed on a wedding night is fairly unusual. Personally, I wouldn't be too bothered about 3 of those 4 being included. Dweller 16:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I think a balance of fame and unusualness. If it was a really whacky death, I think anyone would do. I would prefer a higher fame threshold for less unusual deaths - perhaps only those with WP articles? Stephen B Streater 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I've added the last three wikilinks to the names. Only two came out red, surprisingly. So any editing will have to be on unusualness of death vs famousness of person. Obviously someone thought each was important, so I might make a list of possible deletions on the talk page. Stephen B Streater 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with the above opinions. An idea that may please most parties... the "Darwin Awards"-type entries are irritating, I'd humbly suggest that if the page was altered to be a list of famous people who died unusually, it would pass your "indiscriminate..." test? Dweller 14:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Though I see serious POV problems with what constitutes an unusual death, and some are mystifyingly normal deaths. (Clark Gable died of heart disease. Jessica Savitch drove into a canal. Zurab Zhvania died from CO poisoning from a faulty space heater. These are unusual, how?) Can someone define some criteria? Fan1967 17:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Possibly trim out some of the less-unusual ones, but this is an interesting and encycloepdic article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with Andrew Lenahan completely. I think people will agree that dying because a tortoise was dropped on your head is unusual and deserves to be noted. The same goes for most of the list, but there are some which are not notable – for example, Matthias Corvinus, who died of poisoned figs? That could be taken out. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 18:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - this list is interesting, in a way, but there is no hope of containing its growth at the moment. There are any number of completely usual deaths. I could probably add half a dozen, simply off the top of my head.--Nydas 18:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm with Fbv, though, that some of the entries are not very unusual at all. ... discospinster 20:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Police for less unusual deaths. - CNichols 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Vizjim, indiscriminate collection of information; "unusual" is not something that can be verified and WP:NOT applies. Policing the list will not help without a means of verifying the unusualness. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful list --Jaranda wat's sup 00:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Many inherent POV problems, but most importantly, not a particularly useful list at all. Hobbeslover 01:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - agreeing that oversight is always needed. I added this phrase to the intro months - heck, maybe years - ago The list also includes less rare, but still unusual, deaths of prominent persons in an attempt to deal with the issue of people putting in slightly odd deaths they'd read about in a history book. Perhaps that doesn't work, though, and this article needs to be re-focused. - DavidWBrooks 01:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This seems more like a side show made up of sensational but useless information. More importantly, I agree with the person that pointed out that "unusual" is not quantifiable. --Papa Spot 02:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - more like Almanac or Ripleys material, but interesting none the less. If these are verified legends, then I'm OK with it. 03:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no NPOV criteria. They are all interesting, but unusual? JPD (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It clearly needs a fair bit of work, but the nucleus of a good article is there and discussion over the notability of certain aspects of it should surely be on the talk page. I also disagree with the suggestion that "unusual" is not quantifiable - to pick one example from the article, people do not "usually" drown in barrels of Malmsey wine, ergo such an occurrence is, by definition, "unusual". Agree however that a lot of the deaths on the list don't qualify - but that's not a reason to delete the entire article. Seb Patrick 13:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don´t see why this should be deleted, doesn´t harm anyone to have it, Just the information should be accurate. 24 May 2006
  • Keep - I don't see what's so NPOV of unusual. Unusual implies that it is not a normal occurance, that it is something notable. Dying of a nosebleed does not happen normally, or else people would be dropping like flies. --THollan 17:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - "unusual" can be determined based upon the likelyhood of it occuring. So then, the question is: " of all those that have died throughout history, how many died in this way." If it is not comparitively speaking something that could be considered a "usual" event, then it is inherrantly unusual. Plus... on a personal note, it's interesting. - Clinton D Begley Duckbuster 13 19:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep useful list.  Grue  07:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Grue Will (E@) T 09:49, 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. — FireFox (UTC) 11:07, 28 May '06

[edit] Fred Schott

Basically a not notable 16 yo flash animator (nn-bio), but I'll run this through AfD. feydey 14:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Feydey,

What you judge as important is not what everyone else thinks. Although this might seem unnotable to you Ruff Ruff Studios is important to many. Fred is an amazing artist and i don't see why any other flash animator should have an artical and he shouldn't. Please share reasons why this should be deleted.

Thanks, Ragner, Kieth KiethRagner (talk · contribs)

  • Delete - unless some credible sources can be turned up confirming that this guy is a big deal in some way, in which case I'll give it some more consideration. Tony Fox 15:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Dear Tony, I don't know how to send you a credible source, any user to write something you will surely think is a fake one. I have helped Mario Finelli Jr. at Sculch.com make a good website, creating many of the flash programs that have and are on his website. Ruff Ruff Studios has also created lots of entertaining flash, but like i stated in the artical, there is no way for us to expand our audience due to a lack of website. I hope you will reconsider your request to delete this artical, as it is important to many people who admire our work in the community.

Please Reconsider, Keith Ragner KiethRagner (talk · contribs)

  • Delete nn flash guy. google turns up no hits. joshbuddytalk 15:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete May be talented and have a future, but right now he's an unknown flash animator. Fan1967 15:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per excellent reason provided by Keith: "lack of a website". A major Flash animator with no website? Next you're going to tell me Bill Gates doesn't own a computer. TheProject 16:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Everyone,

Seriously, what you judge as important may not be whateveryone else thinks. I know he is unknown to most of America he is still important to many people. Addressing the lack of a website problem, All animation by Ruff Ruff Studios are soon to be hosted on sculch.com. I never said he was a major flash animator. Also just to get this strait, he doesn't animate, Walker Downey does. Schott works out the preloaders, actionscript, and interactivity in all of thier projects.

Although he is relitivly unknown to many, so are Quality start, Hiroshi Itō, and Desert Wind. You probably don't know what they are but they still have pages.

I seriously hope that you reconsider not to delete this entry, as i means alot to many people. Please? Kieth R

  • Comment: Wikipedia has notability requirements for this kind of thing, like these requirements for biographies that I think would apply here. If it didn't, it would soon be swamped by bios of people who just plain aren't notable yet. If the fellow in this article reaches prominence enough to be written up in non-trivial published sources, then he can certainly be reconsidered at that time. Right now, he just doesn't seem to make it. Tony Fox 16:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, or maybe userfy, assuming the kid has a WP account. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No doubt. -- Kicking222 17:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Probably could have been speedied under A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopedia-level notability. Deli nk 15:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm re-adding my delete vote because it was deleted by 205.222.248.208 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) Deli nk 19:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Per the address' talk page, "205.222.248.208, is registered to Montgomery County Public Schools." Montgomery County is in the greater Washington, DC area. This suggests that the deleting party is in close geographical proximity to the subject, which is weak evidence suggesting the subject is not widely known outside a small area. —C.Fred (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom.Bjones 19:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, article makes no assertion of notability. Absence of Google hits implies non-verifiability as well. —C.Fred (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete,--Peta 03:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hey this seriously is the real fred schott. you guys can delete this if you want. this was made without my knowledge anyway —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.169.235 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 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 kept clear consensus to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Philip's School

Article mentions a bit about J.R.R. Tolkien, but contains no information actually pertaining to the school itself. Prod tag was removed. Delete unless such information is added. — May. 23, '06 [15:19] <freak|talk>

  • Delete joshbuddytalk 15:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep I've tried to improve the article by adding some information about the school itself, gleaned from a few minutes searching the web. However, I'm concerned that the school does not appear on this list: [20] It's not clear to me whether it still exists. If it can be shown that it still exists, all schools are notable, so Keep. Accurizer 16:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Change vote to keep, my condition was met. Accurizer 21:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — School exists. Also educated there was Field Marshall Slim, British CinC SE Asia WWII.[21] — RJH 18:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Real School Jcuk 19:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand more. Sadly, this is much more than most school stubs say. -- Jjjsixsix (talk|review)@ 00:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable school --Jaranda wat's sup 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Did you notice that one of the keep voters isn't even sure if this school exists? — May. 24, '06 [06:05] <freak|talk>
      • Comment I found one web site that seems to verify its current existence (which I added to the article), and one that doesn't (which I provided above). I was hoping that other editors would be able to provide additional verifiable sources, or at least address why it does not appear on the site I provided above. Without additional information, the condition I placed on my keep vote would not be met. Accurizer 10:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC) I think the source provided by RJH verifies notablity. Accurizer 20:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Time will fix it. Hawkestone 20:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The BBC has a list of secondary schools in Birmingham. St Philip's isn't there. No idea what happened to it - but something tells me that time won't fix this article. Delete for the time being. Dr Zak 20:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The JRR Tolkien link in the aricle indicates it was a grammar school, not a secondary school. I've checked the BBC list of grammar schools but it is not listed there either. It appears the school has closed, but given the two famous students that have been identified, it still seems notable to me. Accurizer 21:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Don't know why the Beeb don't have it. Friends Reunited do, in Edgbaston. This site mentions their Old Boys. Doesn't seem to exist any more though. A school attended by Tolkein and Slim is notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If you are finding a non-trivial amount of information, please add it to the article, and I'll withdraw this. — May. 25, '06 [08:51] <freak|talk>
  • keep please it is fixed to be verifiable now so we do not need to erase it Yuckfoo 19:16, 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 delete. — FireFox 11:14, 28 May '06

[edit] Staredit.net

Non-notable hobbyist game website. jni 14:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Pak21 09:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - fails WP:WEB QmunkE 10:06, 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. — FireFox 11:15, 28 May '06

[edit] MilliDoig

There is no such measurement. No google hits at all except this page. Obviously just a bad joke. DIPics 15:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- per nom. joshbuddytalk 15:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. TheProject 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not bad enough nor good enough for BJAODN. -- Kicking222 17:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A bit lame for BJAODN. DarthVader 22:59, 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 no consensus. — FireFox 11:16, 28 May '06

[edit] Future Engineers

nothing on a major label; virtually all Google hits are for school projects, not for the band --M@rēino 16:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 17:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, I was able to verify at least a sizable chunk of the discograpy [22]. Given the size of it, I'm hesitant to say we should delete just because they're not on major labels. Mangojuicetalk 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC; doing a directed Google search (using the name of one of the members to eliminate the FEA high school types) I get only thirteen unique hits [23], and the lead hit is that classic Kiss of Non-Notable Death, this Wikipedia article. Their soi-disant record label is purportedly in receivership, their website is down (and that label itself fails WP:MUSIC - "one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)"), and Amazon has no sales information on any of their albums. RGTraynor 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the fact that their principle label is now in financial trouble invalidates neither the releases not the band!!! Rough Trade Records was bust at one point too. I think this [24] and this [25] proves that this was a large independent which lasted a decent length of time and had a large roster of which the present subjects were part. The only thing against them is the lack of an obvious album length release but as that's normal in this genre, it would be wrong to exclude on that basis. Ac@osr 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per RGTraynor. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Future Engineers have a cult following, have numerous releases on a major drum and bass label, Good Looking Records, further released via Sony. Good Looking Records is not in financial difficulty and this can be verified by searches for Good Looking Holdings. User: no login 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This edit was by 88.106.3.205 --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Talk about shooting yourself in the foot; to delete this entry is a travesty: using the fact that their website is down and record labels are in receivership, as means to nail down the coffin lid! This fact should promote sympathy that these musical geniuses are in financial difficulty! These guys are sadly under-represented; lets do what we can to lift their battered spirits & at least keep the Wikipedia article going to help inform others!
    • —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.220.47 (talk • contribs) .
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
The last two votes are invalid, which means that there is an insufficient number of comments for me to close this AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A Google search for "Good Looking Holdings" yields four hits, three of which are government websites. A Google search for "Looking Good Holdings" yields nada. Furthermore, of the two websites linked to from the discogs entry, one is down, and the other is "coming soon". Of a Google search for Google search for "Future Engineers", as RGTraynor has already mentioned, the top site linking in that has anything to do with the band is Wikipedia. And since a Wikipedia article is not a consolation, nor a substitute, for one's website being down, delete without sympathy. TheProject 15:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per RGTraynor. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral They appear on: LTJ Bukem - Progression Sessions, Vol. 6 and Michael Dog - Summer Night Sessions. Both of which can be purchased on line. As well as some other notable mixed CDs. They seem to be minor players in a notable music scene on a notable although small independent label. I disagree with a major label record contract being necessary for inclusion. I can't decide on this one. --Nick Y. 17:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)--17:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This band is notable enough to have a wikipedia page base on their following. Amazinglarry 23:41, 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. — FireFox 11:17, 28 May '06

[edit] Livechat

This reads like advertising, and appears to miss WP:CORP - Google searches give only references to the products on a few sites, and I don't see any coverage. Prod removed, bringing here for discussion. Delete Tony Fox 15:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:CORP.--blue520 15:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please check on Google for "livechat.pl" query- you will find a lot more pages than for "Livechatinc.com".--Klim3k 18:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 300 Google hits vs 100 isn't really much of an improvement. Alexa rank for Livechatinc.com: 1,679,560, for livechat.pl: 2,132,950. Fan1967 18:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 22:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have changed the article profile- it is not about the company, but about the solution.Name of article stayed the same.--Klim3k 15:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as nn-adverrisement. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If you consider Livechat as an advertisement, why don't you consider Microsoft Project article as an Advertisement too? Klim3k10:47, 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 merge to Sylvia Browne. --Ezeu 16:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Society of Novus Spiritus

Minor religion with no evidence of substantial adherents, at best should be merged with Sylvia Browne JoshuaZ 18:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm not disputing Joshua's judgment here, he knows of what he speaks in this area, but tis gets 50% of the ghits that the Society of St. Francis gets which is surprising for a minor cult. The article is grossly unencyclopaedic, though. Just zis Guy you know? 18:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I didn't do a google search before I AfDed it here. I'm not surprised at the high total, which strikes me as evidence of Browne's internet self-promotion more than evidence of independent notability. JoshuaZ 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I can believe that easily enough. Evidence of numbers of adherents is very hard to find, but there do seem to be a few mentions in the press. I think your merge and redirect idea is probably the right answer here. Just zis Guy you know? 19:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
After looking through the google hits a bit more, all the newspaper mentions are incidental to Browne, mainly occuring in articles which describe her as a psychic and then list "other accomplishments." I can't find one article devoted to the Society. So yeah looks like merge/redirect makes the most sense. JoshuaZ 21:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - As per above, this group is mainly a platform for Browne's ideas. - Solar 16:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 15:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Merge with Sylvia Browne. Both articles need trimming of POV. Nominated article would otherwise need a radical rewrite and wikification if it were to be kept. B.Wind 14:32, 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. — FireFox 11:17, 28 May '06

[edit] Imaginary Miami Bowl

As it stands, it seems to be a non-encyclopedic topic, falling squarely into the jurisdiction of WP:NFT. -- Saaber 15:42, 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. — FireFox 11:18, 28 May '06

[edit] Courtney Brown

An associate professor, publisher of a couple of books published by the Farsight Press, imprint of the Farsight Institute, director... Courtney Brown. So: a self-published author. And, er, that's about it, I think, as far as claims to notability go. Oh, and note to the original authors of this article: speculative non-fiction is an oxymoron. Especially when the non-fictional conept in question is remote viewing. Just zis Guy you know? 22:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - the guy is a nut, but that doesn't make him deletable. I really think this guy should stay. - Richardcavell 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable cranks. Hell, he was on the Art Bell show, his books have shown reviews in numerous scholarly journals, as well as having been published in noted journals as well as other books by notable presses. I have absolutely no idea why this guy doesn't meet your high standards, JzG. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You can put it down to exasperation at the RV-cruft pushers. Just zis Guy you know? 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why get exasperated at people making articles within the realm of notability? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 15:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff's comments. Amazinglarry 23:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff. (Being kicked off the Art Bell show seems fairly notable.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:18, 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 as nn-bio -SCEhardT 16:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Anthony-Lindop

Non-notable person Travelbird 15:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete clearly fails WP:BIO. Gwernol 15:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete CSD A7 - non-notable biography about a person or persons that does not assert the notability of the subject. --blue520 16:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is one of those typical 'Joe Bloggs is a student at x university, and has a gigantic penis' articles. THE KING 16:24, 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 Merge with Novi, Michigan Tyrenius 03:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japantown, Novi, Michigan

1) There are no sources given; 2) no Google hits for this that are not Wikipedia mirrors; 3) the presentation seems rather POV; 4) it is an orphan--there are no internal Wikipedia links to it; 5) if there is anything worth keeping here, it should probably be merged into Novi, Michigan rather than left as this orphaned POV essay I had listed it on PROD, but User:RJHall removed the prod tag with the rather terse "Object; delete != merge" edit summary. older ≠ wiser 15:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Cleanup and merge the remainder into Novi, Michigan. If nobody is willing or able to do this within five days or so, delete. — May. 23, '06 [15:59] <freak|talk>
  • Merge — I don't see deleting a page as a suitable implementation of merge. Sorry. — RJH 18:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Novi, Michigan, USA. Good idea. --Starionwolf 18:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having lived in Northville, and spent a lot of time in Novi I can say that I never once heard this sort of thing before. Unless it can be verified independently, I don't see any value in keeping it. Arkyan 00:41, 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 merge. It is an episode that has not aired yet according to this, hence the article is speculative. Redirecting to List of Drake & Josh episodes. --Ezeu 16:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treehouse (Drake and Josh episode)

WP:NOT a crystal ball. I {{prod}}ed this article some time ago, and this tag was removed by the article's creator User:ForestH2. No content has since been added to the article, so I'm now listing here for discussion. The main content in this article is now a disclaimer This is a useful article and is not speculation! Please do not nominate this article for deletion in less you have a better reason for doing so. The fact of the matter is, the only non-speculative remark is Treehouse is a Drake and Josh episode from Season 4 and since that is unsourced, I'm not sure that's even verifiable. Other statements "filiming has most likely..." and "it is expected to..." are clearly speculative. This edit rather sums things up, whilst removing the {{prod}} tag with the explanation The article is not speculation and there is content here about the filming and the Plot the article contains the content Filming has most likely begun and The plot outline is unknown.

It would appear we have articles on several episodes of Drake and Josh linked from List of Drake & Josh episodes, which have not yet been aired and which are effectively empty (eg I Love Sushi). Per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes it would be appropriate to merge all of the info we do have into one article. As far as I can see, since the only info we have is the article names, List of Drake & Josh episodes fits this role rather nicely and we have no further need for separate articles. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge if a valid episode. --Osbus 21:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. BryanG(talk) 02:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Have to ask other editors before though. ForestH2
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox 11:19, 28 May '06

[edit] Giganibble

Original research, neologism, unverifiable, 2 Google hits. Prod'ed, tag removed by original contributor. Accurizer 16:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom -SCEhardT 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "A giganibble is one billion nibbles. Why not use it instead of bytes to prevent confusion?" - yes... or we could just keep using bytes - to avoid confusion. THE KING 16:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Neologism. DarthVader 22:56, 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. — FireFox 11:19, 28 May '06

[edit] List of modern reenactment groups

WP:ISNOT a directory or list of external links. -SCEhardT 16:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - Saaber 16:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Note that this was a reenactment of a previous AfD vote. -- Kicking222 17:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you provide a link to the previous vote? -SCEhardT 18:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a Yellow pages. Pavel Vozenilek 20:12, 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. — FireFox 11:19, 28 May '06

[edit] XRoads Networks

Vanity page, reads like a press release. cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. WP:SPAM, falls under 'ads masquerading as articles' pretty clearly. - Saaber 16:46, 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 (18 delete/7 keep). — FireFox 11:22, 28 May '06

[edit] Cock block

DRV decided to overturn the last AfD result as inconclusive, and to relist here for the purpose of gaining a clear consensus. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain Xoloz 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - i have heard the term and think with a proper article it could belong here. However it reads like a segment of 'how to get laid for beginners' and needs to be more encyclopedic. Else merge into a seduction related article. THE KING 16:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepTranswiki--I heard this phrase a lot when I was in college, and it was pretty established then. Good call, Bastique. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While it is notable as urban slang, there's not enough content to justify anything beyond a wiktionary entry. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per the above entry. I am also unconvinced with the Spanish term being "violinist" Gretnagod 16:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Transwiki to Wiktionary. Bastique▼parler voir 17:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep or transwiki It's absolutely a notable term. Whether or not there's enough content to justify staying in WP as opposed to going to the Wiktionary, I'm not sure. But either way, this should definitely not be deleted. By the way, did anyone see the ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Google hits? [26] -- Kicking222 17:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Bastique. But I gotta ask...why was the consensus on the last AfD Delete if it got 5 Keep votes and 3 Delete votes? (Yes, I know that votes aren't everything, but at the very least, that's a no consensus...) -- Grev 17:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete from Wikipedia. It is nothing more than an unabridged dictionary definition. In the full history of this page, no version ever went beyond a mere definition. It has already been transwiki'd to Wiktionary. If you must, replace this page with a cross-wiki redirect to the Wiktionary page. Rossami (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible Delete Brought to us by the same people that want to see pussy fart and queef in the encyclopedia. This has already been transwikied. I don't forsee any future encyclopedic expansion for this slang term, and furthermore it is likely there will be another word for this in ten years. Can we please keep the fratboy-cruft neologisms out of the encyclopedia? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - and put me down for 'keep' for the next AfD on this article as well. - Richardcavell 23:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice as per above. Since it has already been transwikied, nothing else needs to be done Hobbeslover 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an already transwiki'ed dicdef, so blather about how "notable" the term is utterly pointless. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please it is a really notable term 107,000 google hits slang is important too Yuckfoo 01:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the present article is original research and if it was cut down it would be a dictionary definition. Also it has already been transwikied. -- Kjkolb 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, same as the first two times. Useful, notable phrase, could be more than a dicdef if the right people work on it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete content is mere dicdef, we have a project for that called Wiktionary as its already been transwiki'd it doesnt belong here. WP:NOT Urban Dictionary, WP:NOT a slang guide, WP:NOT a phrase book. Oh and WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS...etc...  ALKIVAR™ 07:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete till it hurts. -- GWO
  • Keep notable, slightly more than dictdef. --MishaMisha 13:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki - Definitely a notable phrase, but not suitable for a Wikipedia entry. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an already transwikied dictionary definition. I would not object to a soft redirect to Wiktionary a la Butterface. Thryduulf 19:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef and how-to, two WP:NOTs; pointless as well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - I stand with the previous delete comments as forsaid; this is an encyclopedia we are meant to be writing at the end of the day, not a list of obscure slang definitions. Jhamez84 23:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Might be transwiki'ed into a slang dictionary, but it's probably not appropriate for Wiktionary, either (even if it's there). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf Crazynas 20:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, since it's a dictionary defintion that's already at Wiktionary. Erik the Rude 02:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; anything that's not a dicdef is OR and other nonencyclopedic crap. Postdlf 02:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an absolutely notable slang term. It is widely used and verifiable. (I remember Will Farrell using it on occasion.) The article could use sourcing, but this goes well above and beyond most neologisms and should be included here. Grandmasterka 04:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, especially since it's already moved to wiktionary. Garion96 (talk) 00:03, 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 no consensus. --Ezeu 16:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timanous

  • Delete. Yet another nonnotable summer camp NawlinWiki 16:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The camp's been around almost a century. Moreover, Wikipedia's not paper. PRRfan 16:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and STRONG clean up The camp has been around for a century, it was founded by a notable person, and "Camp Timanous" gets 1,810 Google hits (although only 147 are unique, which is a concern). Googling just "Timanous" gets 7,550 hits and all of the top hits refer to the camp, although only 191 are unique. So, while I'm barely voting keep, this is among the least encyclopedic encyclopedia article I've ever seen. WP doesn't need to list every (or pretty much any) activity that goes on at the camp. WP doesn't need an awards summary. WP also doesn't need the POV that's exhibited in the article. -- Kicking222 00:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. My house is 100 years old. JACamp. -- GWO
  • Keep-This article concerns a 100-year-old summer camp, with a rich heritage as one of the first and leading summer camps in the US. Its stability, track record, thousands of alumni, consistent success, and role in shaping modern New England camping are all assured. The founders, Luther Gulick and his wife, are children's physical education innovators and used Timanous as a template for their work (please see Luther Halsey Gulick's entry for more on his contributions to basketball, the Campfire Girls program and physical education). Camp Timanous's unchanging values, consistent ownership and staffing, rich generational tradition, and small size all make it an interesting abberation in a growing age of homogenous, do-it-all camps. This is a unique enterprise and deserves inclusion in wikipedia.
As concerns the complaints of Kicking222, the depth of the article should not be a negative. By covering as much ground as possible, in a cohesive and organized manner, a reader can acquire as little or as much information as he or she seeks. By including the most vital facts (e.g. location, date, owners, etc.) at the beginning and continuing on to include more trivial, yet still possibley interesting, information throughout the article, I believe that the writers (myeself included) have developed an interesting article relevant for anyone searching for information about the camp. Crogle94
  • Delete The article doesn't asserts the notabolity of the camp. Garion96 (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, clean-up, and add references. Articles about far less notable subjects have survived AfD. This is the best of the summer camp articles proposed for deletion so far this week (that in itself is not sufficient to keep, but with a little work, it will be a keeper. As far as GWO's 100-year-old house is concerned, it would be notable if it's on the National Register of Historic Places, for example. B.Wind 14:59, 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. — FireFox 11:22, 28 May '06

[edit] Tokers Green

Delete Very few related Google hits,no proof on article of band's notability. J.J.Sagnella 16:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete -- nn-band. -- Saaber 16:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable per WP:MUSIC.--blue520 16:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity. THE KING 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn per nom. Zepheus 20:01, 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 keep. Wikipedia: namespace articles do not belong on AfD. Feel free to take it up on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion instead. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Shotguns for a Better Tomorrow

Nonsense. If this is taken seriously, it is incitement to violence Gretnagod 16:51, 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. — FireFox 11:23, 28 May '06

[edit] Julio César Carvajal, Jr.

Google knows not of this famous boxer. Unsourced (well, there is a link to a web site that doesn't know him either[27].) Hoax or non-notable. Tagged {{prod}}, {{unsourced}}, {{verify}}, all removed. Weregerbil 16:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Although the article's subject is potentially notable, no one can seem to find a solid source. If a good source can be found and verified I will change my vote.--Joe Jklin (T C) 17:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unknown, unsourced, possibly unreal boxer. JohnM4402 04:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Adolphus79 00:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. -EdGl 03:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment see Talk:Julio César Carvajal, Jr.. I guess I cleaned it up for .. -- User:Docu


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox 11:24, 28 May '06

[edit] C-Money And Karl Kash

AfD not properly formatted am relisting with no opinion. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • This is clearly a vanity page which descibes non-existant accomplishments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wachholder0 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 20 May 2006.
  • If you look at our music you can clearly see an exsistant accomplishment, our cd is going to be properly distributed, and it's not just for our vanity. It's just a page that displays information on our music group which is a serious esblished group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.72.109.136 (talk • contribs) 147.72.109.136 .
  • Delete fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:MUSIC--blue520 17:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "debut album...which is expected to release". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Recreate the article after the CD is released and shows reasonable sales. Fan1967 17:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Cool3 12:31, 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 redirect. — FireFox 11:25, 28 May '06

[edit] Darryn Colledge

The subject of the article is misspelled, and as a result, there are two pages for the same player. Daryn Colledge not only is spelled correctly, but it provides more info than this article, and there's nothing unique here. Probably could be speedied, but I've been having bad luck there of late. fuzzy510 17:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • So just make it a redirect. No need to come to afd for that. THE KING 18:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. --fuzzy510 18:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy close of AfD discussion. Redirect to Daryn Colledge has been made by nominator. DarthVader 22:48, 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. — FireFox 11:25, 28 May '06

[edit] Eragra

NN card game Computerjoe's talk 17:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable future card game. "The game is still in design so we will update as soon as we get something new on our hands!" Fan1967 18:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable and article appears to be written by one of the "creators" of the game.Geoffrey Spear 18:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm... How come all of you discovered it on May 23 and wanted to delete this article??? Beats me (Magic: The Gathering Supporters)... Nevermind, exceed 5 (guess what you only have 2 left!) votes for deletion and I'll delete it myself since I AM quite annoyed! feeleash 00:20, 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 delete. — FireFox 11:26, 28 May '06

[edit] Star Trek vs Star Wars mod

Total video game mod, fan/gamer-cruft, please delete speedily--152.163.101.6 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable gamecruft. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable gamecruft. --Starionwolf 06:09, 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. — FireFox 11:26, 28 May '06

[edit] List of Pokémon terrorist groups

All of these groups have their own articles so this list would be better as a category. WikidSmaht (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Plus the title is awful. Delete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Are there even enough of them to warrant a category, or would a general Pokemon organizations category be more useful? --Tjstrf 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, since the bulk of the organizations are antagonist groups (a much better name than "terrorist groups" to be sure), I think a single "organizations" cat would probably be a better idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Aqua, Magma, and potentially Cipher are terrorist organizations, but Rocket and Snagem are really just organized crime. However, the “organizations” header would allow us to include the Pokémon League, Pokémon Association, and Pokémon Fan Club. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • comment Organized criminals can technically be terrorist groups, depending on their activities. But I would prefer we avoid throwing around the term unnecessarily, especially since it has gained an immense political connotation since 9/11. The articles are about a group of fictional organizations, not suicide bombing series fanboys, which is what the that article's title seems to imply. Organizations in the Pokemon Series would be a precise category title which avoided any confusion, and could include the gyms, the various antagonist groups, research labs, etc. --Tjstrf 20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Per nom. Also, I am going to create a Category for Pokemon Villans.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:POKE (just kidding!). Actually, delete this list in favor of the category proposed by Ac1983fan (if "Villains" gets spelled correctly), or in favor of the slightly broader category proposed by Tjstrf, or one where "Antagonist(s)" is the criterion. Barno 00:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, darn, that shortcut doesn't go to the "Pokemon test" essay about notability, but to WikiProject Pokemon. Spoils the joke. Barno 00:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think the Wikipedia:Pokémon test would apply to lists in the first place. I can't believe that's actually an essay though. Especially in contrast with the fancruft essays. Wikipedia's deletion/inclusion arguments make my head hurt. --Tjstrf 03:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe we could get a consensus agreeing with your last sentence. Barno 13:00, 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. — FireFox 11:26, 28 May '06

[edit] HQV

Contested prod. Spam for a non-notable commercial website. Jester 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete It looks like a page designed to promote a website. --Starionwolf 18:53, 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 WP:CSD: A7 vanity. `'mikka (t) 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kings of Kensington

Vanity Jezza 18:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't see an article for deletion message on the page. --Starionwolf 18:38, 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 17:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of hardware hacks

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: this list has no context, and seemingly no criteria for what should or shouldn't be listed. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • keep. The context is "hardware hack" Hint to UkPaolo: to find a context it is useful to click at this button, "what links here". `'mikka (t) 18:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a redirect to hardware hacker. It gives some context, I would agree, but it does not define what "hardware hacks" constitute sufficient notability to merit inclusion in this list. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- stubblyhead | T/c 20:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete list of links with no explanation. This is not even close to a Wikipedia article. B.Wind 15:05, 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. — FireFox 11:27, 28 May '06

[edit] Largest Air Forces

Content is unsourced, highly POV, unspecific as to quantity, makes value judgements on aircraft, and sometimes plain wrong. There is no "NATO" airforce, if you conglomerated all members.....that would include the US and Russia. Also nominating the redirect Largest Air Force and the mirror World Air Forces. Even if such an article could be sourced, it should reside in air force, not as a standalone comparison --Mmx1 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Mmx1 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unsalvagable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Avi 20:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --romanm (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. plus ranking of fuzzy values is IMO WP:OR. Crum375 21:24, 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 delete. — FireFox 11:27, 28 May '06

[edit] Diptiman

del. Foreign language dictionary definition. No wikipedia context. `'mikka (t) 18:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- stubblyhead | T/c 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless we're going to list every non-English name in every language. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:24, 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 (just). — FireFox 11:28, 28 May '06

[edit] Urinal etiquette

Completely original research - the article even says no-one has done any official studies into it, and one of the external links has a note saying it disagrees with the article, which means the article MUST be POV. Tango 18:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --134.9.228.11 19:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep POV at this stage, but that's not actually a reason to delete an article - it just needs fixing. THE KING 19:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmizrachi (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per the king. Also, Tango--your statement is a non-sequitor. It could also be possible that the article itself is NPOV and link has a slanted POV. -- stubblyhead | T/c 20:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
An NPOV article and a POV article don't disagree. Only 2 POV articles can do that. A NPOV article doesn't have take a side, so can't be disagreed with. --Tango 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- It's nothing but original research. Reyk YO! 20:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - and I might point out that studies have been done on this topic. - Richardcavell 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete-This article is written in an offensive and homophobic tone. It should be rewritten or deleted.
  • Strong delete with prejudice per WP:OR, and the fact that this is not notable in any way Hobbeslover 01:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, This article is a joke. Whoever contributed it should keep the source of this page on their blog. It is amusing, but has no place in Wikipedia (except a user page)--Cocopuffberman 03:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. -- Kjkolb 03:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If no one cites any sources. Otherwise, the article shows original research. Have a nice day. --Starionwolf 04:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe its a legitimate social phenomenon. POV can be fixed. Its pretty funny too. —Kymacpherson 18:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure it is, but if we're going to have an article on it, it needs to be written from scratch - the existing article is completely OR. --Tango 19:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete non-encyclopedic Wombdpsw 05:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep it is an interesting article on social "beliefs"; i too found it rather amusing SMC 09:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR. --Eivindt@c 10:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is slightly amusing, but belongs in a comedy site or anything but an encyclpedia.
  • Keep The subject of urinal etiquette is one of interest, and there are citable sources - the article as it stands needs substantial cleaning. Although it might be an odd article, it is a subject worthy of an encyclopaedia. WilyD 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about the subject, this is about the article. The "substantial cleaning" it needs is a complete rewrite - there is no point keeping an article that needs rewriting from scratch. --Tango 22:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
And there are excellent tags for articles needing attention, and articles needing a lot of attention. Being badly written isn't a criteria for deleting articles, but for improving them. WilyD 00:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR, but transwiki, userfy, BJAODN or something beforehand. youngamerican (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no funny. Pavel Vozenilek 20:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I think it's very funny and should be on a humor site (as already stated), but it's not encyclopedic.69.253.172.209 01:46, 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. — FireFox 11:29, 28 May '06

[edit] Believers Assembly

An article about a nn church. The entry is nonsensical and entirely non-encyclopaedic. Only gets 13 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 18:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- stubblyhead | T/c 20:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Though we don't have a WP:CHURCH policy, it's my understanding that churches have to be more notable than this. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per PZFUN. -- Kjkolb 03:25, 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. — FireFox 11:29, 28 May '06

[edit] Benson Church of Christ

An article about a nn church in Nebraska. In no ways encylopaedic and only contains information on address and a schedule of services. Only gets 101 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 18:57, 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 to Cornerstone Churches. --Ezeu 17:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bidford on Avon Baptist Church

An article about a nn church in England. The church is brand new and contains no information about why it should be considered notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedic. Only gets 63 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- stubblyhead | T/c 20:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not in terms of notability, but because it's unverified. Ziggurat 22:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable church. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Cornerstone Churches.--Pharos 04:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. What that guy ^ says. -- GWO
  • Merge as above. NicM 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep needs expanding, a good example of a growing community church in the perceived decline in church-goers. dvc214 09:07, 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 as non-notable. --Ezeu 17:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bread From Heaven Christian Fellowship

A barely readible article about a nn church in the Philipines. The article so poorly written that it is hard to read and contains no information about its notability, nor any source for its information. Only a telephone number, presumeably in the Philipines, is provided. Only gets nine Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Poorly written yes, but not to the point of incoherence IMO. -- stubblyhead | T/c 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN church. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or at least rename/merge to Christian Reformed Church in the Philippines[28]. This is the central church of that grouping.--Pharos 04:24, 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. — FireFox 11:30, 28 May '06

[edit] Mrs. Doubtfire 2

Pretty much all that this page says is that this movie is not going to be made. Delete as non-notable...nothing, I suppose. --InShaneee 19:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom--134.9.228.11 19:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete any article about subject x where the content mainly consist of "x does not exist". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless we want to start including pages for all scripts that are written and scrapped... --Grinning Fool 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, just like Ghostbusters III. Hasn't happened, conceivably might, write the article if it actually does. Fan1967 20:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete and rejoice! Dominick (TALK) 20:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I'm sure WP:NOT a crystal ball applies here somewhere, but I'm not sure how. -- stubblyhead | T/c 20:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:WING Avi 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Cocopuffberman 03:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The page Mrs. Doubtfire has similar text about the proposed sequel. --Starionwolf 04:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Already covered by the main article anyway. 23skidoo 21:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete something that almost happened doesn't deserve an article. Strawberryfire 02:12, 25 May 2006


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox 11:30, 28 May '06

[edit] Broussard Grove Baptist Church

An article about a nn church in Louisiana. The article is at best a stub-sub and merely contains information about ministers. No indication about why this church is notable enough to be considered enyclopaedic. Only gets 69 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- stubblyhead | T/c 20:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn church --Jaranda wat's sup 00:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per PZFUN. -- Kjkolb 03:28, 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 delete (probable sockpuppetry). — FireFox 11:31, 28 May '06

[edit] Interactive life forms

This article is about Fleshlight which already has an entry. It was prodded and removed without comment by an IP. The interview in this entry may very well be a copyright violation. IrishGuy 19:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I question Irishguy's claims of copyright ownership and said violation of same, and request that said user produce evidence supportive of these allgations. The linked reference in the original complaint clearly indicates that the article was NOT sourced by the website owner but taken from other sources, which may or may not be in the public domain.(LubeNLuv 22:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Substantiate Claim or remove AfD tag The referenced link in the AfD tag that infers that the article is a copyright violation provides no such evidence. Either substantiate the evidence of the claim or remove the AfD tag. (LubeNLuv 01:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC))
I have made no claims of copyright ownership and said violation of same. I specifically stated this entry may very well be a copyright violation which is clearly a suggestion, not a definitive claim. Nor will an AfD tag be removed before the AfD is complete. IrishGuy 01:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Very well then...please explain on what evidence you base your "suggestion" that the article in question is based on copyrighted materials. I have already pointed out, multiple times, that the cited webpage clearly states that the material was not copyrighted by the website owner. So I assume you have other reasons to make such a suggestion? (LubeNLuv 05:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC))
As I noted below, any material that appears on any website is automatically under copyright to the owner of that website. To take that material and publish it elsewhere is a copyright violation. IrishGuy 09:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No merge, no redirect, just get rid of it. -- Kicking222 23:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and yes, it's also a copyvio. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non encyclopedic. It is an interview without any sources. --Starionwolf 04:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT Delete ILF doesn't care, the interview is informative, it's not hurting anyone by existing, don't waste your time on an article that has no bearing on you or your daily life. -- Indubitablyk 10:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The above user is actually 67.185.215.223 and wrote this article, as well as recently attempted to remove the AfD tag. There is no user Indubitablyk IrishGuy 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - For above reasons NawlinWiki 18:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I want proof this is copyrighted, because The interview is from Xandria.com - not fleshlight.net - it is your burden of proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.125.178 (talk • contribs)

comment any material that appears on any website is automatically under copyright to the owner of that website. To take that material and publish it elsewhere is a copyright violation. IrishGuy 19:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
comment If the material posted on a website clearly refers to having been originated from other external sources, it does not confer copyright ownership onto the website publisher. Please provide legal reference that merely copying someone else's words onto your own website makes you the new copyright holder. (LubeNLuv 22:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC))


  • comment Please note that Bolt head has renamed and redirected this article twice since it was put up for AfD. IrishGuy 19:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT Delete I would like to see the proof that this is a copyrighted article. Thus far, it's the owner of a website that sells Fleshlight-related merchandise claiming that it is, but their own source material also claims no copyrights. Provide evidence or shut up.(LubeNLuv 20:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
The above comment is the first edit for LubeNLuv. Possible sockpuppet. IrishGuy 21:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Irishguy, just because I care enough to log a comment doesn't make me a sockpuppet. The only puppeteering going on here is your shilling someone else's words as your own for profit and then trying to keep it out of the public domain. (LubeNLuv 22:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
Exactly how am I shilling someone else's words? Also, how am I profiting from Wikipedia (a free resource)? You have officially stopped making sense. IrishGuy 22:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Irishguy, the poster asking for deletion, references on the linked source of the alleged "copyright" source the following....Fleshlight History - Interview from S.E.X. zine; "This little article I saved should help you" (current website text image here: http://www.hidebehind.com/B5380D00, and to prevent the obvious legal threats which I'm sure will ensue, such use of this image is covered under the Fair Use ruling as I'm using it to make a point in this editorial comment. The actual website image is owned by the domain registrant for www.fleshlightvideo.net, although I question said registrants copyright ownership of all materials contained therein). The article is bordered by no less than 5 referral ads to the Fleshlight products. You are using the original article for commercial purposes. You are a shill. There is no use of the article here for commercial purposes, it is for informational purposes only. You obviously do not own the copyright of the source material, merely saving it from another now defunct source does not make you the owner of the material. Again, either produce evidence that it is copyrighted material or shut up. (LubeNLuv 22:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
OK. First off, I didn't put up the copyright violation notice. I put up the AfD tag, so you are barking up the wrong tree. Second, in what world would I be using the original article for commercial purposes? I am making no money here, and that is the very definition of using something for commercial purposes. Third, enough with the rudeness and the personal attacks. It isn't your place to tell people to shut up. The AfD will continue and people whom you disagree with don't have to shut up. IrishGuy 23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If you placed the AfD tag onto this article and referenced the source, then you clearly didn't note the source did NOT claim to be the copyright holder. It claims just the opposite. So your claims are baseless and your placement of the AfD tag is what is in question. Your continued commentary about which users opinions should be considered "questionabile" simply due to their lack of historical posting are supercilious and put your motives into question. The AfD must either provide evidence that the text is copyrighted or the tag is without merit. (LubeNLuv 23:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
I followed standard procedure. This article has been prodded twice and removed twice by an IP without comment. It ALWAYS goes to AfD when a prod is removed without comment. I noted that this article is unimportant and the subject already has its own article and that it is nothing more than an interview which is not what Wikipedia does. I remarked that it may very well be a copyright violation and it probably is. But frankly, the article should be deleted regardless because it isn't encyclopedic. Also, it is standard procedure to note when a brand new user makes a comment on an AfD page. It is usually a sign of sockpuppetry. IrishGuy 23:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Please point me to the standard procedure FAQ for Wikipedia that encourages labelling first-time posters as "sockpuppets." Just like your claims of copyright violation, I believe that statement is entirely a fabrication of your own making. I can point you to the guidelines, I assure you it does not mention labelling first time posters as "sockpuppets" or even noting that they ARE first-time posters. Please read them for yourself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. (LubeNLuv 00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC))
First off, those are talk page guidelines. This isn't an article talk page, it is an AfD page. Second, you yourself should have read that page before attempting to throw it at me. Note the rules on No personal attacks and Assume good faith, both of which you have broken it almost every one of your posts. If you have looked through any other AfD, you will note that first time editors are pointed out because they could be sockpuppets, they could be random people sent here to fill AfDs with don't delete votes, etc. Third, you really should stop going on about me claiming copyright violations as I have refuted this in pretty much every post above. No matter how loudly you say it, it won't make it come true. IrishGuy 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Assume good faith would mean that first-time posters are real, sincere and expressing self-motivated thoughts and not "sockpuppetry" I would assume? Or does that only apply in special circumstances? And why assume first-time posters are here to spam "do not delete" posts versus "Please delete" posts? (LubeNLuv 05:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC))
I don't need to assume good faith when brand new users show up, vote for this AfD and either disappear forever as SSHUBIN did, or only deal with this AfD as you do. A user must have a discernable edit history to illustrate that the aims of Wikipedia are important to him/her for their views in the discussion to carry any weight. If a new user arrived to post delete I would have pointed it out. Thus far, it hasn't happened. Anything else? IrishGuy 09:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT Delete I am the original subject of the interview listed both here on WikiPedia and on the Fleshlightvideo website. This is not a copyrighted work and if it was, I'd share the copyright with the authors. It's also not an entirely accurate representation of the history of ILF, the makers of the Fleshlight. However, the individual who claims to "hold" the copyright to this work is dead wrong for claiming so and is well known to also claim "ownership" of other peoples videos and public-domain materials as their own for the sole purposes of driving personal click revenues via their website. I believe Wikipedia is a proper repository for this material and would like to see it remain here uncontested. SSHUBIN 20:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The above comment is the first edit for SSHUBIN. Possible sockpuppet. IrishGuy 21:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
commentAll the "sockpuppet" comments from user Irishguy are possible attempts to obfuscate that the copyright infringement claim is false and unsubstantiated. (LubeNLuv 23:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
Copyright isn't the basis for this AfD. It was a tag placed on this article by another editor. So let it go. You aren't helping yourself by being a nuisence. IrishGuy 01:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
comment I beg your pardon, but unless I have seriously defective eyesight, the huge, bolded "POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION" notice that appears when you click on the Wiki link for Fleshlight History most certainly DOES indicate that the basis for the deletion is copyright violation. And my continuing message here is that original flag cited alleged evidence that is unfounded as the link points to text that is clearly marked as having originated from another source. And a "nuisance?" Please heed your own advice and kindly refrain from making derogatory commentary about my edits. (LubeNLuv 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC))
Here you will see where the copyright tag you continue to speak of was placed by Ohnoitsjamie and not me [29]. As for the reason for AfD, when prod tags are removed, it goes to AfD for discussion. May 23 a prod was placed about advertising by NawlinWiki and promptly removed by 24.180.125.178 without comment [30]. April 8th a prod was placed about copyright by Tangotango and promptly removed by Bolt head with no comment [31]. Now, this will be about the third time I have clarified this. You know this and I know this. Your continued comments as if this isn't the case is what is a nuisance. I haven't made derogatory comments about you or your edits...because you have made no edits. You have only made comments in this AfD. IrishGuy 01:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Please explain to me the definition of the "EDIT this page" function if not to make edits? Or perhaps your screen shows a differently worded command? Also, thank you for calling out the earlier "edits," but you still fail to address that the current discussion pertains to the "POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION" notice all users are greeted with upon attempting to read the "Fleshlight History" entry, where the cited reference for said "POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION" points to a non-copyrighted work. I repeat my claims because they continue to go unanswered. Why is this entry flagged as possibly violating copyright laws when the cited evidence does not claim copyright and, in fact, claims to be derived from other sources? (LubeNLuv 05:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC))
First, it is only Fleshlight History because it has been renamed twice since the AfD tag went up. Second, I didn't tag it as a copyvio so stop claiming that I did. Third, all pages have the same basic templates, but discussions on AfDs don't count as edits in any sense of the term. Any more strawmen you would like to set up? Also, I note that you completely avoided the multiple prods and the fact that I didn't put up the copyvio prod that you insist on accusing me of doing. IrishGuy 09:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Bolt_Head: Sex Zine conducted the interview - and several sites use the interview as content - I can only assume that it is free for public use. I can rewrite a whole new article but it would be easier to just leave the current one alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt head (talk • contribs)

"THIS INTERVIEW IS NOT COPYRIGHTED, PLEASE NOTE "The interview is from Xandria.com" AND IS FREE TO COPY AND USE. Again the interview IS NOT COPYRIGHTED, the source was XANDRIA.COM - the same source I used for the article - which originally was from "The S.E.X Zine" - you are VERY WRONG, Jamie." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt head (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox 11:40, 28 May '06

[edit] The 7th level

  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}}

With an Alexa ranking of 1,260,703 [32], and what appears to be a grand total of one google hit for this specific subject [33], as well as no proof of any level of notability in the article itself, I believe this is non notable and therefore should be deleted. IrishGuy 19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, googling "The 7th Level" or "The7thLevel" displays numerous links to the site, not just one, so even your initial statement is innacurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.129.126 (talk • contribs)
Actually, just click the link I provided. The first hit is this website. The fourth is this article. The rest have nothing to do with this website. IrishGuy 18:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Ahem - [34] 8 pages, friend.
Eight pages from the7thlevel doesn't mean eight pages for this subject. One is a google mirror [35], two are for lulu.com (a self publishing site) because 7th level self published a book, some are from links in a web forum [36], [37], and one is a profile on a web forum [38]. More are from myspace profiles or blogs [39], [40], [41], etc. The rest have nothing to do with this site. And of those links listed, none are notable sources that would meet any of the WP:WEB criteria. IrishGuy 20:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Votes counted by closing administrator
  • Delete WP:VSCA THE KING 19:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sounds like a cheap ripoff of Something Awful to me. -- stubblyhead | T/c 20:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 22:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete By that standard any site that has humor, comics, etc is a rip off of something awful. By my Alexa bar, it was ranked 167,000 last month, and has experienced a traffic drop this month. Historically, it shows the traffic going up and down like this about every other month, so your current Alexa ranking isn't an accurate reflection of the site's popularity. And when you google the site title, yes it has one main entry. But if you google specific subjects that the site has covered, the articles are usually high up on the list. Several of its pieces are linked as external site links for many wikipedia entries, according to google. For example, if you google Dr. Phil, or "Dr. Phil Endorses the PSP" you find a fake Dr. Phil page the staff did a year ago that's not only linked all over the web, but apparently pulls in so much email from people actually believing it to be Dr. Phil's website that the staff get a mailbox full of Ask Dr. Phil emails every week asking for advice. Google lists it as having been linked here, on Fark, Alldumb, and on similar sites from numerous countries including Canada, France, Japan, and Russia. The head writer wrote for Whatever-dude, a now defunct but very popular spin-off of X-Entertainment, one of the most popular websites of this type. There are numerous sites that get less traffic and are less known than this one, that have wiki pages that have been up for over a year without being considered for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.129.126 (talk • contribs)
  • Don't Delete -- Sgt. Ape 10:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete looking at all the sockpuppets here, I was just going to vote delete without reading, but then I read the article. I haven't changed my opinion. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 21:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Votes discounted by closing administrator
  • Don't Delete -- OH NO! A source of humour whose content is similar to another source of humour! We might as well delete the Cracked Magazine entry, not to mention 75% of the webcomic entries, just to be safe! - AlCreed 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is AlCreed's first edit. Sgt. Ape created the The Cultural Revolution (webcomic) article. This webcomic appears on The 7th level, and it is a webcomic written by one Al Creed...so the above votes are not only self-serving, but may very well be sock puppetry. IrishGuy 18:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Al Creed's comments removed, and apologizes for offending IrishGuy by defending The7thLevel's entry. Also, denies accusation of being SgtApe, presumes IrishGuy is using Strawman Argument.AlCreed 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
reverted. Please don't remove comments from AfDs. IrishGuy 09:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow. According to what I'm looking at, there are over 860 websites from 23 countries that link to this website. Sounds pretty relevant to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.129.126 (talk • contribs)
It isn't about how many sites link to it. There are set standards which can be seen here: WP:WEB. IrishGuy 20:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Funny you should bring that up. One of their comics was just nominated for two web awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.129.126 (talk • contribs)
Please cite the evidence of the nominations and the notability of the awards. IrishGuy 21:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.65.160 (talk • contribs)
  • Don't Delete It isn't about the inspiration of the site's content nor it's similarity to other websites; as far as I can see this website gets notable traffic and this wiki reads as an unbiased account of this website's history and purpose. It was interesting to find out more about how it came into being. This deserves inclusion just like any other high-traffic entertainment website (when written in a non-self serving way.) AtypicalChuck
The above is AtypicalChuck's first edit. IrishGuy 18:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete I am not sure what the issue is here. I have read the deletion policy and I believe that the page is compliant with all of the guidelines. It is an accurate wiki article. I believe that putting it up for deletion is rather childish, because I am of the opinion that the people who are wanting it gone are the same who have instigated disagreements with the website already and have personal and irrelevant reasons for wanting the wiki deleted. Caitlin Des Rosier 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The above user, Caitlin Des Rosier, is yet another first time editor. I put this up for AfD following standard procedures. Whilst I am not in a position to speak for any other users, I have only visited the site once when analyzing it for AfD. I used Alexa and Google to find potential relevancy and found none. This AfD, like most, isn't personal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore article subjects must have encyclopedic value which can be verified. This website is, thus far, not notable. That may change in the future, but for now it doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:WEB. Nothing personal. IrishGuy 02:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I may be a first time editor, but I've been familiar with Wikipedia for long enough to know that this entire argument is rather ridiculous. I will, for now, ignore the unnecessary name-calling which lends no credibility to your argument, but I would ask that it please stop. If it is possible, this discussion should be mature. As for defending the wiki that has my name attached to it - I find this to be a natural reaction and not one that should come as a surprise to anyone. To address the statement that we are all "self serving" - everything listed on Wikipedia is self serving in that it serves itself by providing history and facts and links that are available to the entire internet and therefore is promoted to a large audience. If this entry is to be deleted, than there must also be deletions for absolutely every other article in Wikipedia about an entertainment website or web comic, for one is every bit as relevant or irrelevant as another. I also ask - who are you to judge what does and does not have encyclopedic value? I believe that it has been adequately expressed that the website is linked all over the world and this shows that while the website is not interesting to you personally, there are people out there who ARE interested and might like to read about the history of the website as well as any other information included in the wiki. Caitlin Des Rosier 02:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I have not called anyone names. The arguments aren't ridiculous as there are set standards (as I have pointed out numerous times) in WP:WEB that this site just doesn't meet. If you want to argue that the standards should be changed, go for it...but this isn't the place for that. I never said the site isn't interesting or that it is bad. I have made no judgement about the content of the site or the creators, merely that the subject isn't encyclopedic under Wiki standards. No, I don't decide what is or isn't encyclopedic, WP:WEB does. If all these people who create accounts just to vote don't delete were to take the time to prove some level of notability and verifiability, then this AfD would be over and the article would remain. IrishGuy 03:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I have been to read the page you are citing as your reasons for wanting the wiki deleted and I still view the argument as ridiculous. If you had flagged the page to say it had missing information then this would be different, but you did not. So far I believe we've met all of the requirements and I do not appreciate the "sock puppet" reference. I know it must be a term used in Wikipedia a lot, but it is used on this page in a derogatory fashion that I am offended by. That is what I mean by name calling and I firmly expect it to stop immediately. Caitlin Des Rosier 03:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
View it as you may. It is, in fact, the criteria for this encyclopedia. IrishGuy 07:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Your problem with reading comprehension is becoming annoying, sir. I said the argument that you've posed is what I find ridiculous, and not the guidelines themselves. If you are going to suggest deletions and then also have a discussion to defend your reasons, please try to read, understand, and then respond. Doing otherwise shows disregard for your argument and tends to hurt rather than help. he fact that you believe the 7th level is not compliant with the guidelines after little to no research or effort to find the truth alerts me that you either don't know what you are doing or that you are what I have heard referred to as an "internet troll". I do not, sir, thrive on argument, and since you seem to be incapable of normal discussion, I am going to stop participating on this page. I believe that my point has been made - there is absolutely no valid reason for the deletion as we have filled every requirement. 67.161.252.42 09:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
So first you claim that I made personal attacks, and then you go on to insult my intelligence? As far as reading comprehension goes, my arguments are based on the guidelines. If you are done playing sock puppet (note you forgot to use your brand new identity) we are done here. IrishGuy 09:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
If nothing else, we meet the criteria number 3 : "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators..." because every reference to a movie in our website has been linked at imdb.com and one of the web-comics featured has received nominations for two awards on thebestsatireawards.com and if the current voting trend continues, he should win those awards without any competition. Caitlin Des Rosier 03:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you don't meet number 3. Referencing a notable thing isn't the same as a notable thing referencing you. IrishGuy 07:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if you had actually read the sentence I wrote, I said very clearly that imdb.com linked us. This is obviously going nowhere and I am going to stop replying to you after I go to bed. We are in compliance, and that's a fact. 67.161.252.42 09:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Note, that you continue saying us. Guidelines state that writing an article about yourself is vanity. You are in no way compliant with the regulations. If you were, you should have no problem whatsoever providing verifiable evidence...which you appear unable to do. IrishGuy 09:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete Irish guy's argument doesn't seem valid and he seems to be the only one who is strongly opposed to this article's existence. This article was written in an unbiased fashion and the website gets notable traffic. As for the first time editor bits, who cares. Really? If you do, then may I suggest finding yourself a bonnie lass with whom you can spend your time. Sugar Ray Dodge
Ah, another from the 7th Level forums [42]? You will note there have been multiple votes for deletion from experienced editors whereas the only votes for keeping are from brand new or users who have edited this article primarily. IrishGuy 07:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the point she was trying to make was that IMDB.com links to every movie review their site puts up, especially reviews for movies which IMDB.com itself hasn't posted a review for. techinically, that is distribution of material from an independent website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.55.219 (talk • contribs)
Number 3 states: The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. IMDB is not a newspaper, magazine, broadcaster, nor publisher. It is a movie site that accepts information and links from any user. Therefore a link from IMDB placed by a 7th level user isn't the same as content distributed on a notable and independent source. IrishGuy 20:15, 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. — FireFox 11:41, 28 May '06

[edit] Russeled

Non-notable neologism about a poker player in Florida. SCHZMO ✍ 19:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NFT. Accurizer 19:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and protect page - Already deleted three times, nonsense (CSD g1), and WP:NFT. Timrem 21:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'll point out that there are many names that could substitute for Russel. - Richardcavell 23:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per Timrem Dlyons493 Talk 21:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Timrem. Article has no merit whatsoever according to WP:NFT--Alan 03:56, 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. — FireFox 11:42, 28 May '06

[edit] Naboo Star Skiff

Unnecessary Star Warscruft Wildthing61476 19:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete- Nom says it all, really. Reyk YO! 20:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - there are already pictures/lists of Star Wars 'stuff'. - Richardcavell 23:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete SW cruft. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable item. Or at least merge it to a Star Wars page. --Starionwolf 05:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm pretty sure we have this type of ship in one of the vehicle lists already, nothing here worth merging. BryanG(talk) 02:43, 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 delete. — FireFox 11:42, 28 May '06

[edit] Member count

Here's another WP:DUH! definition that hasn't been transwikied: a forum's member count is a count of how many members it has. TheProject 19:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless someone has some notable history on this term... which I find very unlikely. --Chris (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. --Sunfazer | Talk 19:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lady Aleena 19:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- It's this sort of thing: A gribby pookle is a pookle that is gribby. that is, it contains no more information than that implied by the title. You need more information to make an encyclopedia article and there's no chance of that here. Reyk YO!
  • Delete unless it becomes more than a dicdef. Ziggurat 22:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Somebody wanted to write an article about something and was not very creative. --Cocopuffberman 03:13, 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 no consensus. — FireFox 11:43, 28 May '06

[edit] Stanley Dunin

Kind of iffy. This is all that Google turns up.[43] The St. Louis dispatch article is about his daughter. The few non-Wikipedia Google matches are from a personal website run by his daughter. Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nod Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Check the references on the page. Among other things, Dunin has been listed in St. Louis Post-Dispatch as being part of the team that cracked a famous code,[44], and the AIAA website [45] , as well as scholar.google.com[46], confirm his papers. Further, the biographies on the papers can confirm his work history (feel free to request them and check for yourself). Just because something isn't on Google, doesn't mean it's unreferenced. --Elonka 22:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable and also appears to be vanity page created by his daughter user Elonka who voted above. --Tom 23:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note a big problem with this article is that it seems to mostly consist of Original Research. Although, considering it was written by the subject's daughter, its accuracy is not questioned, but the verifiability of the content is. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

*Weak delete Well-written article, but I couldn't find anything that convinced me that it passed WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Keep After receiving this message, I decided that Stanley fell into the range of my "inclusioninst" side such that I needed to change my vote. OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Seems just notable enough to make it. I don't think the author's relation to the subject is enough to deem it a vanity page. GassyGuy 03:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep He has some academic publications, and been mention, on and off Wiki, in various articles. Notable enough in my inclusionist book.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-written, it doesn't seem to violate anything. Looks notable enough to have a wikipedia page. --rewtguy 03:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per OhNoitsJamie. Olessi 18:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see no assertion of notability. If the author would include reference to some of the "academic publications" which Piotrus refers to above, I'd abstain. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per GassyGuy. //Halibutt 23:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 02:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Major argument for inclusion appears to be membership of Polish nobility. Since this is about 10% of the population of Poland, this does not consistitute notability. Septentrionalis 03:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Other elements were his academic publications, plus the fact that he was the head of the astrodynamics section on a NASA project, which launched the world's first geosynchronous communications satellite. I should probably rewrite the first paragraph to make that clear. --Elonka 19:18, 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. — FireFox 11:44, 28 May '06

[edit] Temporary inbox

This is an article solely to promote a new website [47], and not even a novel one. The article was put up for WP:PROD, but the author silently removed the template. Delete.

  • Delete per nom.--Jamoche 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- stubblyhead | T/c 20:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. --romanm (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 23:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It looks like an advertisment. Someone removed the AFD message before I restored it. Cheers --Starionwolf 06:17, 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. — FireFox 11:44, 28 May '06

[edit] Igsky

The creator of this article and/or company constantly spams this website's services in various pages for several MMORPGs. The user's IP has been blocked before, but he has started up, again. Ryulong 20:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete adcruft. -- stubblyhead | T/c 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam. adcruft. Poorly written as well. IrishGuy 21:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:30, 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. — FireFox 11:44, 28 May '06

[edit] Guanda

Not notable; article on NationStates does not list particular countries in the game. Marysunshine 20:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete- Anyone can start a nation on NationStates. There's millions of them. Completely and utterly unimportant. Reyk YO! 20:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 22:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Equivalent of a MMORPG player character, basically. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fagstein 18:02, 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. — FireFox 11:46, 28 May '06

[edit] Kingdom Hearts Inverted Hearts

Article about a non-notable fan-based, video game. Doesn't meet Wikipedia Standards. Had {{prod}} on there but creator/fans removed it; so I am taking it here. DGX 20:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 22:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to have any sources other than its own website, which is currently down. -- SCZenz 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The site is currently down as it is undergoing server transition. It should be up by next week again (No, I'm not an administrator of KHIH). Also, In my opinion, give it some time and see if it improves a bit. It was only set up reciently afterall, and needs time to situate and be fleshed out. ~RD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.234.81 (talk • contribs)
      • It's not about how it was written or the way it looks (or at least right now). Right now, it's about WP:V and WP:N which it fails both. DGX 23:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE ALL FAN-MADE GAMES! God, I hate gamecruft. But anyway, to say this in a slightly nicer way, the subject of the article is non-notable, and is unworthy of a WP entry. On a sidenote, that's a terrible name for a game. -- Kicking222 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, for anyone who wants to know, Googling "Kingdom Hearts Inverted Hearts" brings up 66 total hits. -- Kicking222 23:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Hey Kicking222! You may think our title sounds bad but your username stinks and you don't see me complaining!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside597 (talk • contribs)
      • Don't delete this it's not advertising for sqaure enix or anything it's only telling about the game and just because it's fan made does not mean it should be deleted and have any of you played the demo just try it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.230.248 (talk • contribs)
      • So the site is down and you instantly jump in saying its not verifiable. Real smart... And as for it being non-notable, give it a break, it gets bigger every day. Sheesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.42.36 (talk • contribs)
        • Um... Take a look and read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I think you'll find that the site being down isn't the issue. And "bigger every day" isn't the standard for notability; already notable is. If the game gets some serious critical reviews, the issue can be reconsidered. -- SCZenz 02:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable game. --Starionwolf 03:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Kill. This goes beyond "fancruft", which I would often consider includable if the article was well written, into just plain laughable. You might as well make an article for your erotic fanfiction crossover story. Seriously, the game isn't even DONE yet! --Tjstrf 07:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Random fangame, and if temporary disappearance of web site means there's no buzz whatsoever anywhere else (zero Google hits the way I searched, as well as whole three incoming links to home page), it isn't looking good from the notability perspective. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The game may be fan based, but it is a game none the less. Just because something is not famous does not make it un-noteworthy. If it has the need to have information gathered to those who seek it then let it be included. The reason an encyclopedia is there, is for people to look at it for reference and knowledge. If someone looks for this information and this article is deleted, that means the person will not find it.Smile Lee 09:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply The game doesn't actually exist yet though. Also, making an article on a fanbased game with no claim to notability simply "because it exists" is a weak argument at best. We don't make articles on individual series doujin, fan based extensions of manga series, do we? --Tjstrf 13:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We do not have articles on things merely because they exist. -- SCZenz 15:09, 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. — FireFox 11:46, 28 May '06

[edit] Kingdom Hearts 3: Age of Dragons

Article about a fan-based; non-notable game. Doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Had {{prod}} on it, but was removed by creator/fans. DGX 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. No assertion of notability, or evidence that the game actually exists. -- SCZenz 20:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it might exist, but it's just not that notable. DGX 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • From the webpages, it doesn't appear that it's actually been released. The article is just about what the programmer says will be in it. -- SCZenz 20:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
        • How many Google hits do you have to have for it to be notable? At least a couple of hundred I would think. DGX 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
          • If google hits alone are its only claim to notability, I'd say more like a hundred thousand. -- SCZenz 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 22:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE ALL FAN-MADE GAMES! Especially articles for games whose homepages are freespace sites. Oh yeah, and "Kingdom Hearts 3: Age of Dragons" gets ZERO Google hits. -- Kicking222 23:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it Look you freaks, I don't give about how many Google hits I have. What the heck makes it so unworthy, ANSWER Me THAT!! And Kicking222, just put a sock in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside597 (talk • contribs)
    • Look Darkside597, I know you created the article, but that deosn't give you the right to call people freaks and make personal attacks, so settle down. Now, WP:V and WP:N are pretty clear about what can and cannot be on Wikipedia. Google hits determine if it's verifiable. And don't hand me, the offical site is down junk, because even if it does have it's own website, one source is not enough. DGX 02:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • First, calm down. Then - the question isn't why we think the game is not notable. A better question is, what makes the game notable? We don't have specific notability criteria for games (though WP:SOFTWARE might apply in certain cases), but I personally believe a country- or worldwide release though a distributor could qualify, as would coverage by a notable game publication. And, of course, the fact that the game has to be either released or in the state that release readiness is merely a matter of polish. Does this game meet those guidelines? If so, I'll be glad to change my opinion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete with prejudice WP:VANITY, NN, admission by author that it isn't notable Hobbeslover 01:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I thought I already nomintated this article for deletion. Non-notable game and vanity page. --Starionwolf 05:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unreleased game, no media coverage or even web buzz whatsoever, home page doesn't tell even the bits the article has. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Save I know there have been a few here are angry at you guys for wanting this deleted. Well, I don't want you to think we are all immature 12 year olds. Rather than trying to defend why it should stay on here, I am going to take a different approach. Is there anything that we can do to save it? Is there any way we can improve upon it so that it won't be deleted? I am new to Wikipedia, as are mos of the people defending this article, so we don't know how to make a proper article, so any help would be appreciated.


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox 11:48, 28 May '06

Don't wish to cause any offense to FireFox, but this pretty obviously didn't reach consensus. It was added to DR, and we have undeleted. Decision overturned. No consensus. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Price

This person once took part in some trials of remote viewing, a purported psychic mechanism briefly funded by the CIA (and thus claimed as CIA-developed by the conspiracy brigade). And that, as fgar as I can tell, is it. It's not even asserted that their role in this was pivotal. Just zis Guy you know? 11:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 11:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable cranks, I'm assuming good faith in that the ISBN reference details his importance to the otherwise cranky movement. There are at least 25 published references to him regarding the remote viewing stuff, and the top Amazon results for his name aren't vanity presses. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a bit of a POV-push going on here by proponents of remote viewing including adding {{Remote Viewing}} to a couple of senior CIA figures despite remote viewing being of only peripheral importance to their careers (if any - theree is no reliable source which says it was), some remote viewers have been deleted, Remote Viewing Timeline is up for deletion, remote viewing itself has been grossly POV in the past. There are by my reckoning a bout 3,300 relevant ghits ([48]) and I don't see any evidence of Pat Price having written any books - there is another Pat Price, active in the field of cancer research who is the likely author of treatment of cancer and of course all the Google Scholar hits on Pat Price as author. This Pat Price is mentioned in 20+ of the 1500-odd published papers on remote viewing in the Google Scholar database, but is not cited by any papers published in peer-reviewed journals as far as I could tell (chronological bias: he died in 1975). Overall, there is a notbale Pat Price, an oncologist, but this Pat Price does not appear to me to be considered significant other than by a few other devotees of remote viewing. Ingo Swann is a notable RV crank, I don't think this guy is. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
If there's a POV push, those things should be reverted. AfD isn't for POV issues. As for Pat Price not being notable, 25 published references - all of which are in RV-centric books - disagree with you. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Keep per Jeff's well-drawn research. Vizjim 12:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep – per badlydrawnjeff. The article could still do with cleanup, though – Gurch 13:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup then move to Project SCANATE Once you remove the material that seem unverifiable, what's left seems to be about that project, not about this person. Paddles 13:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The whole thing can't be verified at all. It smells fishy to start. Dominick (TALK) 15:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with others eventually. --Tone 16:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Project SCANATE may be real (or a "real" hoax), but there's no evidence that Pat is. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:HOLE. Stifle (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Huh? What are the chances you know anyone in the RV movement? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Found project Stargate mentioned in a (to me) reliable source, and Pat Price mentioned here, but cannot find reliable source that Price was actually a significant figure there. If he was, and it can be verified, then he would be notable. Crum375 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Reading this pdf which is linked in my previous link, the name of the 'remote viewer' is blotted out and coded. So unless someone reliably knows the code I don't think it's useful. Crum375 21:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn whackjob. Transwiki to Loonipedia. -- GWO


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox 11:48, 28 May '06

[edit] Ben 10: Battle Ready

Page describes a non-notable flash game on Cartoon Network's website. Tried to simply prod it but was objected. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:30, 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. — FireFox 11:48, 28 May '06

[edit] Beauty Bowl

Non-notable event with too small of a scope to be covered here. fuzzy510 20:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Wait for it to become WP:N, then get WP:RS, then resubmit. Crum375 21:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 06:23, 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 speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 03:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thao Dang

Delete. Only claim to notability is being the first Vietnamese-American to join the San Jose Chamber of Commerce. Was first db'ed by ForbiddenWord. Only relevant Google results appear to be real estate listings. discospinster 20:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Disco. -- Kicking222 23:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--blue520 00:39, 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 no consensus = keep. — FireFox 11:49, 28 May '06

[edit] Laurence Ballard

Sounds like a non-notable actor. Ethii 12:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • This fellow is a professional actor has appeared in speaking rôles in three separate television programmes, and has worked on stage in many famous theatres. The article needs to be rewritten, however; there's so little context I can't even tell where he's from, other than that he's American (since all articles lacking information about where a bloke is from refer to either Americans or New Zealanders, for some reason). fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment His IMDB entry [49] doesn't have much, and only verifies a couple of the credits listed in the article. Fan1967 13:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep – but cleanup and rewrite – Gurch 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep but clean up a lot. -- Kicking222 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Judging from his imdb entry he's not exactly notable Ydam 13:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • IMDb don't care about theatrical rôles. Also, each thing listed on his IMDb entry is a speaking part. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree about the imdb not mentioning theatrical roles but I don't believe of those theatrical roles we know about make him notableYdam 14:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not IMDB --Ethii 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete after looking at IMDB entry. 2 single-episode TV roles and 1 role in a movie, 11th-billed (after "Finnish Teammate") and that movie only grossed 500K, making it quite obscure. Sorry, but that just isn't enough IMHO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep/ needs lots of cleanup. I separated out his stage work from his film and television work. He does have one listing on the Internet Broadway Database for a New York stage appearance. —ERcheck @ 04:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite he is a very well renowned actor in the theatre world who has played leading roles in in the most well respected theatres all over the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.13.209 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 May 2006


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

The result of the debate was no consensus = keep. — FireFox 11:50, 28 May '06

[edit] Absentee (band)

Tagged db-band, but notability asserted (touring). Not looked into how credible the claim is, just clearing the CSD queue. Just zis Guy you know? 13:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi - what's the problem with the article? What don't you find credible? --Mr magoo 13:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

On the notability issue- they meet the two album requirement, chart success, touring, featured in NME in the UK...

  • just about Keep - But I'd like to see an external source verifying their touring schedule. Their label Memphis Industies is a reasonably-sized indie with a decent roster who have some releases in conjunction with Sony but I don't think this arrangement covers all of their releases. Ac@osr 17:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with the article content, it fails WP:MUSIC, producer minor notability does not pass muster. Dominick (TALK) 17:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless verified. We need to see some reliable source of the tour and so on. Stifle (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified. —Mets501talk 16:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media". --Rob 22:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 20:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This band has been reviewed on Pitchfork and Google searches turn up reviews of their records on various other similar web sites. They fill the notable criteria. Amazinglarry 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, played on Radio 2, once or twice. -- GWO
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:36, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 16:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lil' Damu

  • Nominate and delete- Lil' Damu does not meet wikipedia's standards for Notability Ted87 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- Very bad grammar errors, inaccurate evidence of artist, and can not prove to Wikipedia the source of information. As with many other artists on Black Wall Street uncomfirmed artists with no information should be deleted. LILVOKA 20:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no releases, no notability... yet. I'm not sure if The Black Wall Street Records could survive an AfD right now. B.Wind 15:16, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Young Life (rapper)

  • Nominate and Delete- Young Life does not meet wikipedia's standards for notability Ted87 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- Same as Lil' Damu, this article doesn't not have proper grammar, unevident sources, uncited sources, and possible factucal errors. Please clean up this article immediately, and fix this article to the standards of Wikipedia. If not, then this article will continue to be watched and deleted. LILVOKA.
  • Delete - does one mixtape meet WP:MUSIC? I think not. B.Wind 15:21, 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. DS 13:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jakimism

Neologism Punkmorten 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn neologism NawlinWiki 20:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; very clear. ~ PseudoSudo 21:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete You are probably all unaware of the increasing popularity of the term on facebook.com, a social network for college students. The term has been mentioned at several universities so far. Do not delete it, so the students that know the definition can have a laugh when seeing it mentioned on an official online encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.197.222.237 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • As I am a college student who uses Facebook, I can attest to the term's popularity. It's not. As far as college students getting a laugh when they see it, who's going to look for it here? Delete. Quickly. --fuzzy510 04:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Google search shows only 8 results, all in some foreign language that obviously does not refer to the meaning here. - ॐ Priyanath 23:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have a facebook profile. I'm on facebook every day. I just checked it before I went to WP. I've never heard of this word, and there's a good reason- it doesn't exist, and nobody uses it. The article is complete nonsense (not patent nonsense, but complete nonsense). I'm sorry, person named Jakim, but your article won't be around for long. -- Kicking222 23:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Useless content bordering on patent nonsense, possibly an attack page. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 09:30, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ballymoney railway station

Non-notable one-sentence-only content. It can be merged into Ballymoney, for example. --romanm (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge per above. --Osbus 21:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is part of a series of articles on railway stations on that line. It would not make sense to merge it to the article on the locality. It's unfortunate that this is essentially a placeholder article until more is written, but it is part of a larger organizational structure.--Pharos 04:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: So, this is not an article, it's a placeholder. And there are other similar, um, placeholders that make an organizational structure. IMHO this means that the whole idea of series on every railway station on this line is wrong, since there is nothing notable that can be said about most of them (only Belfast Central railway station has a decent stub). IMHO, their list says it all; ie. it lists the stations. --romanm (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Every station on the London Underground has an article. Every station on many other railway lines have articles so why can't these ones? Ben W Bell 10:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Railway station. Hawkestone 20:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: By taking a risk of stating the obvious, this is the complete content of the so-called Ballymoney railway station "article":
Ballymoney railway station serves Ballymoney in County Antrim, Northern Ireland.
What's there to keep? --romanm (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge! --AndrejJ 06:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge (if possible; otherwise delete). --EuroVelo 07:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Even better thought: encompass the stations into some reasonable and usable table with nearby stations next to each other. Only such table/list article has some functionality. --EuroVelo 07:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As has been mentioned above this is simply one of a much larger collection of articles for all UK (GB and NI) railway stations which is nearing completion. Yes it doesn't have much on at the moment but if this were to be deleted purely for not having much content presently then there's literally hundreds of others in a similar state. Again repeating the above, this is at the moment more of a place holder upon which people can expand. I think that the problem is more than no one has yet taken the time to expand and include detailed information about the railways of Northern Ireland as is slowly happening with the system on Great Britain. Just check out some of the more than 1000 UK railway stations and plenty have been expanded to include useful facts about current services, locations, management, history etc. Just because this one hasn't been expanded yet doesn't mean that it won't be in future once someone with the right knowledge comes along. For the time-being all UK station articles are waiting for just that expansion, after all the 1 millionth Wiki article, Jordanhill railway station, was about a UK railway station and that was expanded upon hugely once people were aware of it and researched information. --Achmelvic 17:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. One sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 15:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Railway station. Always room for expansion and it is stupid to remove only one station from a line. See the surrounding stations. I am annoyed by this constant uneven application of policy by nominators. SM247 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: See the surrounding stations. True! There are more articles to delete: Cullybackey railway station, Coleraine railway station, ... up to Londonderry railway station which survived an Articles for Deletion debate. --AndrejJ 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is stupid to delete. There are articles on stations around the world, no matter how lage and small and also there are quite a few WikiProjects aiming to include them all. Meaning of encyclopedia: "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field..." (Dictionary.com). Railway stations are one of many aspects of railways generally. Simply south
  • Speedy Keep per SM247 and Simply south. --Arnzy (whats up?) 11:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamison Parker

Tagged CSD A7 (nn-band) but contested, so bringing here. I'm just the janitor. Just zis Guy you know? 13:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per non-notable Ydam 13:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. [50]. I found them at allmusic.com, as well. PJM 14:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong speedy delete First of all, this article can easily be speedily deleted because it does not attempt to assert notability, which is what CSD A7 if all about. It doesn't say that the band has been signed to a major label, or toured with anyone of import, or had a hit song, or anything of the sort. It just says, "This band exists and has two records. The end." Second, the article is almost certainly vanity, as it was created by User:Jp07, and JP just happen to be the initials of Jamison Parker. Third, Jp07 mentions on the article's talk page that one of Jamison Parker's songs is in List of songs about suicide. Aside from that meaning nothing to the importance/notability of the band, Jp07 put the song on the list himself- after he made that comment on Jamison Parker's talk page. But even aside from those final two points, what matters is that the article does not assert importance, and thus, there is no reason for it not to be speedily deleted. Sure, they're on AllMusic and they get a lot of Google hits, but those criteria are not the be all and end all- the content of the article is. -- Kicking222 14:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I gladly echo most of what you say, but every now & then editors should rely on savvy instead of pure letter-of-the-law. This is a case of a notable subject presented poorly. PJM 19:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - a bad article does not make the subject non-notable. I could write a bad article about virtually anyone. Ac@osr 17:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Fails WP:MUSIC on the article content. Dominick (TALK) 17:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm all for speedying articles that do not assert notability & I tag them frequently. I also believe in extending the life of poorly written articles if the subjects are notable. A band with two CD's released by Interscope Records satisfies WP:NMG, in my view. PJM 18:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. No, I'm sorry. It is just poorly written--I'm trying! I wrote my first original article last night at about midnight--I was tired and didn't have a lot of time to devote to it, but I plan to expand it shortly. In order to defend the "vanity case," this is not even the first article I have edited/composed, if you check my history I also edited the Mario series enemies page. My initials just so happen to be JP as well, but I did not take this into consideration until it was mentioned, I suppose. They just happen to be one of my favorite bands, and I live in Kansas--check my IP address if you want--and they are based in California. So obviously they have a significant influence. And about the suicide songs page--I edited the link ONLY so that it actually pointed to an article now. The mentioning of "Slow Suicide" was already on that page. --Jp07 20:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. I would clean it up myself except I have to go to work. They have a detailed Allmusic.com article which indicates that at least one of the two records was an album released on Interscope in 2005. Their Allmusic.com bio then mentions that they supported that album with a tour. Having a national tour, an album and EP released on a major label and a biography on Allmusic.com a verifiable source according to our guidelines qualifies them under WP:MUSIC for mine. Capitalistroadster 22:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per roadster. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and clean-up. Amazon indicates both CDs were by Interscope, but that seems to be the only reason. Band biographies on All Music Guide are not, in and of themselves, indicators of notability. I'm not sure a supporting act on a tour qualifies under WP:Music. The issue was discussed but never resolved. --Chaser (T, C, e) 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. The article is poorly done, but I've heard of this band before. --Awiseman 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I've heard of a lot of bands that don't have WP articles. Do you know Milton? They were a wonderful band, but they weren't notable enough to have an entry. -- Kicking222 23:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per capitalistroadster. Amazinglarry 23:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not only have I heard of them, but I think I've heard of them from some sort of an MTV show, and if that doesn't make you notable, what does? --fuzzy510 04:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite in functional English. -- GWO


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox 11:52, 28 May '06

[edit] Muzhik

del. Foreign dicdef. Also original research, incorrect, too. In particular, the word in perfectly translatable, in contexts. For example, the referenced article by Lenin was IMO translated by a lazy translator: the translatioin "peasant" fits perfectly. `'mikka (t) 21:09, 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 Not delete. Whether it should be kept, merged, or redirect is a debate that can be handled outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space 1999, Festival

This was a 10-day festival in London in 1999 promoted by the Association of Autonomous Astronauts; amazingly, their web site is still active [51]. The article focuses heavily on protests against the militarization of space and mentions a lot of irrelevant companies but the festival web site barely mentions these activities. I found one article via Lexis/Nexis describing the event, "Take me to your loonies" from The Evening Standard. At the risk of committing recentism, delete as non-notable event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs) Dang, sorry. Thatcher131 01:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, rename - it did take place, right? and it was attended by enough people to be covered in newspapers, right? I think you might be committing "Recentism" :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Well, it occurred no doubt, and garnered one newspaper article that I can find, making it verifiable. The article does note that the Association of Autonomous Astronauts was an "international network founded four years ago in a Brixton squat and dedicated to the intriguing concept of 'independent, community-based space exploration'," and that while NASA is "all about getting up there, doing 17-hour shifts, lots of experiments and then coming home. We have always said we want to play football, have sex and hold raves." The attendance was described as in the "hundreds." A notable event? Thatcher131 06:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have trouble keeping articles that omit information that is discussed in an AfD nomination. For now, rewrite and then revisit. If it is a festival promoted by the Association of Autonomous Astronauts, then it should be mentioned in an AAA article. B.Wind 15:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
When I fixed the spelling error it turns out the association has their own article, so let's merge and redirect the festival to the main article. Thatcher131 23:55, 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 Merge and redirect to KTCK. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Sturm

  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}}

The article has virtually no encyclopedic content, and the sources are blogs... with one link to the radio station which, apparently, employs him. - Motor (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


I feel I need to interject for a moment to explain a point of wikipedia policy. The criteria for information in wikipedia is actually not truth. That's right - it doesn't matter if something is true. What matters is if it's verifiable. Please read the policy on verification before commenting. --Bachrach44 01:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)



  • Well, unlike myself, and the writer of this article, you obviously do not live in the Dallas area, which is why you don't know who he is or any factual information about him. Arbinado 21:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is on a very popular Dallas radio figure. One source is the blog of the person in question. The other is his official radio show website. And one about the radio station which yes, apparently indeed, does employ the man. Let's hope that somebody whose spelling of words like "rumor" would strongly indicate that he lives nowhere near Dallas, TX, wouldn't be so arrogant as to think that simply because he's never heard of this man in his infinitely small section of the universe, that obviously in his mind Bob Sturm is not Wikipedia worthy. Could the article use a little retouching? Perhaps. But let's look at new articles with an open mind, not a "delete first, ask questions later" policy. - Monosylab1k (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: I think you'll find that "delete first" is the exact opposite of what happened here -- as an examination of the page history will show. - Motor (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: An examination of the page history indicates that this page hadn't been created for even 20 minutes before you started bombing it with attempts to have it deleted. Take a look homey. - Monosylab1k (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    comment actually, the article was created at 09:46, and then first flagged for AFD at 16:21. That's about a 6.5 hour delay. --Bachrach44 01:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this article! The edits that mr. Motor tried to make to the page show exactly the fact that he has no idea who the Sturminator is and that he has no clue what he's talking about when he says that this page should be deleted. - Djshadowfan 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Note Second edit by brand new user. Fan1967 00:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This page is loaded with nonsense. JohnM4402 01:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: And what proof exactly do you have to claim that the page is loaded with nonsense? Have you listened to the station long enough to have heard the accounts listed in the article? Do you have any clue who Bob Sturm is? (personal attack removed) I find your involvement here to be useless and myopic. - Monosylab1k (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You should probably read the article on Civility.JohnM4402 22:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      Comment And perhaps you can take a gander at (personal attack removed). Good day sir. --Monosylab1k 00:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, the stance on this article is grossly hypocritical. There is an apalling lack of sources cited for the Bill Parcells page among many, many others, and yet no stink is being made of that. Every word of this article is taken from multiple sources that can't always be referenced seeing as how they were made over the airwaves of the miracle known as radio broadcasting, if you'd like to peruse the Ticket archives to prove me wrong then feel free. The attempts to delete this page are a clear example of Wiki-blowhards abusing their power. - Monosylab1k (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Different standards apply for a famous coach and a local DJ unknown outside his area. We don't need sources to tell us that the head coach of an NFL team is notable. Fan1967 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this page or you will suffer much like the fans of the Spurs of San Antonio are doing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.160.214.44 (talk • contribs)
    • Note New user... probably just heard Bob Sturm read this article over the air and thought it would be funny to come on here and comment. JohnM4402 20:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You should definitely KEEP this page!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.213.243 (talk • contribs)
  • While this page is no doubt tongue in cheek to a large extent, the basics of the information are indeed accurate and, at least, true to the nature of the man, the show he runs, and the station he works for. Anyone who listens to KTCK will enjoy this article greatly. As for the rest, who cares. ... Isn't fun to be able to laugh a little bit?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.197.111 (talk • contribs)
    Who cares? I care. Wikipedia is not a joke repository. FYI, Bob Sturm just read his entire article over the air on The Ticket here in Dallas, told everyone where the article was located, and told everyone that it was nominated for deletion. We will be seeing "votes" from his listeners from this air time. I can see that we already have had some contributions by some of his listeners.JohnM4402 20:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into KTCK Once the article has been cleared up from POV and uncited claims removed (as per WP:BLP) there's not a great deal left, and can be easily be fit in a short paragraph about hosts in KTCK (Which also probably needs trimming, by that's a different story) Regards, MartinRe 20:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Check the edit history of the author of this article. You'll find bio articles have been created for everyone who works at the station. Fan1967 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Oy, you're right. There's quite a lot of AfDing to be done, I suppose (and, of course, some significant culling of the KTCK article). Joe 06:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The alternative is to create an article for every DJ and radio host on every station in the English-speaking world. Fan1967 14:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since it related to Dan McDowell and I said keep there. Should be consist and if keep one keep both --MarsRover
  • merge to KTCK. The majority of the page is unverifiable, jokes, and unencyclopedic content. Take the paragraph or two which is actually useful (from all the KTCK DJs), and merge to the main page. --Bachrach44 15:02, 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 that it is broken beyond repair. While it's clear that the refactoring was done in good faith, it is directly contra-indicated by Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for things to be sorted into categories. Further, I've never even seen an instance where someone so misunderstood the purpose of these discussions as to number the arguments. These are deletion discussions, we are not voting here. In many cases, the numbers are meaningless, and may in fact distort the process. For example, here several accounts whose status is fairly dubious have made recomendations. A late comer, following the advice on the main AfD page to not take part when consensus appears to have formed could be misled by the raw "count" and choose to remain silent. For this reason this debate is closed, without prejudice to being re-opened at any time. - brenneman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman{L} 03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel News Agency

  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}}

I have re-nominated this article as per the decision at its deletion review. Please do not count my nomination as a voice for or against the article's deletion. I am currently neutral on this issue. To understand the article's history, please refer to the discussions at its first AfD nomination, and its deletion review. Ashenai 21:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. Keep, while it would have been better for another user to have been the initial author, that is not a requirement. Notability and NPOV are requirements. WP:WEB includes as criteria #3 "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Google news is certainly well known and independent of the creator. I didn't find in my review proof that they were picked up by Google News, but this news.google.com/news?as_q=Israel&svnum=10&as_scoring=r&hl=en&ned=us&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nsrc=Israel+News+Agency&as_nloc=&as_occt=any&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=23&as_minm=4&as_maxd=23&as_maxm=5 search for articles from them shows that they are picked up. 02:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GRBerry (talk • contribs)
  2. Strong Keep If we are to judge notability by deeds, being the first Israeli government accredited source of online news in 1995 speaks volumes. To judge by association the hundreds of international media organizations and blogs using the Israel News Agencys materials is substantial. To judge by impact using Alexa.com and Google web / Google news reaching millions world wide the INA appears more than notable on all three accounts.Karnei 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Comment:This is user's 6th edit to Wikipedia
  3. Keep as per above Bronxgirl 09:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Comment:This is user's first edit to Wikipedia
  4. Strong Keep Just performed a search for "Israel Gaza Terrorism", the INA comes up ranked number one www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=israel+gaza+terrorism Also comes up in top ten places for other Israeli related news items. May be a small operation but highly potent with a wide global audience. Potterseesall 11:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Comment:This is user's 11th edit to Wikipediawww.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=israelnewsagency&url=www.israelnewsagency.com/ --Metropolitan90 13:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong Keep From what I know about the Internet and Alexa.com "link density" that is the number of links linked to a site boosts its ranking. This translates into that the INA being a "popular" site. One can count the number of links to the INA and the quality of those sites which link to it, i.e. - CNN, Israel Min. Foreign Affairs Bonnieisrael 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) All of user's edits are on Joel Leyden related issues. (Comment: I feel this is yet another sockpuppet - he appeared in tandem with Leyden's other accounts. Pavel Vozenilek 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC))
  6. keep please this news agency looks notable we should include it Yuckfoo 19:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Keep and correct. Remove Promotional content. Ensure WP:NPOV. Confirm provided references and sources --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Keep per Cumbrowski - Most of the people arguing for deletion are simply making ad hominem personal attacks, as whether he was banned from Wikipedia (for criticising it on his site) or not is irrelevant to the actual article about the company he works for. This company is at the very least more notable than Daniel Brandt, it's not a one man show, it's got a sizable staff, it's been cited or mentioned in many other newspapers too, it definitely meets all Wikipedia Notability requirements. The big question is whether it will survive against the tide of people that simply want it deleted because "they said bad things about Wikipedia", even though it clearly is notable. --Xsease 21:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep, as this is a verifiably notable news agency, sockpuppetry notwithstanding. Any issues with non-neutral point of view should be worked out through the editing process, not deletion. The placement of {{inuse}} also seems premature at this juncture; this renomination was made just two days ago. Yamaguchi先生
    An early close may be made at adminstrator's discretion. In this case, there are strong conerns regarding this content being mirrored, as well as Google search optimization problems. I am however always happy to defer an adminstrative action when requested to do so. However, per the notice it next time please do contact the person who placed the tag.
    brenneman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman{L} 01:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    That is fine, but whether one of the people affiliated with Israel News Agency is employing search optimization is neither here nor there; WP:NOT a vehicle for self promotion, meaning that if there is anything of a promotional or non-neutral tone within the article, it should be corrected by way of editing and not deletion, should the community at large decide the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Yamaguchi先生 01:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep verifiably notable (per Google News), if anything this needs NPOVing not deletion. Keep it, clean it, and get on with life.  ALKIVAR™ 02:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong Keep I just found the Israel News Agency's accreditation www.israelnewsagency.com/inaabout.html (please see GPO issued press cards) by the Israel Government Press Office Perupalm 15:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC) (Comment: 3rd edit of the user. Pavel Vozenilek 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC))
    Comment: a scanned press card is not proof of accreditation. I have several press cards of my own, they are not that difficult to come by, and the image was altered (passport and ID numbers are not visible), who knows how else it may have been tampered with.--woggly 14:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: 1. Not sure how objective Woggly can be in this discussion given her and Israelbeach's RfC on one another. 2. A scanned press card or copy thereof is proof of accreditation, as I am also a working journalist in Israel who carries a GPO press card. 3. Not reasonable to request that anyone publishes their passport and or ID numbers on the Internet. Card looks good to me. If in doubt, speak with Danny Seaman, director of the Government Press Office in Jerusalem. 4. Do not ask of others what you would not do yourself. Leyden aka Israelbeach has been honest and transparent in his identity. Potterseesall 20:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    I don't expect anyone to put their passport or ID numbers online, and I wasn't asking for that. I was just pointing out that scanning the card is pointless, and proves nothing. Good proof of accreditation would be a link to a government list of accredited news sources (or indeed, any source that is not simply repeating information from the INA). As for my objectivity, please stop hinting that I may possibly be unreliable. If I have written anything that is not true, come out and say so directly so that I can address your objections point by point. --woggly 21:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong Keep This organization seems to meet notability requirements. However this article could use a bit of work with its POV, not a reason to delete.--RWR8189 23:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Keep per Alkivar. I supported this in the other AfD and my opinion is unchanged. It is important to be inclusive for news sources and this qualifies. -- JJay 23:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Keep but clean up and include coverage of criticisms. The article has generated a great deal of attention but most of the negative comments reinforce my inclination to keep it. It appears to meet minimum standards for inclusion. The article could use some good coverage about disputes regarding the agency's origins, affiliations, reliability, etc.. I would hope that the WP community is able to include such criticism without it turning into mere rants or name-calling. Perhaps that's hoping for too much! Ande B 23:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Keep and assure that the article is up to Wikipedia standards. I've followed this entity for some time for news from Israel, and while they may be just as bad as the rest of the media, they do exist. The level at which they exist should be in the article. Folks, we're discussing online media. It's still new, but even as a historical record, it's important to keep these things.--TaranRampersad 01:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    Online media that is indistinguishable from a blog or a commentary section of a newspaper should be considered as a blog. Any yahoo can register an official-sounding domain name and tell the world their opinions. That doesn't make it worth having an encyclopedia article about it. --Improv 04:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong Keep My family and I are proud to make our second edit at Wikipedia in support of a GPO certified Israeli news organization which has served Israel and democracy for over 11 years Maayanbaruch 11:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: User's second edit. bogdan 11:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Strong Keep Per Alkivar, and Palm's useful link: www.israelnewsagency.com/inaabout.html Israel News Agency's accreditation by the Israel Government Press Office (please see GPO issued press cards) --Col. Hauler 13:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Keep. After careful consideration, this website does appear to be sufficiently and verifiably noteworthy. The discrimination against blogs seems a bit misplaced; we currently have 128 articles in Category:Blogs, not including the 9 additional sub categories. Silensor 15:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Keep. Please keep. Better open than closed. Odalcet 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Keep. I am voting to keep this article despite my concerns about the notability of this news agency (no mentions in the New York Times since its founding, one mention ever in the Washington Post), primarily because it is a Google News source. Readers may want to know what the Israel News Agency is if they find it in a news search. I thought editors were not supposed to sort votes in an AfD discussion into Keep and Delete groups. --Metropolitan90 01:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Keep as before. Certainly noteworthy. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Keep but it needs editing. Cut down on the puffery that's sourced only to the site itself; add the fact of the Alexa ranking to help readers judge the agency's importance. Reasonable people could vote to delete this one, by the way. Accusing "delete" voters of anti-Semitism or censorship is absurd. The INA's www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshipisraelnews480527.html anti-Wikipedia rant is funnier than most of the stuff in BJAODN. JamesMLane t c 03:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. Delete per Haukur. —Nightstallion (?) 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Delete per Haukurth's analysis of comparative Alexa rankings on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Israel News Agency. (I also draw people's attention to the following page: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Israelbeach.) --BillC 17:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Delete per my previous comment on the subject. This article was created by a publicity hound as a self-advertisement. Raul654 18:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Delete per Haukur. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Delete the agency is not clearly notable, but what is clear is that this person, Joel Leyden, is trying to SPAM Wikipedia. Israelipro 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Comment:This is user's first edit to Wikipedia
  6. Delete. Most likely all the interest in this organization is generated by army of Joel Leyden sockpuppets. Even more than the agency articles on his coworkers, so generously added by Leyden, should be examined for notability. Pavel Vozenilek 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Delete despite the protests of Israel News Agency, we are not censoring anything. I say delete from Wikipedia as it's hardly notable (I don't in particular find that the INA's "news reports directly from the scenes of the Passover Massacre in Netanya, Israel, the Tel Aviv terror attack on the Dolphanarium, and the 9/11 terror attack in New York" are exclusive to only the INA). It's more a blog than a credible news source. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Delete. Appears to be a blog, and not a particularly noteworthy one at that. --Improv 04:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Delete -- indeed, a blog. And no, bad-mouthing wikipedia does not make you notable enough for the article to be kept. bogdan 07:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Delete -- certainly doesn't look like a News agency to me. Checking recent editorials yields some undated articles, some critics of Wikipedia, and other articles with no added value as "news". Pathetic self promotion of a blog-like site by its owner and a whole bunch of suspected puppets. Noon 10:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noon?diff=next&oldid=47156824 removed the personal attack above on users making Keep votes (implying they are all "sockpuppets") but Noon has added it back in and claims that he is right to say this because some of them were blocked. Most of them aren't blocked, and most of them have none or very little evidence. Woggly (talk · contribs) (who is NOT an administrator) is adding usernames to the list indiscriminately without any evidence whatsoever, in fact he's added several who have done no more than agree with Israelbeach. As Woggly was the one most involved with him, it looks very much like he's attempting revenge by attacking anyone that sympathises with him or his cause. --Col. Hauler 15:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    I am not a he but a she, I am too an administrator, and I have excellent reason for adding the users I have added to the list of suspected sockpuppets. --woggly 18:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Delete -- Looks more like a blog than a news agency. But even if it were a news agency, its main (only?) thing is its web presence, and as such its Alexa rank shows its a pathetic excuse for a website worth of a Wikipedia article. - Andre Engels 15:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Delete -- bloggitude. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Delete -- if writing an article bad-mouthing wikipedia is enough to get you a wikipedia article about your blog then I need to start writing..... AdamJacobMuller 01:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Delete - Pathetic self publicists. - Hahnchen 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Delete per Woggly's comments below. This isn't a news site; it's a blog masquerading as a news site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Nuke It per Woggly. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Delete I really hate to do this, but I don't trust blogs masquerading as a news source. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Being listed on Google News is not very difficult and probably not enough to make something "notable" by our standards. The Alexa ranking is low and there are few unique Google hits. No reliable sources are presented for the information in the article. Currently it seems to me that the article doesn't qualify for inclusion, but I'm willing to be convinced if evidence to the contrary is presented. Haukur 21:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • How is notability being measured in this case? Are we applying WP:WEB, or another standard? Þorgeirsson states that getting listed on Google News is a rather trivial task; how does one accomplish this? For the moment, I am leaning toward keep due to its frequent citation by the press, but am open to discussion. Silensor 00:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just for the record, with regard to issues discussed in the previous AfD, the Israel News Agency is not a government-controlled press agency in Israel, just a private entity, and it is not even the leading press agency in Israel -- that would be Itim which Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article about. The Israel News Agency appears to be a relatively small operation although the Google News connection should be considered a point in its favor. --Metropolitan90 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The fact that Israel News Agency comes up ranked highly in Google searches might be more significant if its publisher were not a professional search engine optimizer. www.israelnewsagency.com/joelleyden.html Also, I don't know whether Alexa.com is evidence of INA having significant impact, given that INA's Alexa rank is 251,401. --Metropolitan90 13:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I draw people's attention to all pages which refer to Joel Leyden where BillC at every twist and turn attempts to discredit Leyden, following in the footsteps of user Woggly. We can also conclude that BillC is a sockpuppet of Woggly and or Danny Wool. Bonnieisrael is transparent. She has revealed her personal details both here in Wikipedia and on Goggle News. Furthermore, she has made direct contact with Danny Wool after being blocked and unblocked by Danny after personal contact. We can suspect anyone of anything. What we must do is deal in fact. Is the Israel News Agency "notable"? One vote was already taken a few months ago with the community saying Keep. I would simply rely on this one page to decide www.alexa.com/data/ds/linksin?q=link:israelnewsagency.com/&url=israelnewsagency.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potterseesall (talk • contribs)
  • I know User:BillC from other sites. He is no ones sock.Geni 18:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: All I have to say is that the first paragraph clearly indicates notability to me. Is it inaccurate? All that stuff sounds quite impressive. Everyking 09:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    I've been unable to find any verification. In fact it's almost impossible to find any 3rd party information on this operation. But I agree that if the content of the current article can be verified this might well be a keeper. Haukur 10:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:For any readers of this debate, please be aware that the opinions of anonymous users and users with very little edits during deletion debates are almost always disregarded unless a very valid point is made. This policy exists for two very valid reasons.

First of all, participants of a deletion debate think it is a vote and so try to gather all of their friends and aquaintences in order to try to influence the debate's result. The outcome of a deletion debate is determined by the opinions of whoever shows up, and so whoever engaged in this practice would be negatively affecting the practice. Secondly, users with very few edits may be accounts of users that have already had their say, trying to make their opinion sound more prevalent than it really is.

For this reason, the opinion of 71.102.46.200 will most certainly be disregarded. It is likely that user is "trolling," trying to evoke reactions and emotions among those that are sensitive to certain issues, and revelling in the chaos that results. Please do not see the actions of one anonymous user as being equivocal of the sentiment of the entire Wikipedian community.

The ban on legal threats on Wikipedia exists for a very good reason as well. During a deletion debate on a famed potter, and an author of scholarly research on Herman Melville, the grandson of the subject of the article up for deletion came and reported that he would sue another user for libel, for saying that his grandfather "wasn't notable enough to be in Wikipedia." Lawsuits used as threats in these situations may make other users feel uneasy and inhibit honest, open debate.

As a result of the ban of Israelbeach, assumedly for legal threats, it seems that the user tried to evade the ban and post as another user, in order to still have a voice. While I can see reason behind this, it is still a violation of official Wikipedia policy. Please try to understand actions of administrators blocked you, Israelbeach, if for that reason. I have limited knowledge of discussion that led to the ban, because it appears to me that the user page and the user talk page of their content.

The people that want this article to be deleted aren't anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. They are using Alexa as the standard for a website's notability, but this may be inaccurate because the rating of a site on Alexa is entirely dependant on how many people viewing that website have downloaded an Alexa toolbar, which may have less prevalence in Israel. Maybe the website has a higher viewership in its Hebrew edition. If I wanted to speak my mind with a user account---I really don't feel like getting involved in "wikipolitics"---I'd vote to keep this article, and the article on Joel Leyden.

As for WP:OFFICE, and an example of United States censorship that may be affecting Wikipedia, if one article had information about two author publishing untrue allegations against a subject, this may be considered republishing libel in California and Europe, and so Wikipedia would have to take that article and its entire edit history down to prevent legal action, even if the information that those allegations were made was in itself true.

No matter where Wikipedia's servers are, there may be statutes prohibiting its free expression. If they were based in Canada, Wikimedia could not legally publish election results before elections are over. Canadians were advised when reading the article on their parliamentary elections that reading this article may not be legal in their country. You may have heard that Wikimedia was sued in Germany for containing the first and last name of a child inventor and hacker that had developed a voice-encrypted public phone. Luckily it had won that lawsuit.

It may surprise you to learn that the Japanese Wikipedia complies with both statutes in the United States of America, where the servers are hosted, and in Japan, where most of their userbase is. They cannot publish personal information about certain figures in the national media that would be considered public figures in the United States. A Japanese teenager decided to go to Iraq---to see "what was happening over there"---and he was beheaded in a video released by his kidnappers. The English Wikipedia on him has his first and last name. The Japanese Wikipedia article's title, as I remember it, translated as something like "17 year old Japanese death in Iraq." That could be censorship right there, and in all of these cases, it is not Wikipedia's fault. I hope Joel Leyden can come to an understand the position of the management of Wikipedia and their viewpoint. 65.244.171.35 02:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

    • In response to: Maybe the website has a higher viewership in its Hebrew edition. I'd like to point out that the website does not have a Hebrew edition. I have worked as a journalist in Israel and never heard of this website before encountering it here, nor has my husband who is a news-junkie and regularly checks some offbeat alternative news-sources as well as monitoring the mainstream press. It does not have an entry on the Hebrew wikipedia. And the few "articles" I have read have either been copied from other sources, or rather poorly written (poor style, poor spelling, repetition, faulty logic). Joel Leyden, the so called editor in chief, is also the main writer, and often also the subject of his own articles. He often quotes his own articles to support himself. He reports to no one but himself. I consider this terrible journalism. You don't have to take my word on any of this: browse and see for yourself. --woggly 14:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Please also take note of Wikipedia's policy on original research and autobiographies. When someone creates an article on himself or something he is personally affiliated with, bias may unconsciously seep into the article's content. If not, unconfirmed knowledge may slip into the article's content, such as the subject's birth year. Because the subject's birth year was only known to the author of the subject before it was put into the Wikipedia article, it can't be cross-checked against any other independent media publication. Because of tendencies such as these, Wikipedia takes a special approach to pages where editors may be personally involved. Also, sometimes subjects may overestimate their notability---not at all that I think that's the case here. Regardless, it may lead to dispute, controversy, accusations of creating a "vanity page," and all-out nuclear edit war. Please understand that sometimes it is better to let things on Wikipedia arise as they naturally do, and let them be created on their own. 65.244.171.35 02:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This quote came from an Israel News Agency article by Joel Leyden: "So now I was intrigued to see how Wikipedia would respond to a page on the Israel News Agency and on myself. I expected trouble. And I was dead right. Why would an open public miss a chance to throw a stone at an Israeli let alone a news site coming from Israel." Your attitude was unnecessarily pessimistic, and the problems that came after you first created this article, Israelbeach, might have been prevented if you had come across Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Autobiography earlier. Thanks for trying, anyway, hope this long droning message has softened up any hard feelings, and so long. 65.244.171.35 03:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Blogs do not qualify for Google News alerts www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshipisraelnews480527.html.. Danny Wool was the first to label the Israel News Agency as a "blog." Interesting to see if Wikipedia can withstand criticism without censoring the messenger. Potterseesall 08:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Slashdot is a blog and it qualifies for Google News... bogdan 09:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
if you want, I can find you more blogs on google news, like hammeroftruth.com/ www.dcist.com/ etc bogdan 09:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: For any of you who may still be wondering about the INA's status as a primary news source, here is a brief overview of the ten most recent releases on the INA's site:
  1. www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshipisraelnews480527.html Wikipedia Attempts To Censor Israel News - Again an editorial authored by Joel Leyden, about the current AfD. Entire passages lifted verbatim from Wikitruth, The Village Voice, and other critics of Wikipedia.
  2. www.israelnewsagency.com/jerusalemdayisraelolmert48480525.html Olmert Addresses Jerusalem Day supposedly "By Israel News Agency Staff... communicated to the Israel News Agency by the Israel Government Press Office". In fact communicated to the whole world on Prime Minister's official website:www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechjeru250506.htm Prime Minister Speech at the Jerusalem Day Ceremony at Ammunition Hill
  3. www.israelnewsagency.com/shimonperesisrael480525.html Israel Peres Meets French Minister for Regional Development Estrosi the news part is quoted verbatim from a government press release:www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2006/Vice+PM+Peres+meets+with+French+Minister+for+Regional+Development+Estrosi+24-May-2006.htm Vice PM Peres meets with French Minister for Regional Development Estrosi. The only unique contribution of the INA are biographical details about Shimon Peres, which can be found anywhere.
  4. www.israelnewsagency.com/israelolmertcongress48480524.html Israel's PM Olmert Addresses US Congress this is labelled: "Special to the Israel News Agency". Again, lifted verbatim from the Prime Minister's site: www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechcong240506.htm Address by PM Olmert to Joint meeting of US Congress
  5. www.israelnewsagency.com/palestinechildterrorismisrael88480521.html Israel Tears For Palestine Child byline is "by Joel Leyden". It is, at best, an editorial and not a news story. I believe the general tone and style to be representative of Leyden. Also note that the INA website makes no disticntion between news stories and editorials in general.
  6. www.israelnewsagency.com/israelknessetchristianallies4890521.html Israel Knesset Christian Allies to Present KCAC Women’s Council not a verbatim lift as far as I can see, but compare to a press-release issued two days earlier by the Israeli Parliament for this rather minor event: www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=29349 Knesset Christian Allies Caucus to Present Newly Created Women's Council
  7. www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshipchinalahav.html Wikipedia - The Weakest Link an editorial "by Debbie Lahav", who identifies herself as user:Bonnieisrael.
  8. www.israelnewsagency.com/chinaisraelolmert660516.html Israel Olmert Meets China Provincial Official this is another PM press release: www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/EventsDiary/eventchina160506.htm PM Olmert Meets Chinese Provincial Official tacked on to another Government press release: www.export.gov.il/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=3129&CategoryID=457 Telecommunications delegation to China
  9. www.israelnewsagency.com/jasonalsteradhdvideo440516.html ADHD - Alster Produces New Therapy Program Video "by Keren Goldberg". This may be original, but it is hardly news: it is advertisement, plain and simple.
  10. www.israelnewsagency.com/israeldefenseforcesnavyterrorism480516.html Israel Defense Forces Navy Patrol Seizes Terrorist Explosives lifted from a Foreign Office press release: www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+and+Islamic+Fundamentalism-/IDF+Naval+craft+seized+several+hundred+kg+of+explosives+14-May-2006.htm IDF Naval craft seized several hundred kg of explosives. The INA did not bother changing the wording from "today" to "two days ago".

You do not have to take my word on any of this. Follow the links and see for yourselves. --woggly 07:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Thank you for taking the time and effort to post the above links. You have just illustrated beyond any doubt that the Israel News Agency is a news agency with major impact. As all news agencies i.e. - AP, Reuters, AFP, the INA collects and then disseminates information - both original and copied. That's the purpose of news agencies. AP and Reuters carry advanced copies of speeches and events provided to them by the public affairs' offices of corporate and political world leaders every day. As the Israel Government Press Office does not have its own Web site (PM site is not the same - ask Danny Seaman, director of the GPO in Jerusalem) the INA also serves as a clearinghouse for news from Israel's various ministries. And does so without profit! From I have seen, the INA has published several hundred news stories over the last 11 years. Including several exclusives such as [Al-Qaeda : The 39 Principles of Holy War www.israelnewsagency.com/Al-Qaeda.html]. The Israel News Agency has proved "notable" to millions of readers worldwide, to me, the Israeli government and to ... Google News. Karnei 14:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - What it does prove, is that yet again, Google news has it wrong. They even listed QuakeAID's PR machine, OfficialWire as a news source. Google News gets it wrong all the time, I have even seen forum posts on Google News. The Israel News Agency is one man and a failed SEO mission. - Hahnchen 16:43, 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. — FireFox 11:56, 28 May '06

[edit] FF IV-play

Delete / Speedy. Utterly non-notable web comic, which started three days ago. Attempts to delete under CSD A7 have been met with resistance. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per nom, vanity hateless 21:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 22:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Not only is it most likely vanity, but it's pretty badly written as well. --Tjstrf 22:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and send Zodiac53 to bed without supper. Danny Lilithborne 22:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 23:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It is not notable and it looks like a vanity page and advertisement. --Starionwolf 03:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC) 03:18, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1913 Far Eastern Games

Page only lists the name of the event and where it was held, which is all contained in the page for the Far Eastern Championship Games. The games themselves are not very notable, only registering 218 hits when quoted on Google, but there's enough info there to keep it, I think.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason - they all simply restate information in the parent article and don't have much potential for any expansion beyond that:

--fuzzy510 21:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. In addition, the Asian Games infobox should be altered so it only links to the FECG and no years. -- Kicking222 23:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge content (if any) and redirect. Outright delete without merge as second option. -- saberwyn 00:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Recreate/break out if expanded to sufficient size for a standalone article at a later date. -- saberwyn 07:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all; there's a distinct possibility of expansion from other sources such as Marrow of the Nation (ref images at [52]), and the obvious inclusion of results tables / sports played would bring this to the same state as contemporary articles. Ziggurat 03:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge for now as the articles have no independent content, though the topic is clearly encyclopedic and I would support recreating the articles later if someone were to actually research the subject. In my opinion this should not have been brought to AfD as it's only sensible to merge articles with negligible content and no formal process is required. Oh, and please don't judge the notability of 90-year old events by a google search!--Pharos 03:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That was actually more intended to show that there wasn't a wealth of easily-accessible information about them than to claim their notability (I worded it badly), but duly noted. --fuzzy510 05:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all; They are all brilliant, it would be a disgrace to loose them all
  • Merge per Pharos. BoojiBoy 00:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep all as stamps were issued commemorating them (if i'm not mistaken) and they can easily be expanded with some background research. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 23:10, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 18:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Jews and Their Lies (excerpts)

Just a bunch of quotations from On the Jews and Their Lies. There is already an external link to such a collection of excerpts in the original article. I think the work is old enough for there not to be any copyright issues, but if that's the way we want to quarterback this it should be complete and on Wikisource. Wikiquote is an option, too, perhaps, but I would oppose an interwiki redirect. That's not to say that some of the quotes shouldn't be used in the article if they can be incorporated into the text. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the article was copyright 1971 and the copyright was renewed, there are copyright considerations for linking to the full text as has been attempted in the past. Please see the relevant discussion:[53]. The excerpts constitute legal use as far as can be determined, though. They had been placed into the original article, but length considerations motivated their removal to a separate article. Either the excerpts could be reproduced in the main article, or a link the the webpage might suffice. --Drboisclair 22:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I just ran into Talk:Martin Luther/Copyright of Luther's Works as well. It appears the copyright situation is even more complex. However, this article is unencyclopedic in either case. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the quotes are not copyright. This is one of the most important books from that time period. Its political content shouldn't disqualify it from inclusion. - Richardcavell 23:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The quotes are most definitely under copyright. In addition, I have contacted the publisher. They state that they have never granted permission for this work to be copied in any form. So, the text is being used without their permission. The excerpts may be used, not because they are Public domain, but because it is Fair use to do so. --CTSWyneken 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The quotes were originally in On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther), but made the article too long, which is why they were moved to this page. I can see no good reason to delete it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per Richardcavell and SlimVirgin. Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki as per CanadianCaesar if I am permitted to change my vote. I have not deleted my original post here. I beg your pardon for the mixup.--Drboisclair 23:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Original vote that I wish to change to Transwiki: (*Weak Delete. The excerpts come from a translation of this work that is copyrighted, but the excerpts are deemed "fair use"(?). Why not simply merge them back with the main article or simply link to where they are posted at Fordham University. My vote would be to Merge this article with the original.--Drboisclair 23:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
My vote would then be to delete as per your comments. --Drboisclair 23:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki unencyclopedic. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 23:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikiquote. Tag added. —Viriditas | Talk 23:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikiquote. changing vote to Delete as quotations have already been added to wikiquote. Homey 23:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It was moved to it's own article since it made the main On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther) article to long. --Shlomke 00:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As the editor that originally brought the excerpts to On the Jews and Their Lies, and repeatedly dealt with attempts to delete it [54] and attempts to delete links to sites with the excerpts [55], I would like to point out that despite this work being written 500 hundred years ago, it has only recently been translated into English. Many would like to keep it hidden, as even the editors of the original translation point out.Doright 00:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Additional note: After reading the comments here, I have to admit that as a newbie, I'm not familar with the term transwiki nor with wikiquote. So, I think it's prudent to Keep this here, in addition to wikiquote. After all, what's the cost?Doright 03:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note for the record that user Doright has persistently tried to link to the copyright infringing version of this text, contrary to WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted works. He does this once again in the above comment. Please note that the full text is infringing, but the excerpts are acceptable due to Fair use. --CTSWyneken 12:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    Repy to Comment Indeed, for the record please note the comments of another senior editor:

    "The article currently has a brief summary of a larger article, Martin Luther and Antisemitism, but it appears to me that several editors are trying to either whitewash the contents of the summary, or remove any summary at all, on various grounds which I see as spurious (e.g. we can't quote from works because that might be a copyright violation, or we shouldn't summarize at all because that will increase interest in the sub-article). Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC) [56]

    CTSW, please do not make this into yet another one of your personal attack pages. It is not appropriate.Doright 19:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikiquote. Seems like a good candidate. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikiquote, which is what we do with lists of quotes. Then a wikiquote template linking to these quotes can be added to the On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther) article. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    Update: I went ahead and added the quotes to wikiquote here, whether this article is deleted or not the quotes can go there, and I added the wikiquote template to the See also section of the On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther) article to link to the wikiquote version. The only other article besides project and user pages linking to this page is History of the Jews in Germany, which can link to wikiquote instead as well. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwike to wikiquote, per above. --StanZegel (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NPS. For copyright status, see User Cecropia's Opinion. Link to excerpt files works well enough. No need to mirror. --CTSWyneken 01:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying exerpts are primary sources? Are you saying excerpts are a copyright violation too? Doright 03:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NOT a collection of quotes, but thankfully we have sister projects that are. Kotepho 02:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. This is pretty clearly not an encyclopedia article.--Pharos 03:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per slimvirgin.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikiquote. Pecher Talk 06:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because lengthy articles are often split up to make them more readable and functional, otherwise this will get lost on Transwiki and slip into oblivion, rather than remaining clearly connected to On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther). IZAK 10:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the content of this article has been copied to: Wikiquote.--CTSWyneken 12:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Would keep it. Foreigner 12:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki works for me; otherwise keep. It's unfortunate content, but still valid. — RJH 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki in full and link in main article on Martin Luther. Work is clearly in the public domain or -- in response to the comment below -- would clearly fall under fair use. --Mantanmoreland 18:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: This work is most definitely protected by copyright law. It was first copyrighted in 1971:

Verso of the Title Page, Luther's Works, Vol. 47, "The Christian in Society": (c) 1971 Fortress Press, Library of Congress Number 55-9893, ISBN 0-8006-0347-8

All works originally copyrighted after 1964 had their copyrights renewed by act of Congress:

"Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the copyright law to make renewal automatic and renewal registration optional for works originally copyrighted between January 1, 1964 and December 31, 1977." United States Copyright Office, Circular 15

For a Neutral opinion, see User Cecropia's Opinion--CTSWyneken 18:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This article, while the title may seem controversial, is a great article. It is well written, the quotes are appropriate, and overall the article is very descriptive. Thetruthbelow(talk) 20:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikiquote Zeq 10:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki No doubt that this is all valid info, but if it's strictly quotes then it should be at wikiquote, not here. Sumergocognito 21:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Subsequent Comment I'm pretty sure reprinting an entire work can never be fair use. The original German however is public domain, no? Couldn't it be at wikisource? Sumergocognito 01:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Comment: You are correct. If a work is under copyright, then it cannot be reproduced in full without permission. Re the original text, in short, yes, the German is public domain. However, Wikisource is limited to English texts. If someone wants to digitize it, however, I would find it a home on the internet. --CTSWyneken 03:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per above. Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, that's for sure. KleenupKrew 00:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Why don't you believe that it belongs in an encyclopedia? Thetruthbelow(talk) 02:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment An encyclopedia is a place for a general article on the book. The collection of quotes belongs at Wikiquote. KleenupKrew 01:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In case anybody missed it, I've transwiki'd the page to Wikiquote. This essentially "keeps" the material, but in the more appropriate place, namely, at the project specifically set aside for collections of quotations. It would seem repetitious to keep the page in Wikipedia. Do we really need it in both places? For pages that reference this quotation collection, instead of a link to a WP article like this: On the Jews and Their Lies (excerpts), one would put in the WQ template like this:
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:

--MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete this is hate speach propaganda and should be gone NOW! Wombdpsw 05:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Question Could you explain this is "hate speach propaganda? The issue with this article is not that it is an attack page, so if you could, will you please explain your previous comment? Thetruthbelow Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There is already this page on the book, and a collection of quotes does not belong on Wikipedia, but on Wikiquote. It's already on Wikiquote and so.. Delete! --A Sunshade Lust 06:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per A Sunshade Lust. --Ian Pitchford 12:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki or delete. List of excerpts is not encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Providing quotes has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Keep the link, delete the quotes page.--Thalia42 22:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Its very important to see that the world's biggest contender of the Catholic Church was himself an anti-semite. Very important to history.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Puckmv (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox 11:56, 28 May '06

[edit] Universal Drugstore

Advertisment for online drugstore Middenface 22:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - clear adspam. —ERcheck @ 03:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - adspam. --MishaMisha 13:05, 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. — FireFox 11:56, 28 May '06

[edit] ASFN

Non-notable website. Fails WP:WEB, Alexa rank of 550,000+. fuzzy510 22:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. It's just another message board / forum. -- Kicking222 23:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:58, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FirstTake

NN podcast. Google search reveals this; [57] but I can't see anything relevant to the podcast except one hit. The article also reads like an advert. Beno1000 22:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Add the word podcast to your search and its the fist hit.

[58] This article shoudl not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumper369 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Actually, the number of relavent GHits is the basis of notability. Not its position in the list. Beno1000 22:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So can we take off the deletion warning now? Thumper369
      • No, community consensus must be reached first. And I am still standing by a delete vote because it is NOT notable. Beno1000 22:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable podcast. Googling "FirstTakePodcast" and "FirstTake"+"podcast" each give less than 30 unique hits. No assertion of notability in the article. -- Kicking222 23:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Beno1000 & Kicking222, non-notable podcast.--blue520 00:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable podcast. —ERcheck @ 03:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree I have seen the error of my ways. Actually, I understand things a lot better now. I am not able to post any form of notability as suggested. Thank you all for your time. Thumper369

Beno, can I suggest a little more compassion and help to new authors. I understand the need to help keep Wikipedia a good source of information. I could have come to the same conclusion about the state of my articles without the negative feedback. I don't see how your negativity helps build a community (see Talk:Mike_Teppenpaw). Give a listen to the next show when we talk about Xmen. We will be sure to include a little commentary about this experience near the end of the show.

  • I have to agree. Beno, your comments on the page linked above borders on a personal attack imo. Let's be WP:CIVIL. -- stubblyhead | T/c 22:56, 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. — FireFox 11:57, 28 May '06

[edit] Mike Teppenpaw

NN bio. [59] 111 GHits isn't really notable. Beno1000 22:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


This bio referes to one of the host from the FirstTake podcast. And the first hit from the google search finds the correct person. Thumper369 17:42, 23 May 2006 (CST)

  • Comment again, it's not a verifability issue. It's a notability issue. He isn't a person worthy of a Wikipedia article, I'm sorry to say. Beno1000 22:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 23:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per same reasoning as deletion of the podcast, which is his only claim of notability. -- Kicking222 23:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable. Does not meet WP:BIO. —ERcheck @ 03:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


I agree I have seen the error of my ways. Actually, I understand things a lot better now. I am not able to post any form of notability as suggested. Thank you all for your time. Thumper369

Beno, can I suggest a little more compassion and help to new authors. I understand the need to help keep Wikipedia a good source of information. I could have come to the same conclusion about the state of my articles without the negative feedback. I don't see how your negativity helps build a community (see Talk:Mike_Teppenpaw). Give a listen to the next show when we talk about Xmen. We will be sure to include a little commentary about this experience near the end of the show.

Good day, folks. I am Pharmhog and I approve of this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmhog (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 05:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UVW

Non-notable computer simulated wrestling league, written by its creator Shopping Carts. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

go to CAW Underground and see if its non-notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shopping Carts (talk • contribs) 23:07, 23 May 2006.

I did, before I listed it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

so then you can see how nothing has been released yet and you have no right to start judging things based on what you think. And why do you want it deleted, theres nothing wrong but the swearing, and if thats the case then you can put a parental advisory at the top. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shopping Carts (talk • contribs) 23:18, 23 May 2006.

I don't care about the swearing and anyway Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. However in this case Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball apply here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

ya to tell everyone what its all about and why is was created. Im not telling anyone to watch the shows am i. It says no where in the article to watch the show, it just that its coming out. im not advertising anything im just simply telling people what uVw is and about their past.

If you go here and look at some proof then maybe you will realize that this is not "a crystal ball"... http://cawunderground.com/index.php?showtopic=8951 ...if you dont beleive that then, seriously what else do you want me to do, send you the stuff? as i said before its a work in progress so obviously you are going to have to wait till im done the show. Im not gonna stop everything and post what i got just becuase you want me to (not trying to be rude or anything. And i started the article because uVw has had enough history for this. Not to mention i will soon be posting it on CAW Underground so they will all come here and see what uVw is all about.

and about that propaganda garbage...seriously...thats a joke if you think im trying to advertise something...nothing is being advertised, its just telling whats going to happen or what happened at the show.

i would also like to add that even if it is "non notable" that does not mean that it should be deleted. So what if not many people know of uVw yet. This article was created to further the word of uVw, not to show how big and cool my fake wrestling league is. There are other feds like this which are here and are not really popular yet either—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shopping Carts (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. nn, crystal ball, and author's admission that "This article was created to further the word of uVw". Fan1967 23:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The subject of the article is highly non-notable. It's also a POV article that has no external links, and the article also attempts to use WP as freeweb space. In addition, WP:NOT a crystal ball. "Ultraviolent Wrestling" gets almost 2,000 Google hits, but most of those are certainly unrelated to this topic. "Ultraviolent Wrestling"+"e-federation" gets zero hits, and "Ultraviolent Wrestling"+"e-wrestling" gets five. The prominently-used phrase "Ultra Fuckin Violent" gets one Google hit, a MySpace. And, for posterity, "Ultra Fucking Violent" gets 4 hits, 3 of which are from MySpace. -- Kicking222 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

i seriously dont know why you guys want this deleted so bad. Im just tryin to tell some history here and talk about some upcoming shows. And ultraviolence is bery popular umongst wrestling fans. Google doesnt prove anything. If i wanted free webspace i would go to photobucket or image shack NOT wikipedia...like seriously...who uses wikipedia for free photospace...

More proof...

http://cawunderground.com/index.php?showtopic=9138

Dont see any wikipedia links there do you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shopping Carts (talk • contribs) 00:05, 24 May 2006.

In your earlier post you say "So what if not many people know of uVw yet. This article was created to further the word of uVw..." In other words you are admitting that you are using Wikipedia to advertise uVw. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Devotchka 01:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a tool for promoting things (whether people, bands, or web sites). It is an encyclopedia that contains articles on things that are already noteworthy (generally, important enough to have been written about or recognized in multiple non-trivial independent sources. With no disrespect intended, your website is not currently noteworthy enough for inclusion. Thatcher131 01:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per the external link provided, the concept has only been around for six days. I doubt that the show is even finished yet, so how can it be notable? (Even within cawunderground.com.) I suggest spending your energies on the show, not on promoting it on Wikipedia. --Elkman 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


ok im just gonna say this--- i was not thinking of anything to do with promoting when making this. I just saw all these other feds and shit and said...hey..."i could be there", but now i got you guys over here saying.,..no...so you know what im not gonna pay attention to this anymore, do what you want, say what you will, but when im done the show, im done the show, and im not gonna post anything here to make you happy. have fun doing what you do. later/

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

The result of the debate was Userfied and deleted. -- Longhair 05:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wranglers 04

WP:VAIN created by User:Wranglers_04. Claim to fame is "one of the more prominent message board posters"; google of the message board returns 104 hits. Prod removed by IP w/no comment. --Jamoche 23:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete and userfy The article does not assert notability- which is obvious, because there is no notability. Make it his userpage and get rid of it now. But, in the user's defense, I give him credit for being such a big fan of the AFL. -- Kicking222 23:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable (WP:BIO).--blue520 00:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and userfy per above. Unless an individual is covered by independent news media, the subject is non-notable per WP:BIO. --Elkman 19:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As A fellow poster on the AFL Boards, I feel there is no problem with this page. No Need for deletion.- aflbeat88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyers2thecup88 (talk • contribs)
  • DO NOT DELETE!!! - Furry4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.176.145 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete and userfy. Not close to notable. DarthVader 22:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Keep it! (Rallybird4preds) #REDIRECT --GBVrallyCI 00:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the page, I have no personal problem with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilg4981 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. -- It's cool with me(BigBadVooDooDaddy) Chalmation 00:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delate per top Landeyda 06:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment additons and alterations by User:166.109.0.185 (Irvington High School) have been removed, blanking of users comments is seen as vandalism.--blue520 14:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per elkman.--Aleph-4 19:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless you think everybody on the Web deserves their own Wikipedia page. I notice that none of the "keeps" above gives any good reason to keep it. —johndburger 19:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete-pointless article -Reid A. 18:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete What? Since when do members of a message board get to have their own articles? Maybe userfy. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 23:57, 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.