Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 23 May 25 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] May 24

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

The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango123 (e) 16:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kung Pow 2: Tongue of Fury

WP:NOT a crystal ball, it even says in the article that no release date or even a production start date is known at this time. The two external links are not useful nither Delete Jaranda wat's sup 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete since the movie isn't even in production yet so there's no guarantee that it will actually make it to movie screens. No prejudice against recreating the article once it's officially announced, however. Aplomado talk 00:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no IMDb page. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete recreate when future release is assured - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even the supposed director agrees with the nominator in the cited interview. Kevin 02:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete alas, a rumour only. Ziggurat 02:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. As a sidenote, "Kung Pow: Enter the Fist" is absolutely one of the worst movies I've ever seen. -- Kicking222 03:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is probably worth a line as an "upcoming project" at Steve Oedekerk, but it's not worth its own page yet. --rewtguy 04:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per CrazyRussian Chuck(척뉴넘) 08:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, IMDB hasn't had a page on this, not enough verifiable sources, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 10:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. DakPowers (Talk) 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jaranda. Aspern 21:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but Merge. While such little content (for a hypethetical movie) doesn't desurve it's own article, the information might prove interesting as a fact on the Kung Pow article. - Tomodachigai
  • Delete per nom. Recreate if there's ever an official announcement or production. Voice of Treason 15:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This can still be used as a deterrent to inform people that there was no sequel actually made, by clarifying the signifigance to it's "trailer" at the end of the first movie as a misnomer film. Or at least up until the period when Oedekirk has a green light for the project.

Aside from that, Steve Oedekirk has every intention of finishing his trilogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.172.31 (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 snowy delete. Sango123 (e) 18:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transvolution

Original research, asserts copyright. Prod'ed, tag removed by anonymous contributor. Accurizer 00:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, there's nothing to suggest it isn't complete bollocks either. — May. 24, '06 [00:45] <freak|talk>
  • Delete per nom.--blue520 00:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neologism, OR and a copyright tag, what's not to delete? Fan1967 01:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Social concept created for Humberto J. Arcadia in 1989 presented as a Thesis" ... I think that pretty much seals the deal that this is orgiinal research. Delete. Aplomado talk 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it has a copyright tag. Get rid of it. - Richardcavell 01:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Hobbeslover 01:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the above. Gwernol 02:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete awful! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. And maybe vanity as well. Kevin 02:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete copyright tag...no good. Chuck(척뉴넘) 08:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, copyright problems here, shouldn't this be speedied under A8? --Terence Ong 10:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't think it is copied from a commercial web site, so it would not qualify under A8. Accurizer 10:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete if someone claims copyright, even if we can't find that copyrighted material on the internet. Mak (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What a waste of everyone's time.Moreschi 19:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Complete rubbish Aspern 21:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 22:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Copyright issues, in bad faith, and the stub doesn't have enough information to be expanded even if it was okay. Delete it ASAP - Tomodachigai
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango123 (e) 18:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Comedy Spot

Fairly non-notable. Granted, some of the performances its hosted are notable, but that doesn't mean that every place that these people visit becomes notable. Will withdraw if notability is asserted Hobbeslover 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As nominator Hobbeslover 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't the yellow pages. This is advertising. There is no semblance of importance to compare with notable comedy clubs like Catch a Rising Star and The Comedy Store. The club is only a year old. IrishGuy 01:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. I've been to the Ballston Common Mall on many occassions, and I can guarantee you there is nothing notable there. Aplomado talk 01:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 01:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability. Kevin 02:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IrishGuy. -- Scientizzle 07:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Irishguy. Chuck(척뉴넘) 08:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong 10:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 22:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IrishGuy. — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Aplomada, not notable enough, but if it was, the article could be salvaged. - Tomodachigai
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (and cleanup). — FireFox 10:14, 29 May '06

[edit] Gricel mamery

Not notable -- only 425 ghits. hello,gadren 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Whoa. I'd like me a slice of that. Delete unless someone can provide reasonable evidence of notability ... please someone find evidence. Aplomado talk 01:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. The article reads as if it was put together by copy-paste, too, but I don't care enough to do the research to find out since she's NN anyway. Devotchka 01:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly unverifiable as there are no sources. Gwernol 02:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    Keep per CrazyRussian, as long as the article is rewritten and properly sourced. Gwernol 04:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Clear Keep what sources? How about this: Anda Pa'l Cara? The article is awful, of course, but we can and should rewrite it into a decent stub. Hope the pics are not copyvios :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no verification and little evidence of notability Kevin 02:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per CrazyRussian. Former host of a notable Puerto Rican TV show. This article obviously needs to be re-written, but deleting it would reflect a terrible bias against non-English speakers and cultures. --Cheapestcostavoider 03:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per CrazyRussian. She is a notable personality. The article is just horrible in its current incarnation. GassyGuy 04:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (sorry, re-signing this, didn't realize I wasn't logged on)
  • She's pretty. Keep, slap on clean-up notice. Vizjim 09:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, rewrite, rename (capitalise)(not sure if I should move it while its at AFD), and fix overlapping text and pic. Chuck(척뉴넘) 09:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable celebrity, the article is just messy, needs some cleanup. --Terence Ong 10:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak move, wrong surname case. Anyway a lot of improvement is it needed. -- Cate 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, to fight against ignorance-based assertions of non-notability. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 21:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to correct name, and cleanup. — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As the author of this article, I did not intend it to be a Pulitzer winning biography, but this artist has been in Puerto Rican spotlight for many years, she is not a full scale celebrity even by Puerto Rican standarts ( those standarts are very high at the moment with artists like, Daddy Yankee, Ricky Martin, Jennifer Lopez, Benicio Del Toro, Roselyn Sanches ect. ). My primary language is not english pardon my inproper usage of some words and syntax mistakes. The image is a scan from a weekly magazine this current issue is out of regulation and is about 7 years old, if another image is needed I can provide an original photography, which is purely free of any comercial attachment. Deciding if this artist is notable seems purely subjective, I had the impression this was frowned upon in this project. I did not copy paste this, most of this information I gather from magazines I currently own. My writing is being harshly scrutinized and there are many grammar errors in the posts critizising mine, I do expect we are all adults, and I can take critizism of my grammar, and syntax but there are better ways to come across without making mockering of my composition. Thank you for your time.

zetback 18:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC) 18:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve the article, notable figure. The image looks like a mis-licensed collage of copyrighted shots, though, and as such should probably be Deleted. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 22:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep per Gwernol M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and fix; appears to meet notability guidelines. I have noted the image on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, however, and will post to the uploader's talk page. MCB 05:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The image I provided is not a collage it is a scan of a page inside a magazine, that current magazine is out of print, it is not available comercialy, I found the scan in the internet, sorry if I misunderstood the image policy, I have original photography a photographer friend of mine took, that I can upload if necessary. - sorry for misunderstanding - --zetback 06:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't really see any problem with the notability (except that it seems local to Puerto Rico). And there's really no need to discuss that it needs to be cleaned up since the Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, and /most/ of it's articles need cleaning. Keep it. No point in destorying a valuable article. - Tomodachigai


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Sasquatch t|c 02:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sushicide

Google search. Neologism. Beno1000 01:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Give me a break. Aplomado talk 01:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even worthy of a Wikidictionary entry. Devotchka 01:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Hobbeslover 01:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a protologism, probably also falls under WP:NFT. Gwernol 02:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. (And here I was thinking that the article would be something about fugu!) Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I am not deigning that with a Googling. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Naconkantari 02:31, 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 deleted. Mackensen (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghetto Preservation Society

Offensive hoax, author deleted speedy and hoax tags w/o explanation NawlinWiki 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as a painfully obvious hoax. Aplomado talk 01:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as unfunny hoax. Devotchka 01:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete under A6 and A7. Author removed prod, not a speedy. I tagged it as a speedy and am voting for redundancy Hobbeslover 01:49, 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 10:22, 29 May '06

[edit] Dan_McDowell

  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}}

Deleting this page would be an internet abortion and travesty on par with the attempted systematic genecide as witnessed in Sudan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.130.42.232 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 May 2006

New User probably came here after he heard Bob and Dan read the Wikipedia articles over the air. JohnM4402

Nonsense, unverifiable claimes about what his childern can and can not say. JohnM4402 01:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Before anyone goes about deleting the AfD tag, please note the following Wikipedia guideline "You must not modify or remove the AFD notice. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion

Another note is that it is Wikipedia Official Policy that "1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

  • Keep / Cleanup. It needs sources, or all the unverfiable statements need to be nixed. The article shouldn't outright get deleted, though. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The High Times reference seems to show notability. Should be tagged for cleanup Kevin 02:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete In Googling "Dan McDowell," only one of the top 20 hits relates to this Dan McDowell. Googling "Dan McDowell" + "BaD Radio" gives less than 400 hits and only 75 unique hits. Being mentioned in High Times means nothing- he could've been nominated for "Sports Radio Personality of the Year" because he's great at talking about sports, or it could be because he's great at talking about pot. -- Kicking222 04:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not worth cleaning up. RobLinwood 04:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If Googling something is a fair barometer for such an obviously respectable place like Wikipedia, then I die laughing. Anyways, while you're at it, try Googling "the ticket" which is the radio station that Dan McDowell broadcasts from. Hell, simply google "ticket" and see what you get. Also, email him at dan@theticket.com and ask him how his daughter pronounces the word "clock" because numerous times now, he has related over the airwaves of this broad land that his very young daughter prounounces the word "clock" as "cock". You guys have no clue what your'e talking about, and if you had any objectivity whatsoever you'd know that Dan McDowell is a prominent radio host in the fifth largest radio market in the United States. --Monosylab1k 05:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
* You are treading on a very Slippery Slope to use the argument that anything suposedly said on the air is fit for inclusion into a Wikipedia article. If you stand by that argument, then I will have to add to the article a quote from Dan when he said "I like hot dogs. I eat them for breakfast." I heard it just last week while I was driving home from lunch.
What part of "1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. " do you not understand? Simply emailing him and getting a response would be "original research" which is also not allowed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_research JohnM4402 17:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
And what part of "i googled this guy and didn't get any hits, so delete it" comes from a reputable source? Be consistent. You want to delete this page but use questionable methods like "i googled" to do it.--65.170.1.10 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
* You should take the time and read over the comments again, I never said I "googled" anything. JohnM4402 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
* You should take the time and read over my comments as well, I never said you did. You is referring to people trying to have the page deleted. You're not important enough to speak with on a one-to-one basis. This is for the entire page. Merry Christmas.
* Using the Google Test (while not policy) is generally accepted throughout the Wikipedia community as being a very good method of determining notability. "I googled" is not a questionable method at all. Also, googling "ticket" is an awful way to determine the notability of a guy named "Dan McDowell". --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Minor, minor celeb... If he's really "Hooked on cannabis", he may become a notable medical study. -- GWO
  • Spaghetti. I like spaghetti. The noodles are good on their own, but they become particularly delicious when combined with tomato sauce and meatballs. Noodlinator 10:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 10:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into KTCK Once the article has been cleared up from POV and uncited claims removed (as per WP:BLP) theres not a great deal left, and can be easily be fit in a short paragraph about hosts in KTCK Regards, MartinRe 18:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This and all other ticket pages should be KEPT.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.213.243 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 May 2006

  • Merge into KTCK It needs to be cleaned of the unencylopaedic/uncited stuff. The remaining few lines (name, when he started work at KTCK and the magazine nomination - assuming cites can be found for those) can be merged into KTCK and the article redirected. - Motor (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 22:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please Note Bob and Dan just read their articles over the air on their afternoon show here in Dallas. Expect some new users and off the wall comments...JohnM4402 20:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - aarrghhh!! my deletionist tendencies are coming out! — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Note The man (JohnM4402) leading the charge for the deletion of the Bob and Dan pages is a fan of Randy Galloway, who broadcasts from the rival sports radio station in Dallas. Unite, P-1's, because this man works for the enemy!--Monosylab1k 21:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Most of the GHits are NOT this guy. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Mainly seems to be a joke. Unsourced etc.--Nick Y. 00:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice, per above Hobbeslover 01:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep radio personalities are notable (see Mark and Brian) in current state contents of article are dire need of cleanup but to delete it after a couple days seems rushed. --MarsRover 02:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is presently unsourced, poorly written, and non-encyclopedic. However, I think the subject of the article does have sufficient notability for Wikipedia. In addition to being a local radio celebrity, he apparently has appeared in minor roles in a couple of movies, and even has an IMdB page. Moreover, the incident with Lee Corso did indeed occur, although the retelling of this incident will certainly need major rewriting. -- SwissCelt 12:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. If verifiable information can be obtained, a new article could be created, but I don't see anything here that needs to be kept. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Arthur Rubin.--Peta 05:07, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apple Bowl Stadium

I propose this article be deleted. A quick search on Google for "Apple Bowl Stadium" reveals multiple articles on various wikis that contain the same text. It is clearly spam. Mikesc86 02:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or a very serious clean-up. Doesn't seem to be an important stadium, but I'm having trouble finding out for sure. Devotchka 02:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete probably should have been speedied for insufficient context/content Kevin 02:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RobLinwood 04:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 22:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Harryboyles 23:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't understand what the article is about. --Starionwolf 05:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas bratcher

Delete Nick here published one book, "Detention" on PublishAmerica, an awful "vanity mill". Detention is available on Amazon [1], and its Sales Rank is 1,998,267, which is dreadful. The 1st paragraph of the article is pure vanity, and the 2nd paragraph of the article is a copyvio from Amazon. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Awful article and NN, unless being sold on Amazon qualifes one for notability, which I don't think it does. Hope the author of the book didn't write the article itself; it doesn't say much for his talent. Devotchka 02:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified. Ziggurat 02:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence that this author passes WP:BIO. Kevin 03:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NN. RobLinwood 04:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 22:59, 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 merged and redirect. Mailer Diablo 17:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RCAF Station Downsview

Improperly formatted AfD. Fixing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Article lacks much notable content. And I'm being nice to you by using AfD; most cases it would be CSD. --Alicia Lindgren 01:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've boldly redirected to CFB Downsview, which is a marginally better article. Feel free to revert if you really want the article deleted. Kevin 03:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's already redirected, but the target article needs much work to be kept. B.Wind 15:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep This place does seem notable, the article is sadly lacking in content, but many great articles started that way. HighInBC 16:22, 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 10:23, 29 May '06

[edit] Workplace game

This doesn't seem even remotely necessary. If someone could come up with workplace games, maybe it would be worth keeping, but right now it barely qualifies as a dictionary entry, let alone Wiki. Devotchka 02:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • As it stands, there's no encyclopedic content. Delete. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The thing is real, but it'll never be an article b/c there isn't enough to say on the topic. Useless as a redirect. Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough content for Wikipedia. Kevin 03:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 23:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete possibly {{db-empty}} Computerjoe's talk 09:48, 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 10:23, 29 May '06

[edit] Friday's Child (band)

Notability. Does someone having a webpage suddenly make them important enough for an article?

  • no vote yet redirect to Friday's Child (band). The current is just a disambiguation page. Devotchka 02:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The article needs some serious expansion and cleanup, but they do have a CD. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. Haven't heard of them but the band appears to be notable. Around for ten years, fairly notable [[2]] as far as their page bio goes. Needs a stub tag. Devotchka 02:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. They have four CDs released since 2000 albeit on minor labels. However, the claim in the current article seems a bit over-the-top. They have an Allmusic.com entry but not a biography see [3]. The current article is a substub though. Capitalistroadster 03:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Where's the notability here? They completely fail WP:MUSIC, as releasing albums on minor labels and exisiting for a long time are not claims of significance. The single-sentence article just links to their web site and mentions an Internet poll. In fact, both the WP article and their official bio on their site mention this poll, but NEVER SAY WHO CONDUCTED THE POLL, WHO VOTED IN THE POLL, OR WHEN THE POLL TOOK PLACE. I couldn't find anything about this on Google, and as a result, the article also fails WP:V. And an AllMusic page without a biography maens nothing. -- Kicking222 04:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, if they won a poll that included 10 MILLION people, you'd think somebody would've already written a (considerably more extensive) WP article about them. -- Kicking222 04:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, though I do fear upsetting 10 million viewers. RobLinwood 04:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, new band, does not meet WP:MUSIC and is clearly unverifyable to wikipedia standards - Peripitus 10:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see how they pass WP:MUSIC. Kevin 10:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC criteria. --Terence Ong 11:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no credible claim of notability. Ten million people? Hmmm. --Aquillion 17:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable.
  • Delete Non -notable, very doubtful claims as to 10,000,000 Aspern 21:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The 10,000,000 people claim is only made by their own website, but it doesn't cite any sources either. We can't verify that the poll was actually performed and under what circumstances. Mtmelendez 12:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, press page notes multiple non-trivial media mentions, including Fox News and various radio interviews. Also noted in a 2002 book. Easily reaches WP:MUSIC bar. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC.  Grue  08:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or radical rewrite - "new" bands are generally non-notable (except when members are in themselves notable), and one sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 15:43, 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. If the author wants this to be userfied, I'd be willing to undelete this article and copy it into her userspace. Please ask if you want me to do this. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cause marketing

Not 100% sure, but this looks like "paste in and edit so it's less an advertisement". The author appears to be the editor of the book (at any rate the same name as listed on the cover of the book). This reads like a big marketing spiel and not an encyclopedia article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JByrd (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom. Devotchka 02:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (I had prodded this previously, for what it's worth). --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Some vanity, some OR, some advertisement. Basically, a little of this, a little of that, a lot of deletion. -- Kicking222 04:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the author and I took parts from my book about cause marketing and put it in wikipedia - I spent over 18 months researching and writing the book. If it looks like a cut and paste - what's wrong with that if the information is legitimate? Jocelyne Daw (User:Jocelyne Daw)

  • Comment "Cause marketing" appears to be a really big thing (200,000 Google hits). It sounds very worthy of an article, but this--in its current form--is not at all encyclopedic. I request that User:Jocelyne Daw be given a chance to rewrite this (as has expertise in this field), as long as it conforms to the pillars, espcially WP:NPOV & WP:V, and meets WP:STYLE. Are you willing to do so, Jocelyne? (This article can't and shouldn't be a marketing vehicle for any of your particular works, but you should feel free to cite your works, among others, in an encyclopedic rewrite.) If User:Jocelyne Daw agrees, can we move this article to her namespace while she works on it? -- Scientizzle 07:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I second Scientizzle's suggestions and have added external links & other book titles as a bibliography. Vizjim 09:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - good suggestion scientizzle. THE KING 13:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with Scientizzle's suggest. That sounds like a fine way to resolve this. JByrd 13:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite per Scientizzle above. If someone has expertise in a field, then we should encourage their contributions. (Just as long as they're verifiable, not original research, and their references are cited.) --Elkman 19:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advetisment. ILovePlankton ( L) 23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not having encyclopedic content. If the author would rewrite to encyclopedic standards (which I've seen no sign of, so far), Week Keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I have contacted the author, but have not yet received a response. If User:Jocelyne Daw doesn't respond here prior to the closing of this AfD, I support deletion. She can create an encyclopedic article in the future... -- Scientizzle 17:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy - if it's not copyvio, it's vanity. B.Wind 15:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless somebody wants to remove all that POV advertising and then put a valid stub explaining the method of marketing it should be deleted. I think it is a valid subject, but the article would be better edited from scratch. HighInBC 16:24, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 05:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin_Chong

Vanity page and userfy Dredscott 02:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Looks like he's prominent enough to me. A Google search for "Neil Young Nation", for example, shows that it's even appeared in the NYT Book Review. The article is pretty stubby but it should be kept. Devotchka 02:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He's notable enough as a published author. --Cheapestcostavoider 03:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable as published author. Current sales rank on Amazon and BarnesandNoble.com sufficient for current book to meet WP:BIO for authors. —ERcheck @ 03:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep any author in the NYT Book Review.--Pharos 04:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's been edited by too many to call it vanity, and he seems to have been published enough to pass WP:BIO. Kevin 11:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria. --Terence Ong 11:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Extremely notable. Computerjoe's talk 14:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 23:32, 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 05:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pooranee Inspirations

Non notable web design firm, the article fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:CORP - blue520 02:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as waste of space. Devotchka 03:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If there is notability, the article certainly doesn't mention it. -- Kicking222 04:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RobLinwood 04:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per no-content (and I think recreating previously deleted page) -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable. --Bolasanibk 08:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the article fails to show anything whatsoever, let alone notability. Kevin 11:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Add-on Nomination This article also has a redirect and duplicate (someone removed the AfD and made the page a redirect to it) that should both be deleted - Pooranee and Pooranee Inspirations (pvt) Ltd The second has been marked as AfD, and the first will just fit CSD after these 2 are gone. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 03:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Breakfast Monkey

Assuming all that's in this page is true -- it's a show pitched to the Cartoon Network, that got rejected, and only a pilot was made and unaired, and nothing else came of it. Not notable at all. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Richardcavell 03:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not good enough for cable tv. RobLinwood 04:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see how a rejected cartoon pilot is notable. Kevin 11:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 02:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice should this become more notable at a later date. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As an artist, it's sad when your material gets rejected. That being said, this is totally non-notable. (Wikipedia is not a memorial!) Grandmasterka 04:54, 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 no consensus, leaning to merge. Mailer Diablo 17:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copient Technologies

Seems very NN. Author of the page admits he works there in his profile.Devotchka 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. Mailer Diablo 05:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vainglory

Delete - dicdef. Although this was kept last time - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vainglory - nothing has happened to it since. It is uncategorised. Mais oui! 03:16, 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 10:26, 29 May '06

[edit] Arbornet

Non-notable organization, article is somewhat comprehensive so discussion on AfD seems appropriate. Gail Wynand 03:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep Organization is mentioned in several news sources. Bongout 03:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Arbornet's M-net is apparently the world's first public access Unix system, which sounds pretty notable, but I can't find many sources on Arbornet itself. Zepheus 04:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Grex if either of them make it through AfD. RobLinwood 04:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I wonder if a merge of both Arbornet and Grex into a new "History of computer conferencing in Ann Arbor" article linked from the Ann Arbor article would be appropriate. My concern is that these individual BBSs have very little notability, but a strong claim can be made that the history of computer conferencing in Ann Arbor is, in fact, a notable subject. Gail Wynand 19:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment We're not talking about a whole fleet of old-fashioned bbs's, but rather, just two systems, both of which incorporated as community-based 501-c-3 nonprofits, and both of which have been running continuously for many years with thousands of users each. They are related, of course, but distinct. There is no third or fourth or nth separate story to fold into a broader discussion. Kestenbaum 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete although M-Net may be notable, I don't see any evidence that Arbotnet passes WP:CORP. Kevin 11:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zepheus --Ed (Edgar181) 12:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Per Zepheus Computerjoe's talk 14:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Arbornet is not a for-profit company, thus should not be judged on the basis of WP:CORP. Nathan 15:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Seems to be the oldest not-for-profit public access unix system in the USA--Nick Y. 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Article referring to M-Net as the world's first public access Unix system. Mnet also has its own wikipedia page, which Arbornet oddly doesn't even link to. Zepheus 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Mnet is not the same thing. There is a dab link to Arbornet at M-Net. Kestenbaum 20:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This article is extremely important.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daloonik (talk • contribs) 2006-05-25 04:19:35 (UTC) User's 8th edit; a suspected sockpuppet of User:Bongout. Henning Makholm 02:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep M-Net is pretty significant in the history of online conferencing, predating The WELL, which started on the same software and with (as I understand it) some people from M-Net. The WELL had more stars and got more national attention, but M-Net and its spinoff Grex (also the subject of a current AfD) had more users; together they served as a major community resource. Kestenbaum 20:30, 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 snowy delete. Sango123 (e) 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ray's Parlour

4 Ghits TOTAL and the only one that seems relevant is the Wikipedia entry itself. NN. Devotchka 03:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, and delete now It's obviously just a nonsense article. It's a play on words and nothing more. I've been racking my brain to think of some speedy deletion criteria this fits into, but I just can't come up with it. -- Kicking222 04:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly non-notable.--Pharos 04:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Borderline nonsense. RobLinwood 04:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete One-off joke about the Romford Pele. -- GWO
  • Delete as the article doesn't assert anything, let alone notability. Than again, maybe I'm giving it too much credit. Kevin 11:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if this is not a hoax (and I can't remember it) it was just a bit in a forgotten show [4] and is therefore nowhere near notable enough for its own entry. Keresaspa 13:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn borderline nonsense, dubious veracity: I don't recall this programme actually occurring. Qwghlm 18:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't know what this has to do with a parlor. --Starionwolf 05:40, 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 per author's request--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bio Fox

Tagged for speedy deletion with this note: "CSD A7 - Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages. Author admits to being the owner of said "company" (read userpage), and does nothing to assert notability in article." This is not according to my interpretation of policy a speedy criterion, though it certainly is a valid deletion criterion. Listing here for review. No vote. Chick Bowen 03:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Richardcavell 03:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I could not agree more. Wikipedia is not a blog. --Alphachimp talk 03:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. CSD A7 permits speedy deletion of blatent vanity pages with no assertion of notability, hence my tagging it as such. You do need to AfD if the vanity of the article is disputed at all, but the author did not offer anything that may be construed as a sign of notability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be nice to have clarification about whether corporations could be included. I did delete a dog under A7 not long ago, but people seem to get pissed off if you interpret it too liberally. Chick Bowen 04:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, makes sense. I don't know if this even counts as a corporation, but I understand where you're coming from. I'll go a little heavier on the AfD nominating, even though it is a bit of a pain :) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity blog posts. RobLinwood 04:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--blue520 11:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Alphachimp. Kevin 11:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, nn. --Terence Ong 12:21, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grex

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Non-notable BBS whose only claim to fame seems to be as a plaintiff in an obscure state court case. Wikipedia is not a BBS registry. Gail Wynand 03:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. Article doesn't seem to have nearly as much importance as the other current BBS AfD. Bongout 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 04:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain, but see also Super Dimension Fortress for a similar system. RobLinwood 04:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Grex was fairly popular in the early days of the Internet for its @cyberspace.org e-mail addresses, which was of course l33t k3wl and everyone wanted one. I don't think this should be deleted, but I'm not sure how this info is relevant today. Danny Lilithborne 04:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see evidence of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Modify to Cyberspace Communications, the non-profit organization that operates Grex. The number of citings that Cyberspace v Engler has received indicates the organization has notability. Nathan Harmon 15:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain, Grex has notability as a TRUE free speech forum[Larry Smith]
  • Abstain, Grex's free speech case, cyberspace communicatons v Engler, has been cited as precedent in several other major free speech cases, on the state and federal level. Grex should remain listed. [richard wallner]
  • Strong keep. Why not. Daloonik 04:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 04:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of appreciation here is that Grex, like Arbornet or SDF/freeshell.org: Super Dimension Fortress or nyx.net and few others are Unix shell providers, free for anybody anywhere (membership fees are optional and allow to get a better set of commands/functionality).Very few community-run unix systems have been existing so long, allowing people to get familiarity with what is the most important operating system in the internet infrastucture and history.See for instance the links in the Google subcategory: Internet > Access Providers > Unix Shell Providers > Free Shells or the Dmoz one: [5] The BBS software/service is just a part of these systems, contrary to the full dedicated Bbs. The "Non-notable BBS" characterization stated as motive for deletion is a very narrowed point of view. AntonioB 05:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The free speech case is widely cited and is hardly obscure, and the nature of Grex as a creative community forum was critical in broadening the plaintiffs from groups which could be dismissed (at least politically) as primarily concerned with sex. Moreover, tens of thousands of users have participated in Grex as a free public access Unix system, a very unusual resource. The Well developed from the exactly the same software, and some of the people and ideas surrounding Grex and its predecessor, but the Well and Grex developed in significantly different directions based on a different emphasis in first principles. Kestenbaum 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The freedom of speech question on grex has been at issue for some time now: a staff member left in a huff and deleted significant portions of the BBS, which the other staff members declined to restore. I don't think freedom of speech is relevant to that article.
  • Keep and Move to Cyberspace Communications; both CC and Arbornet were instrumental in several legal cases (civil and criminal). -James Howard (talk/web) 15:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It should be noted the above user has been banned more than once. Bongout 05:31, 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 both articles. Mailer Diablo 05:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RBI2k Leagues and RBI2k6

A non-notable online gaming league. Following the link to their official website in the article results in "This URL is Not Currently in Use." If you look at RBI2k6 you can see that they plan individual pages for each of their teams, for their stats, schedule, the list goes on and on. All of these fail every aspect of WP:WEB and it should go without saying that Wikipedia is not a free web host. --Hetar 04:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom RobLinwood 04:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete is a no-brainer, but the article also doesn't even attempt to assert notability, so can it be speedied? Of course, either way... deletion. -- Kicking222 04:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • And in case there was any question about the complete lack of notability here, "RBI2K" gets 12 total Google hits. -- Kicking222 04:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete please. Wikipedia is not the wiki to hold all other wikis. (meaning that if someone wishes to make an RB12k wiki, they should get their own and not clutter this one). Mak (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 12:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Grandmasterka 04:56, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talented offerings for programs in the sciences

Original research, institutional self-promotion, NPOV, and also not notable RobLinwood 04:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete It looks like self-promotion and an advertisment. --Starionwolf 04:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a program guide for colleges. Kevin 11:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I attend the school at which the program is held, and I must say that the article written is very self serving and only mentions what organizers would put in a brochure. As well, the program is only held at one high school in the world, and I do not believe it is well known enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. --Pouchkidium 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:29, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabe Zander

See Talk:Gabe Zander for all the pertinent research...This appears to be an article about a pretty non-notable musician. Zander's only chance at meeting WP:MUSIC is that he's the co-founder (a claim I've not found verified) of a barely-notable band, the Oi! Scouts, and he's been featured in a single article for Nashville Scene (which presented him as a street artist trying to break into the scene). No discography found other than 1 demo. I think the Oi! Scouts might be worthy of an article, and I'm surprised there's no article for Nashville Scene, but I believe this article should be deleted: subject not notable and claims not verifiable. -- Scientizzle 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment One mistake--the Nashville Scene article does state that Zander was a member of the Oi! Scouts, but nothing about status as a co-founder. Sorry about that, folks. -- Scientizzle 05:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn per nom. RobLinwood 04:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC, fails WP:V, POV problems, one minor mention in a not-particularly-prominent publication. Incredibly non-notable, from his singing of "mountain punk" (whatever that is) to writing songs in 2000 that have still not been released. An aside (which in no way affects my vote): Claiming a band "left a lasting impact on the music scene of northern New Jersey and much of east coast America" is psychotically pompous. Hell, forget the East Coast part- I'm from Northern NJ, and I've never heard a band say, "We're heavily influenced by the Oi Scouts!" -- Kicking222 04:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn musician, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 12:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:29, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campus Church

A nn church in Florida. Has had a lack of notability template on it for almost a year and no edits have been made. There is no information about why this church is notable or encylopaedic, and it only gets 800 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I have speedied its pastor, Jim Schettler. RobLinwood 04:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn church. --Terence Ong 12:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable church. The article is part of a series of articles about PCC-related institutions and people. -Will Beback 02:06, 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 to speedily delete. From Friday, the admin who deleted article: The comic was created by a user named xbox_xpert14 and hosted on the Gmod forums. The creator of the series never finished the series, only getting to episode 4 before stopping production. I am closing this on his behalf. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 09:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Single Act of Revenge

Non-notable, defunct webcomic. Audience seems limited in scope to a single forum, and it doesn't sound like it had a very long run. As well, the article actually seems to contain the whole of the webcomic, which certainly has to fall under one of those categories of what the Wikipedia is not. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:50, 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 06:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Hatcher

Non-notable blogger/journalist. Crystallina 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as failing WP:BIO. RobLinwood 04:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kevin 11:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 12:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:30, 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. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carmel Christian Centre, Bristol

An article about a nn church in Bristol. Gives no information about why this church is notable enough to be featured on Wikipedia. Only gets 336 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn church. --Terence Ong 12:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. DakPowers (Talk) 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn --Nick Y. 00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Individual churches are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 02:10, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Childs Hill Baptist Church

A nn article about a church in Enland. No information about why it is in any way notable or encyclopaedic. It only gets 59 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn church. --Terence Ong 12:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. DakPowers (Talk) 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn--Nick Y. 00:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Individual churches are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 02:10, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 06:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Christian Church Milsons Point

An nn article about a church in Sydney. It contains no information about why it is in any way notable or encylopaedic. Only gets 149 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn church. --Terence Ong 13:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. DakPowers (Talk) 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless thirdparty sources are found that indicate verifiabilty or notability. A search of an Australia New Zealand database came up with nothing about this particular church worthy as it may be. Capitalistroadster 22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of an unusual/noteworthy characteristics.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for non-notability. --Roisterer 03:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Individual churches are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 02:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the church is quite historic (as is the building too). What makes a church article notable or non-notable? Can people think about this before you just say delete? (JROBBO 13:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC))
    • How is it noteworthy/historic? What separates it from the hundreds and thousands of other churches in Australia? Did something historically of note happen there? Does its hierarchy include people who have been noted in Australian national media? That's how you can start asserting notability. It's easily to say that "******* is the second largest Chinese Christian church in (choose country besides China)," but that in itself doesn't make it notable, I'm afraid. More is needed in the article. B.Wind 21:33, 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 06:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chipping Campden Baptist Church

An nn church in England. Contains no information about why it is in any way notable or encyclopaedic. Only gets 50 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an historic building in Chipping Campden, and needs expanding dvc214 09:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment, could we have verifiable sources for this? --Terence Ong 13:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just ran the Google myself. Non-notable. DakPowers (Talk) 19:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No substantial claim of notablility--Nick Y. 00:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Individual churches are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 02:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning to keep. Mailer Diablo 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Catholic Apostolic Church

An article about an nn church or religion, it doesn't quite say. Contains no information about why this sect is in any way founded, or if it has any contemporaries or current following, only that it was founded. It only gets 235 Google hits, of which Wikipedia is the first. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. This sect was founded in 1896, and has 3,000 members according to the Columbia Encyclopedia, which obviously considers it notable.--Pharos 06:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The fact they may get a better write-up elsewhere doesn't improve the nn here.Tychocat 10:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if its good enough for a paper encyclopædia it sure as hell is for here. Jcuk 11:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable church with its long history, definitely notable. --Terence Ong 13:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep tychochat that is rubbish, the fact that it has a better write up elsewhere MEANS that it is notable here! THE KING 13:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seems notable to me, though it may have had more relevance in the past than now. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep either needs more meat, or else should be merged into John Alexander Dowie. Crum375 19:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Expand within five days - delete if not so done. There is more information in this discussion than in the one-sentence "stub." B.Wind 21:38, 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 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery of the Ages

An article about an nn religious book. Contains no information about why the book is notable, and almost the entire content is an ad. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, but it should be made into a stub. There are already a lot of links to the article from other articles related to the Worldwide Church of God. RelHistBuff 07:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an ad. Tychocat 10:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, although I love the fact that the first part of the book explains why "the author wrote the book" and the second part why "the book was written". Talk about redundancy! --Agamemnon2 10:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn book. --Terence Ong 13:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom's reasons. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, WP:N not established. Crum375 18:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Nick Y. 00:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it should be made into a stub. Very scant other information is available on this book, and listing the table of contents, while unfortunately under-developed, does not constitute an ad. Instead, this article should be expanded to include the book's arguments, refutations and counter-arguments..--Day viewing 23:59, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1975 in Prophecy!

Basically an advertisement for an nn religious book by a small sect. Gets only 268 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep--the Google hits reference it so much that it seems notable to me. Perhaps not well-known, but notable.Devotchka 05:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - not an ad as does not seem to be in print any more. As long as Worldwide Church of God remains notable, publications by them ( particularly bizarre ones like this ) remain notable. - Peripitus 10:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 13:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Seems notable at least for the illustrations and for its weirdness.--Nick Y. 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Rather bizarre and probably not very widely-known, but it is linked to by a number of articles and has enough of a presence elsewhere to convince me that it is notable. Grandmasterka 05:03, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jessie_Jane_Duff

Delete. vanity page; nn hence unverifiable. --MishaMisha 05:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep but clean-up. She has a fair number of google hits that appear to make her somewhat notable. She's been interviewed by MSNBC and CNN, for example. Devotchka 05:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Is 90 hits on Google (reduced to 31 when similar pages are omitted) a fair number? Many Wikipedians would probably cite that as evidence of being nn, especially since (as always) a sizeable fraction of those results are Wikipedia itself, pages on the Americans for Rice site, or completely nn blogs. --MishaMisha 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO and only notability is her web-based promotion in related to Americans for Dr. Rice. - Peripitus 10:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. She's the chairperson of a national organization that is itself notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. This article is linked from a couple of others. Much of the article is verifiable at the external links. Before the AFD, I put a clean-up tag on it because it reads like promotional piece.Deli nk 11:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, meets notability criteria. --Terence Ong 13:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Week keep Seems to be nationally known with some press interest in her. As others have noted, the article would be improved with less shamless promotion (self-promotion?). --Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The organization she works for is notable she is not. Not everyone who has 15 minutes of fame on TV is notable.--Nick Y. 01:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - just working for a notable organization does not make one notable. Also, vanity. Wickethewok 04:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with Americans for Dr. Rice. Vanity and n.n. Nrets 17:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Americans for Dr. Rice - nominated article needs trimming and other clean-up; proposed target needs more information. Since her notability stems from AFDR, it would make more sense to put a biography summary there. B.Wind 21:43, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herman L. Hoeh

A non-sourced, POV article about an nn person. Has had a template askign for sources for nearly a year with no further edits. The person in question only gets 379 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn-bio, since it cannot be verified, deleting is the last resort. --Terence Ong 13:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see evidence of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm going to abstain for now, based on RelHistBuff's comment below. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't get the idea that a brilliant google search result is equivalent to being notable. One can get bad results by using the wrong search terms. Try searching on Herman Hoeh without the middle initial and you get 23200 results! Then follow the links. He is definitely notable. I agree though that the article needs sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RelHistBuff (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. The first link times out or is broken. Can't find any other reference to support WP:BIO notability. Crum375 19:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with World wide church of god--Nick Y. 01:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:32, 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 No consensus, even after discounting the many new users and anons. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Man Law

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Advertising campaign is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own article, or even a mention in another article. Google search on +"man laws" +flynn +renteria (the latter two being characters from the commercial) gets one hit only - the Wikipedia article.[6] Might it become notable? Perhaps, but WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not_a crystal ball. Шизомби 05:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. "Google test" aside, I'm not sure an article describing this particular beer commercial series is encyclopedic. --DavidGC 05:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The actor who plays the character of "The Scribe" in these commercials (I can't remember his name now) was featured on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno recently, and the video clip was of a commercial from this series. Also, performing a Google Search on "man law" "miller lite" will get 15,200 hits. However, I will refrain from voting as I cannot decide if this is enough to establish it as notable, nor am I completely convinced (or unconvinced) that this content is encyclopedic. GassyGuy 05:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I get 272 hits for +"man law" +"miller lite" [7] Шизомби 05:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Apologies, you are correct. I had dropped my quotation marks from "Miller Lite" when I obtained the erroneous high number. GassyGuy 05:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now (crystal ball). Personally, I think this campaign is a good one and may make a similar impact as the Budweiser Frogs (decent article, considering the subject). I think we'll see this make a legitimate comeback a few months after it's deleted. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 06:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep,There is no official policy on notability. Given that this advertising campaign has seen presence beyond the ads themselves, including but not limited to appearances on popular talk shows (like The Tonight Show With Jay Leno), news articles (NYT [8], Detroit Free Press [9] and Business Week [10]) blog presence, etc; this topic is rapidly becoming a component of popular culture distinct from the product with which it is associated. This topic does not satisfy any of the what wikipedia is not; Crystal ball is reserved for the removal of articles which speak exclusively of future events, this is an event in progress. A Google search for "man law" gives 3 of the top 10 on this subject (none wikipedia). Kershner 15:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable advertising campaign. Similar to Spuds MacKenzie, Where's the beef?, Joe Isuzu, etc. The "crystal ball" theory deals with speculation. This isn't a campaign that may or may not happen, it is currently ongoing. There is nothing speculative about it. AriGold 17:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I think I disagree that it has achieved that sort of notability, and I doubt that it will. It's not even a "Make 7up Yours" at this point (which doesn't have an article). I'm not sure where the criteria for a notable advertising campaign worthy of an encyclopedia article is, but I don't believe this comes close. A google search on a not-notable topic will necessarily return results that refer to it, so I'm not sure what that proves. Шизомби 18:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Current ad campaign, may be remembered, may not. We remember Supds and Joe and the beef lady long after the fact. Without a crystal ball, no way to tell if this will stand the test of time. Fan1967 21:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, There doesn't seem to be a need to delete it. The information is accurate (within the realm of the commercial), and verifiable. While the long-term relevance of the campaign may be in question, its existence is not. As long as the article is factual who's to say what others should or should not be able to look up on an encyclopedia where the content is entirely user supplied? Jedi697b 04:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - There should probably be a waiting period for articles about commercials, as its hard to tell which advertising campaigns are "important" until after the fact. Wickethewok 04:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wikipedia is and should be a place where people can go to find answers to their questions. After seeing the commercials on TV, I went to the man laws website to find out who these people were. The site provided some information, but not enough for me to identify those people outside of my experience. The Wikipedia entry provides further information on these people's identities that is not readily available and collected anywhere else. Thus deletion of this article effectively deprives would-be seekers of information of an easy avenue to the answers they seek. This is the purpose of Wikipedia. With no compelling argument in favor of deletion, any deletion discussion should wait until this topic has *left* popular culture (should it do so), not while it is of legitimate interest. This commercial series is unique in that it begs investigation and participation, a characteristic uncommon in advertising. Kershner 12:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The series seems to be expanding and it's relevant in popular culture. Mnapier 21:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The laws are quite funny. My friends discuss the new ones when they're released, and while that may not be a difference, men across the world(if this happens to be running outside of the US) may discuss it at the water cooler, and would therefore, be notable. 209.33.36.146 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now per D-Rock. lowercase 16:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I echo the comments of Kershner and Jedi697b. Comparing entries in Wikipedia to those that would be seen in normal encyclopedias should not serve as the sole barometer for what should be allowable in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has many strengths (and uses) above and beyond standard encyclopedias, and the ability to keep pace with current events is one of them. Tomwithanh 04:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Throw the term "crystal ball" around all you like, an advertising campaign with such big names is virtually guaranteed to quickly become major enough to deserve an article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comaimprint (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep - People at work have been talking about it, I heard it on a sports radio show this morning they spent about 15 minutes discussing some of the funnier ones. I have yet to see the commerical but I have visted the web site based on what friends have told me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.64.83 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete for reasons already stated. DVD+ R/W 04:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. At best include with a redirect to the article this is used in the ads for. Vegaswikian 22:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Vegaswikian, could you elaborate on what you are referring to? The ads are a collection of very similar television advertisements entitled 'Man Laws'. This article is the article for the ads themselves. The predominent content would be the cast (included) and the list of Man Laws from the commercial series (not yet in this article). Kershner 06:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. The advertising campaign is not notable yet, but if it becomes better known, the article can be recreated later. --Metropolitan90 02:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I thought this was the worst idea for an article that I could think of at the time, and I wanted to see if it would take off. Many Wikipedians like to chronicle everything that comes on TV, no matter how inane. Hey, it's on TV, so it must be kept, right? Brian G. Crawford 05:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it is notable. I rarely talk about ad campaigns with my friends, and Man laws is one of them. Arvindn 18:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable campaign. This wiki entry was the only way I could actually find the official website, google searches came up empty. It also details every member of the square table, information you can't find anywhere else. Wikipedia is a source of information, and it gave me what I wanted. People tend to come here for... anything. There is plenty of useless facts filling the wikipedia, but they are only useless until you actually want to know it. There is nothing to distinguish this from say the history of my car.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.165.200 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. After watching the commercial I felt the need to find more information, and wikipedia had not only the website linking to the main site but also notable information. Many other advertising campaigns have wikis, and therefore this one needs to also, especially as many people (such as myself) feel the need to find information about it. --ReZips 01:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a campaign that can and does require more information with very notable people within the entire campaign. I believe because of the people involved, it is notable enough to keep. A re-evaulation should occur in four months, however. --Mystalic 02:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Any relevant info can be placed on the advertising section of the Miller Lite article. Lots of "new users" and anons seem to be all of a sudden popping up....you guys know what that means.--Jersey Devil 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a notable ad campaign with each of the men except two having their own wikipedia pages about them, and the two men who do not have wikipedia pages on them can be found at IMDB and also online at other places. The page may require more information but I believe that it should stay. MBob 19:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is getting huge, I've heard people talking about it and seen people post on Internet forums wondering who the individual characters are. --Liface 22:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I see lots of claims of notability, without anything to substantiate it, except perhaps Kershner's notation of news articles. Whether news articles about ad campaigns are unusual and thus establish notability, I'm not sure. (Personally I don't care for this ad campaign or any fizzy yellow beer or lite fizzy yellow beer, but if notability really were established I wouldn't let that stand in the way of changing my recommendation.) Шизомби 23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Per the unreliable google test: "Man Laws" gave 3 of the top 10 five days ago, now it gives 8 of the top 10. The Man Laws website has received thousands of submitted man laws and has approved just over a hundred of them [11]. This interaction with the fans of the commercials is demonstrative of yet another reason why this article has continued merit. What separates this commercial series from the rest of the pack, granting notability and merit includes, but is not limited to:

It should be noted that it would probably be more appropriate for this article to be entitled 'Man Laws' instead of 'Man Law'. That error is my own. Kershner 00:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Keep It isn't hurting anything by leaving it up. Gary 00:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep I agree with the above comment. I would disagree with the original reason as well because I do believe that the campaign is notable.--Stilanas 01:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Query Шизомби, in what way does this article not satisfy the definition of notable?: "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency". Quite clearly, the commercial series prevalance on TV with a substantive 'cast', coupled with cast members on late night talk shows, news articles, blog activity and watercooler behavior establishes a wide interest group. As this is my first AfD, I am not sufficiently familiar with the Wikipedia usage of notability as a criteria to be certain that my interpretation equates that of the community as a whole. Kershner 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep i know several offenders of manlaws, and to me it is a very emotional subject.--Mattfoley 01:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment AFAIK blog activity counts for little or nothing and I'm not sure what watercooler activity you're referring to. Users posting in the AfD that they discuss this commercial at the watercooler definitely doesn't count for anything. A newspaper article in which it is reported that there is a lot of watercooler talk about this campaign might count for something (though I would suspect a slow news day and a lazy reporter working from a Miller Lite press release). Celebrities in a commercial is not unusual. The late night talk show appearances and news articles might be getting somewhere, as I wrote above, but again I'm not so sure that's unusual for a commercial either. There are any number of longer-running commercial campaigns that I can think of that don't have articles: Make 7 Up Yours, 1-800-CALL-ATT, the Old Navy Commercials, etc. (and which I'm not sure should have articles either) which to some degree makes me think this one shouldn't either. Can it be proven to be exceptionally popular (or unpopular), can it be proven to have been exceptionally successful (or unsuccessful), has it won any awards, has it been spoofed, etc.? An article for Tastes Great, Less Filling would make sense, since that campaign's notability can be easily established. Man Law, however: not now and not anytime soon, I suspect. Шизомби 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Thank you for the explanation. Obviously we have material disagreements on the notability of this topic, but your comments lead me to a better understanding of your perspective on the matter and the usage of the term notable within the Wikipedia community. My primary contention on the difference between the ad campaigns you cite and this one is that this satisfies both a dissociation of product (similar to the other Wikipedia articles cited previously) and interactivity (create / talk about man laws). These two characteristics cause the audience to have questions and comments about the commercial series and not the product. The result of this is that Wikipedia can represent a place where information on the commercial can be collected and presented concisely and for which that information has a substantive audience, as demonstrated by the many 'keeps' noted above. Kershner 01:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeta Sigma Phi

comment: The first nomination was for yet another, equally nonnotable sororyty. The vote was delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeta Sigma Phi.

  • del. No notability , no 3-rd party references (ie verifiability problem). `'mikka (t) 05:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


My vote is delete solely on principle. I think the NYU article should have persisted since they were around before the USC sorority and it has the potential to be a useful article for women wanting to join sororities at NYU. Regardless, the NYU article was deleted on the grounds that the sorority was not notable on the national level. Likewise, the USC sorority is no more national than any other sorority or fraternity with just one chapter.

  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. incog 21:43, 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 Keep, but expand. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roderick C. Meredith

A sub-stub about a nn person. No information about why this person is notable or encyclopaedic. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless someone can come up with information as to why this guy is worth an entry. Keep. LOTS of info on him on Google and it appears to be for the same guy. Devotchka 06:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The fact this stub still exists despite the "lots" of information on him elsewhere, says there's a certain lack of interest, which brings a question of actual notability. Besides, if someone's that interested, they can always write a new article later, yes? Tychocat 10:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Terence Ong 13:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Founder of one the major splinter churches of the Worldwide Church of God. Definitely encyclopaedic and notable. But as he is still alive, it's difficult to get good reliable source material and someone brave enough to write about him WP:BLP. Keep this as a stub until someone does. RelHistBuff 15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Devotchka. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Expand within 5 days, otherwise delete - one sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. Notability is a necessary component, but not sufficient in itself. The article must have substance. B.Wind 21:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Tkach Jr.

An article about an nn religious figure. Has no sourcing, appears to be a copyvio, and has no information about why this person is notable or encyclopaedic. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, but merge with Worldwide Church of God. This can be done outside the AfD process, by the way. -- SwissCelt 05:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The person is the current leader of a very controversial church. The history of the article shows that this is an article of great interest. The only problem is that no one has written anything substantial yet (it's still a stub). When I have the time, I will write one. I have made completely new contributions to the two previous leaders (Joseph W. Tkach, Herbert W. Armstrong) and those articles are stable now. RelHistBuff 07:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand, and source - notability has been established, and we've kept much slimmer articles than this. B.Wind 21:50, 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 Keep -- Longhair 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church of God International (USA)

An article about an nn religious splinter group. Contains no information about why this group is important enough to be notable or encyclopaedic. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. Please at the very least seriously google-research these before you AfD them. This sect exists in 6 countries, and had a fairly significant founder/leader in Garner Ted Armstrong.--Pharos 06:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems to have an awful [lot] of Google hits for a nn splinter group, and has reportedly some third party verifyability (Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America) - Peripitus 10:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable religous group. --Terence Ong 13:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, one of the first splinter groups of the Worldwide Church of God. Led by the founder's son. Unfortunately no one has written an article about the group. Keep it as a stub.RelHistBuff 14:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Notable for all the reasons given above. youngamerican (talk) 00:53, 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. Sango123 (e) 14:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonamis

Creator removed a prod and two CSD tags, so brought here for discussion. Appears to miss WP:MUSIC, no cites, no indication of being signed. Delete Tony Fox 05:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete CSD A7. They aren't signed- they put out their own music on Anonamis Records. The article does not try to assert notability, as there does not seem to be any. Even their bio on their web site pretty much says, "We just want to make good music and enjoy ourselves." While said statement is extremely admirable, it does not make the band important enough to have its own WP page. -- Kicking222 15:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, nn. Crum375 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - nothing indicates notability about this act. B.Wind 21:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per A7. --Slgrandson 22:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Get an admin over here to delete it before the tag can be removed. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:10, 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 delete. Sango123 (e) 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bridge Chapel, Liverpool

An article about an nn church in Liverpool. The article mentions that at some point the church changed from one form to another, but gives no specifics. No information about why this church is encyclopaedic or notable. Only gets 518 Google hits, most of which are for a hospital. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - only [377] hits by my count. No third-party articles on the church, no significant history or members. Not a notable church and as all of the information comes from within the church, not verifyable. - Peripitus 10:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn church. --Terence Ong 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete do you have something against churches? ILovePlankton ( L) 16:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable --Starionwolf 05:10, 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 Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of industrial musicians

We have Category:Industrial musicians, do we need this too? -- stubblyhead | T/c 05:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No. No, we do not. -- Kicking222 05:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Devotchka 05:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - especially since it's not even comprehensive! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 06:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Its a perfectly valid list especially as there is a category to go hand in hand with it.Jcuk 11:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That's the point. There's already a category; there's no reason to have an article too. That's what categories are for. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment My point is according to Wikipedia guidelines lists and categories can and should live happily side by side as you can do things with one that you cant with the other. Therefor it should, according to Wikipedias own guidelines be kept. Jcuk 21:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 13:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no, the catagory is plenty. Ac@osr 18:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly useful list. Lists do things that categories can't. Capitalistroadster 22:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no info beoynd name. Pavel Vozenilek 20:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church of the Little Flower

An article about an nn church in maryland. Contains no information about why this church is in any way notable or encyclopaedic. Only gets 311 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 06:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn church. --Terence Ong 13:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, I added the few info to Peter Vaghi's article, where the church is mentioned. – Alensha 寫 词 14:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn church -- Ekrub-ntyh 14:03, 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 Mostly a copyvio. Delete RN 08:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Travel Portal

Commercial link Spam promoting two websites. Alas! CSD doesn't include spam!! So, I'm listing them here in Afd. --Ragib 05:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: Spam for http://www.discoveryofindia.com and http://www.bharatekkhoj.com , added to various pages created by Akhileshsharma (talk · contribs). I suspect he's the webmaster trying to get more hits. The 2nd website listed here is peddling a lot of ad-boxes as well. --Ragib 05:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 05:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 05:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - linkspam. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete per nom. User:Akhilesh It seems Ragib is biased. He is considering it a link spam but its not and links are there for further information. I believe Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia which should have information about each and everything. Based on Ragib's views any article on Wikipedia can be brought in this category for deletion.
  • Well, I don't have to reply, I'd leave it to the good judgement of fellow wikipedians to determine whether the two links are spam or not. From the votes, it definitely seems most, if not all, consider these as linkspam, and definitely wikipedia can live without having a collection of linkspam directing to your website. Thanks. --Ragib 06:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as linkspam. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 06:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like linkspam to me... -- Scientizzle 06:40, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hickam's dictum

Non-notable, 9 hits on google, 1 repeat, 1 non-english Crossmr 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. This has been cited in the Journal of Internal Medicine, the Journal of Neuro-Opthamology and the New England Journal of Medicine. Who cares how many hits it has on google?--Pharos 06:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's an important piece of medical doctrine, even if it is a little tongue-in-cheek. - Richardcavell 06:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. -- Scientizzle 06:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 13:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This topic is notable, not because of its level of popularity on the web, but because of its intimate connection as a polarity or balancing principle to a topic of central importance in diagnostic medicine. ...Kenosis 14:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The main reason that search results within Google do not turn up very significantly more "hits" is that most of the medical literature on the web is available only through an https (secure protocol) or otherwise requires log-in with a password to access relevant articles. This is typical of professional medical literature on the web. Indeed the New England Journal of Medicine search result appears to have come up only because of a meta-tag embedded in that particular page. The relevant aritlce itself is not available without payment of a subscription fee and logging into the secured portion of their database... Kenosis 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
So are you saying that if I went up to any doctor and asked them what Hickam's Dictum was a notable percentage of doctors should be able to tell me what it is? Notability has nothing to do with what it is, as say a balancing point for Occam's Razor. Notability would have to do in this case then, how notable it is within the medical community. How many people are at least familiar with what it is. While it may have been cited in three different journals, unless its actually notable inside the medical community it falls under only being notable to a small group, and according to wikipedia that qualifies as non-notable. As it is, from the google search its quite obvious the public at large likely has no idea what Hickam's Dictum is. I haven't seen the citations from the three journals, so I can't tell if they're major or minor citations, how often it was cited, and what the context for the citation was. --Crossmr 17:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Reply: I am asserting that physicians as a class are increasingly aware of this term in professional discourse with one another. Yes, a very significant number of physicians will have heard of this principle today, and a competent physician will tend to immediately understand its significance in diagnostic methodology. The original statement, a combination of tongue-in-cheek with extreme seriousness, appears to be "People can have as many diseases as they damn-well please." It serves as a counterbalance to the standard concepts of Occam's razor and "Osler's rule" (commonly stated as "One disease to a patient", named after the late 19th Century physician William Osler)... Kenosis 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
That's fine then. All I was looking for was notability. When I asked for a source of notability on the article page, you removed the prod and told me to go through the deletion process which I did. Having never heard of this and with no real information or sign of notability resulting from google, it wouldn't be the first time someone tried to push a theory on here that wans't notable. --Crossmr 21:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I just felt the template was too hasty. I appreciate your efforts at double-checking things. Take care. ...Kenosis 22:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I often heard this sentiment expressed by seasoned practitioners when I was learning the ropes of statistical consulting in medical research settings. Naturally I was disillusioned at first to find out how practically useless Ockham's razor and the often allied Bayes' rule were in actual practice, but it was an illusion well dissed. But I doubt if Google hits are a good test of notability, as I don't remember hearing the many variants of this maxim under this exact name. Jon Awbrey 05:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually then, thats a vote against notability. Its not a particular abstract theory. If people aren't referring to it by name and actually calling it that, then its not notable. --Crossmr 06:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
In fact Occam's razor and an extreme version called Osler's Rule (often casually stated as "one disease to a patient") are standard in the medical lexicon of the 20th Century. Occam's razor is an oft misunderstood principle, because it does not demand that every diagnosis be reduced to a single disease involving the simplest possible qualities and quantities. Rather, it demands all possible diagnoses (hypotheses) that explain all the symptoms be considered, shaving away any unnecessary elements in the hypothesis — which may well still leave multiple possible diagnoses remaining under consideration while investigating further. It is a conceptual razor, not a hatchet; but because of the extreme variants such as Osler's rule and other misunderstandings of the principle, counterbalancing principles such as Hickam's dictum have become necessary to keep excessive "reductionism" in check. The balance being: "As simple as possible (in keeping with all of the complexities of the situation), but no simpler than necessary to solve the problems". ... Kenosis 15:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: I said only that "I don't remember hearing [it] under this exact name", and though that may speak only to my memory, cog.sci folks can tell you that people in general are better at remembering the gist of information content than they are remembering the incidentals of a particular syntactic utterance. Plus, I know all sorts of heuristics and theorems and stuff that have different names in engineering or psychology than they do in mathematics. And then, of course, others have already testified to the eponymous Dr. Hickam being immortalized in reputable sources. If you review the pages on William of Ockham and Ockham's razor, you will note that it is customary practice in this area to attribute a historical accumulation of interpretations, and even the sediment of subsequent syntax to the legendary harbinger of a distinctive idea, even when these glosses and not a small measure of pure shine have yet to be found among his or her works, but are only asserted to share its spirit. Funny though, I do remember the damn well part, and will insist on its being restored for the sake of idiomatic accuracy. Jon Awbrey 11:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - I'm a medical student and I've come across this one twice, both from senior medical staff (although I always thought it was Iccam :-) see the Occam's Razor page history ;) ) Gergprotect 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. Sango123 (e) 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emmy Riedl

Unverifiable person. A google search gives no relevant results although does give some German websites, so could any german-speaking users can check them out? Anyway the talk page discussion shows some people have already tried to find references but have failed to get any. If references are so hard to come by probably person is non-notable. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 06:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete appears either NN or hoax. Zero hits for "Konsumgenossenschaftliches Familienblatt" on Google for web, usenet and Books, or on Amazon.de. One hit for "Emmy Riedl" on Google Books (not viewable) a single hit on Amazon.de (again, I couldn't view it). "Emmeline Riedl" didn't appear to return any relevant ghits. The Frankfurt Uni hit, an announcement from 2004, is not for the same person as the article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, unveifiable. --Terence Ong 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If it's not a hoax, she's non-notable; either way, it can't be verified, so it doesn't matter. -- Kicking222 15:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 17:04, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power supply unit

I believe that Power supply would best be titled Power supply unit; this redirect page needs to get out of the way so that Power supply can be moved. ~ Booyabazooka 06:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment you could always just swap the content of the two pages. There's a note regarding that in Talk:Power supply that was left earlier today. Give it a couple days and see what other people think. If there are no objections, then be WP:BOLD. -- stubblyhead | T/c 07:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, that is what I want to do, but swapping the content doesn't swap the page history. That's why I'm requesting that Power supply unit be deleted... so that Power supply can be moved, keeping the history intact. ~ Booyabazooka 17:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I agree that as Power supply and Power supply unit are currently structured, PSU is fairly well covered in the first one. I still think PSU is such a wellknown, welldefined entity it should have its own page. Medico80 11:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't understand; are you saying that the Power supply article should be split? ~ Booyabazooka 17:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Sorry, now I'm confused myself. Is YOUR proposal they should be two distinct articles? Medico80 19:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Essentially this is a request for a merge, not deletion, so it doesn't belong here. This discussion should be brought to the respective Talk page(s). If no one has strong feelings there, Booyabazooka should be bold. -- Plutor 19:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, this nomination is withdrawn, because there's way too much confusion over it. I thought this would be a simple task. I'm relisting this as a requested move, as that's probably where it should have been in the first place. ~ Booyabazooka 01:37, 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 vandalism, patent nonsense.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Fartio Brothers, Fartio, Lupeegi

These three articles do not seem to refer to anything but the fantasy of their author. Conscious 06:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all - This is a perfect example of WP:NFT. Editor88 07:06, 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, article underwent an extensive rewrite throughout the course of this AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full service

slang term for sexual intercourse, apparently created just to link some spam page. It should be a redirect bogdan 07:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This is simply a slang dictionary entry that does not appear to be able to be enlarged into an article. Ande B 07:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I just took another look at the article page and then clicked on the link to the user page of OrangePeel, who created the page. I am now concerned that OrangePeel is engaged in some deliberately disruptive editing. He has removed all comments on his talk page regarding a number of other problems his editing has generated. His edits, at least at first glance, seem to focus on recategorizing various articles that relate to erotica or commercial sexual activity. I don't know if he is actually causing real problems or not but perhaps an admin might want to take a look at the pattern of strange edits and stranger replies he has left on other user's pages. (Will Beback's talk page comes to mind.) Ande B 08:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, the deletion nomination is inaccurate. it is not a slang term, it is the term used for a specific act within the sex and massage industry. heres the link[12] and a stub has been added. individual who has nominated this article has harassed before. OrangePeel 13:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Fine, you acknowledge it is a term. Definitions of "terms" are not suitable for articles on WP. Definitions belong elsewhere. Ande B 14:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, slang dicdef. --Terence Ong 14:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Hobbeslover 18:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a dictionary or usage guide of slang terms. I doubt a redirect would be appropriate, as the term is used far more widely for gas stations than for massage parlors or brothels. I'll check whether it's in Wiktionary, but I suspect it's already there and needs no transwikification. Barno 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Caveat lector 19:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article was totally rewritten and the votes above are not about the article in its current form. It is no longer about the sex act, but rather about the various ways full service is used. Vegaswikian 23:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply The page certainly is quite different at this time. Looks like a disambiguation page. Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with WP policy regarding standards for disambiguation (even though I have created one!). Does this one currently comply with any disam standards? Ande B 23:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, it can not be a dab page since it is an article rather then a list of links to articles about the various forms of Full Service. I'd also add that if you look at the links to the articlem they are not about sex but mostly about broadcasting. I did not include broadcasting since I'm not sure what the term means in this case. Vegaswikian 23:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manual release

slang term for masturbation, apparently created just to link some spam page. It should be a redirect bogdan 07:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- stubblyhead | T/c 07:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, the deletion nomination is inaccurate. it is not a slang term for masturbation, it is the term used for a specific act within the sex industry. heres the link[13] and a stub has been added. individual who has nominated this article has harassed before. OrangePeel 13:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong 14:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a dicdef, if anything. Devotchka 18:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Hobbeslover 18:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to handjob. Plausible search term, and that article would likely cover what the searcher was looking for. youngamerican (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Caveat lector 19:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Starionwolf 05:10, 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 deleted by Mailer diablo. Sango123 (e) 14:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern global music

This looks like original research. Conscious 07:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, appears to be essay written in first person GassyGuy 07:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreed; looks like WP:OR to me. -- stubblyhead | T/c 07:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the above; OR. DarthVader 14:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 14:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 17:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Caveat lector 19:20, 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, closing early per WP:SNOW. 26 deletes, 2 clearly valid keeps, 1 kind of fuzzy keep and a sack of falsified sock puppets make a tasty stew that serves no purpose.  RasputinAXP  c 03:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey Dragons

Made-up baseball team, from what seems to be a made-up book (at least, its title gets zero Google hits).

See also 2009 MLB Playoffs (now speedy deleted and protected) and 2009 MLB Postseason (its re-creation), by the same author. Calton | Talk 08:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I also cannot find a match on Amazon or any other book database. Unless the author provides an ISBN to prove that the book actually exists, the article should be removed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just started the article and already you want to delete it? I like the watch baseball —Preceding unsigned comment added by I like to watch BasebaIl (talk • contribs) 08:35 24 May 2006
  • Yes. Age isn't going to make it any less bogus. --Calton | Talk 08:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Axiomm 08:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see nothing wrong with making a page about a fictional baseball team. After all, WP has dozens of articles and fictional characters or groups, etc. 205.188.117.72 09:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Zzyzx11 - Unfortunately not even an amusing read - Peripitus 09:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The page author just made the page and already you wanna delete it, let him work on it. 205.188.117.72 09:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I also agree that there is nothing wrong with making a page about a fictional baseball team. However, under our policy on verifibility, we currently cannot verify that the book actually exists, and thus we cannot keep it on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence the book exists. Weregerbil 09:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Would not deleting the page be bad for wikipedia? Instead of talking about how to delete the page why not try to fix and expand it? Poloyoe 09:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment expanding a hoax doesn't make it better. Per policy the way to fix unverifiable information is to delete it. Weregerbil 09:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of existence, even in a fictional book. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Zzyx11. GassyGuy 10:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, pages about new teams are fun. 64.12.116.69 10:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per PS2pcGAMER, not noteable and likely to be made up completely. Kyle sb 10:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- David O. 10:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
This vote was actually made by User:64.12.116.69 -- Kevin 10:38, 24 May 2006
  • Delete. Just the facts... ma'am. PJM 11:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WP:V. A fictional baseball team from an WP:NN book. RobLinwood 11:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and the sockpuppetry isn't helping the article's case any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per zzyzx11 --Ed (Edgar181) 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, made up, fictional. --Terence Ong 15:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Holy sweet merciful lord, get rid of this page. We already have the Devil (and the Devils). We don't need dragons, too. -- Kicking222 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete And consider blocking the sockpuppet account. --John Nagle 17:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. Devotchka 18:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom et al. Crum375 20:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this might constitute a WP:NFT. Article should be deleted. If its creator can prove that the book does indeed exist (provides an ISBN number) then he/she should write an article about the book iself, and not create a stub about a fictional character. Mtmelendez 20:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If I may add, the ISBN would not be enough - the article would still need to show that the book was sold in at least 10,000 copies or was otherwise notable. Crum375 22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • True, and a book can get an ISBN without actually having been published at all. I've also seen ISBNs on such unlikely things as card decks, bookmarks and stuffed animals! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Hobbeslover 01:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if the book existed, which appears to be in question, we would still not need a separate article about the team described in it per WP:FICT. --Metropolitan90 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Page looks fine to me. Moriori. 04:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC) User's fifth edit -- whose first edits were just above the user whose signature is forged just below. [14] Hmmm. --Calton | Talk 05:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Moriori.. NSLE (T+C) 05:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Vote actually by 152.163.100.69 (talk · contribs), an AOL IP. And User:NSLE didn't do it. --Calton | Talk 05:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The sock puppetry and signature forgeries aren't helping, kids. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the book ain't notable (nor WP:V), so the team ain't. --Eivindt@c 10:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fictional team from a fictional (as far as we can tell) book. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting page. David-wright 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Giants Statium playing surface isn't big enough for baseball anyway. Smacks of a Hoax at worst Roodog2k 20:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as likely WP:HOAX and definitely unverifiable. Gwernol 00:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as hoax/unverifiable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as a hoax. In reply to above: yes, having a hoax article does hurt Wikipedia, as it destroys our credibility. I just hope someone doesn't come and change my signature or something. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:34, 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 Since the only author requested deletion, I deleted the article and am closing this nom early.. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karmouche (name)

Thought about speedying it, proded instead, prod removed and now we are here. Only original research (and is highly speculative) and poorly written. Hardly seems notable, Karmouche+surname gives only 13 hits. If someone wanted to create a proper article, they could start this from scratch without losing much/anything. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom GassyGuy 08:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as close to WP:Nonsense but unfortunately not close enough for a speedy delete - Peripitus 11:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Karmouche, Karmouche, will you do the delete-o? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy to User:Al aziz - again. Maybe a little protection would be in order as well (note beginning of edit history). B.Wind 21:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - appears alread userified and the originator has added a comment eh this never worked cos i dont know nuthin about how to use this. you can delete this now. which has been reverted by Tawkerbot2. - Peripitus 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prune tang

Bogus sociological article about sex among the elderly. When asked for references to this neologism, response has been to put up a citation to scholarly journal -- as if sociologist would use a boy's junior-high phrase -- and to slap a "vandalism" warning on my talk page. Calton | Talk 08:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. The phrase is used because that's what the elderly themselves use. The only thing I put on your talk page was a request to explain why my reference wasn't good enough. You've been nothing but rude and abusive to me since I created this page (my first on Wikipedia) and attempted to work WITH you, and I don't understand why you have a vendetta of some sort against me. Bongout 08:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The phrase is used because that's what the elderly themselves use. Really? Mind providing a smidgen of a scrap of a particle of evidence for that, as I've repeatedly asked?
  • You've been nothing but rude and abusive to me since I created this page Yes, those standard requests for verification are so rude. --Calton | Talk 08:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I have already provided a scholarly, peer-reviewed source for the use of that phrase. However, that problem could be solved by moving the article rather than deleting it, so that's a discussion for somewhere and sometime else. As well, searching Google for "Prune tang" will provide amble evidence of the phrase's use.
I never claimed your requesting verification was rude. However, the snide, sarcastic remarks you used to request verification was rude. The way you accused me of editing your talk page to add a vandalism warning was rude (since, afterall, placing something like that on the page of someone so obviously committed to fighting vandalism as yourself would be farcical). The way you abrasively refused to clarify why you had a problem with my reference was rude. The way you put the article on AfD right after I explained to you in polite, civil words exactly how the paper was relevant was rude. I'm very new to Wikipedia, and I feel you're unfairly bullying me. Bongout 09:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Asking you to back up your bogus-sounding claim with actual evidence and bringing it to wider attention when you refuse: very nasty behavior, ennit? But if your claims about this article -- and this word -- are true, you ought to welcome the attention, where you can prove the veracity of your claims and show me up by actual demonstration (instead of off-topic complaining). I'm asking you to prove a claim: if that makes me rude, then that means you're dealing with an army of Grinches here, since simple verifiability is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia. Don't like it? Go to Urban Dictionary or Uncyclopedia and try your luck there. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • According to Google, the reference provided does not exist, nor does the journal the reference was taken from. The author of the reference, "Ping-Chun Hsiung" does exist (she's an associate professor at Toronto University). I am attempting to email her via a provided address to verify that she did indeed write such an article. Stay tuned. -- saberwyn 08:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Google isn't an authoritative source for scholarly, peer-reviewed journals. Moreover, I believe you may be wrong in your assumption that it's the Ping-Chun Hsiung of the University of Toronto that we're talking about. Bongout 09:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Either as an attack on Prune tang or a neologism of no note. Can anyone imagine numbers of senior citizens using this phrase ? - Peripitus 09:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've already provided a number of sources that show the phrase is indeed in use, including by the elderly. It's notable because it is an entire movement among some populations of the elderly. Bongout 09:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've already provided a number of sources. For the umpteenth time, you have done NO such thing. You stuck in a scholarly looking footnote for a probably non-existent journal: "Prune tang" is not in the title of the alleged paper, nor is there use of the term in a quote from the paper -- or, indeed, any quotes or direct references whatsoever. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing more than a dictionary definition. Vizjim 09:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I really, truly think that a description of sociological analysis is more encylopaedic than a dictionary definition. Bongout 09:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • My compliments - you're working hard. However, the article does not go into sociological analysis. Its referent journal does not exist according to ATHENS or MUSE (or Google Scholar for that matter). There are no web references, even disreputable ones, using the term in this way. Give it up. Vizjim 09:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The article does go into sociological analysis. ATHENS and MUSE simply don't carry all journals, especially not one as highly specialized as the one I drew the article from. We should wait for further verification before deleting the article. Wikipedia is a great place for notable but obscure topics. 09:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The onus is on you to provide checkable verification for the article. A seemingly non-existent journal is not verification. If you can provide another scholarly article that cites that publication, a library reference anywhere in the world, details of its publishers, or a website for the journal or its sponsoring institution, there will at least be something to go on. As it stands, this article is an unverified dictionary definition. Vizjim 09:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I am working to provide you with all the information I have that could possibly be relevant, yet the deletion procedure continues before I even have a chance to provide it, let alone before it can be WP:Ved. I am currently looking into things, but the best I can give you write now is the address of the publisher listed in the journal: Department of Sociology Publishing Division, University of Tirana, Square "Nene Terezat", Albania. Please stand by while more information is obtained. Bongout 10:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's oddly unsurprising that when I phone the University of Tirana (+355 4 228402), the lady there has no record of this journal. Though this discussion is livening up a tremendously boring day at work no end, I think you're reaching the end of this one. Vizjim 10:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What's more surprising is that in your user page, where, by the way, you say you enjoy obscure topics, you make no mention of knowing Albanian. The University of Tirana is a big institution, and do you really expect a mere receptionist at a general inquiry number to know of every publication at the university? It's more likely that some combination of the following interfered: a) communications difficulties; b) ignorance; c) disinterest in helping a foreign national, Albania still being one of the most insular countries on the Continent; and d) unluckiness. I have a copy of the journal, so it does exist. If people are unable to contact the publisher, I am willing to mail the journal to someone trusted who will verify that it does indeed exist. However, I really don't think we will have to resort to that. I am confident the publisher can be contacted. Bongout 10:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't speak Albanian: the person I spoke to spoke English (and, by the way, they don't deserve your series of cultural stereotypes - they were lovely). I don't expect them to know the journal: I do expect them to know publishing divisions. Again, I repeat: the onus is on you to verify, and you have not done so. Vizjim 11:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If you knew more about sociology, you would know it is very common for people to be excessively but only obstensibly kind to people who they consider to be part of an out group they feel they should be antagonistic to. I understand the onus is on me, and I'm trying everything I can think of to veryify it to your satisfaction. However, due to the obscurity (but not invalidity) of my source, I seem to be having trouble doing that. Do you have any suggestions? Bongout 11:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. The Journal of Comparative and Contrastive Sociology does not exist. Name the publisher and provide proof of its existence if it does. It has no impact factor [15], and as such I question its use as a verifiable scholarly source. -- Samir धर्म 10:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a classic argument from authority. Also, it can hardly be said that Thomson -- itself a publisher -- wouldn't have a vested interest in keeping certain journals from looking good. Bongout 10:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Answer this one: What institution is Dr. Hsiung affiliated with (if not the University of Toronto). Should be right in the article... -- Samir धर्म 10:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
According to the journal, she is (or was) a professor specializing in comparative sociology at Liaoning Normal University in Dalian. Bongout 10:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
And that was a classic straw man. Delete. --Agamemnon2 10:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It's hardly a straw man. I'm not ignoring the thrust of the concern, i.e. the sometimes difficult task of finding a copy of an obscure scholarly journal. Just as I have done with everyone from the beginning of this whole mess, I have complied as completely and to the best of my ability as I can. You can dismiss my specific argument against Samir's concerns, but if you look into it at all, you'll see that I have been very amenable and compliant. Bongout 11:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:NEO. RobLinwood 11:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, I simply must stress that this is a sociological, philosophical, and sexuological phenomenon, not a mere definition. Bongout 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable if it does exist. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Without getting into an intricate ontological debate that is itself of and on ontology, I can assure you that, for any normal sense of the word 'exist', this phenemenon/movement does indeed exist. Bongout 12:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. If it does exist at all, it's a dicdef and not a Wikipedia entry. Devotchka 18:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. --LambiamTalk 18:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, absolutely no evidence that the only source exists. I'm sure that even a small journal could muster one Google hit. -- Mithent 18:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I think this article is an excellent addition to wikipedia's sex archives. The journal cited is also a scholarly and verifiable source. I invite all the users who are pressing for this fine article's deletion to go visit Phoenix, Arizona and experience Prune tang for themselves. Aside from some sexual first-timer pleasure, they will be hit with the undeniable fact that this movement is alive and well in the United States of America. --[User:Daloonik|Daloonik]] 03:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC) User's 5th edit on Wikipedia. The first, note, was to the article creator's User Page [16]. Hmm, I sense knit footwear.--Calton | Talk 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The journal cited is also a scholarly and verifiable source. Um, no, it isn't - especially the latter. --Calton | Talk 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Incredibly obvious delete, although the author is to be congratulated (is that the word I'm looking for?) for their dogged determination. Picking an article written by an author in China published in a Albanian journal was a nice touch; props to Vizjim for the legwork. If this journal does exist, a scan of the masthead with the board of editors, and the table of contents of the issue in question would make me pause long enough to reconsider my vote (and eat my hat). Highly entertaining. bikeable (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Obviously, this latest delete suggestion should not be considered, since the author mentioned is neither in China, nor is Albanian. Please eat your hat. Daloonik 03:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 12:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Green Revolution

Tagged as speedy - maybe it is. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC (one album, no mention of label etc.) RN 08:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. No notability claimed that I can see. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 11:48, 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. Sango123 (e) 14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Young Fifers

Non-notable sports group, vanity, deprodded Koffieyahoo 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete 366 Ghits--Jusjih 14:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no assertion of notability in article. B.Wind 22:01, 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 deleted by MONGO. Sango123 (e) 14:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jestina & Jestina for Lillian

Likely a hoax (see page history and also Billy Collins article), but listing this here before deleting and blocking the creator, just to be sure. Found zero outside Wikipedia Google hits for query "Billy Collins" Jestina. Delete. Also delete Jestina for Lillian for lack of other content than verbatim poetry/lyrics. jni 09:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Also note Paradelle which is a verbatim copy, and as such, all the proof one needs for labeling this as a hoax and blocking the contributor indefinitely. --Agamemnon2 10:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and agamemnon2 --Ed (Edgar181) 14:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Even if it were true, the latter would be a copyvio. B.Wind 22:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Look no farther than the name for this alleged form. This thing is a jest.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Delete RN 09:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles James Abbott

Disputed as to whether the page should be kept of deleted.

  • Keep. 205.188.116.73 09:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Typical nn.bio. jni 09:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete CSD A7 and tagged -- Samir धर्म 09:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, non-notable bio, repost of material already deleted four times. Weregerbil 09:58, 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. Sango123 (e) 14:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of web development companies

I found this orphan AFD, so I'm making sure that it's listed properly, but I also feel that it should be deleted because Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I think this page should stay and would be a good resource for people who are looking for web design companies.

- -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Web site design uk (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friends of Real Lancashire

A quixotic movement, affiliated to one which is barely notable, and a movement which scores a whopping 275 ghits, including Wikipedia mirrors. Which are near the top. This is essentially another example of the traditional counties movement pushing their POV. Just zis Guy you know? 21:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. It has the support of at least 6 sitting MPS, both Labour and Conservative. It has widespread popular support and is frequently mentioned in the media. Basically you think an entry should be deleted just because you don't agree with the subject's aims. You are the one pushing a POV here. I've made sure the article is unbiased. Strong keep Lancsalot 21:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Would you be able to add references to those media stories to the article? --Rob 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the nominator that verifiability of this particular group is very poor, but can someone fill in us non-Brits about the issue at stake here? My county was part of a much larger county back in the 17th-18th century, but no one seems to care these days since the modern counties more accurately reflect modern political divisions. Or is this more like Retrocession (District of Columbia) where billions of tax dollars (pounds?) are at stake? — AKADriver ☎ 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • See Association of British Counties and the linked articles. No large sums of money are at stake because (a) it's a teapot tempest and (b) the chances of success are somewhere between zero and none at all, since no major political party has adopted this agenda. Just zis Guy you know? 23:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I see you recommended deletion of ABC as well so you clearly have an agenda here. It was decided to keep that article so why are we having the same debate again? As I pointed out FORL clearly has significant influence in Parliament, having the patronage of at least 6 MPs. How many other pressure groups have this? Chances of success are high - several traditional counties have already been restored and FORL's aims were endorsed by the local government commission in 1994 (you clearly haven't read the article). Lancsalot 09:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Yup. I have three agendas actually: WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. In order to satisfy my agendas, the subject of an article must have sufficient coverage form neutral and authoritative external sources that we can ensure it is covered neutrally. This group gets around one tenth the number of Google hits I do. Just zis Guy you know? 09:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If substantial coverage of this is demonstrated (by citations) from multiple independent sources, I'll happily say keep. Without that, we're just promoting a cause for some group. I figure WP:CORP is the best guideline for this, and it fails it miserably. --Rob 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:CORP does not apply since this is not a corporation. It is a pressure group. Should every pressure group be deleted from Wikipedia? Lancsalot 09:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Got a better guideline? I'm open to suggestions. Here's the part that is relevant "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.". Now substitute "company" for "pressure group", and it works great. We can't follow WP:V and WP:NPOV policies, unless this requirement is met. We shouldn't delete all pressure group articles. We should delete all ones lacking potential for verifiability and neutrality. Now, you claimed "It has widespread popular support and is frequently mentioned in the media". Care to provide those sources in the article? If they exist, that should be easy for you to do. I'm not sure why you dislike WP:CORP's application. It's actually a stunningly low threshold to meet. No need for popularity, success, influence, fame, notoriety, or anything like that. Just substantive coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. I can't see setting the inclusion requirements any lower than that. --Rob 09:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Just do a search on google you will see that it's been mentioned in Parliament, on the BBC, Manchester 2002, Lancashire Life, This is Lancashire etc. Also search for "Bolton Lancashire" = 500,000 hits, "Bolton Greater Manchester" = 80,000 hits. This clearly demonstrates the popular support for their aims. Lancsalot 09:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not an article about whether Bolton is in lancashire or Greater Manchester, or the traditional counties movement in general, it's an article about a group called the Friends of Real Lancashire. Just zis Guy you know? 10:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep:
    • Three slots on prime-time BBC television [17], [18], [19].
    • Mentioned in Parliamentary Hansard [20].
    • Patronage from 10% of Lancashire MP's.
    • Discussed twice in Lancaster City Council meetings, includsing a motion passed endorsing and supporting their campaign [21] [22].
    • Discussed by South Lakeland council, some support from Cumbria County council's working party noted [23].
    • Mentions of FORL and support for Lancashire Day initiative on:
      • Wyre Council's website [24]
      • and more significantly on the Lancashire County council website [25]
    • Mentioned in NHS ambulance authority reforms documents [26]
    • Mentions in
      • Bolton Evening News (multiple) [27],
      • Westmorland Gazette, [28]
      • other Lancashire online news websites (multiple mentions) [29]
      • and BBC news [30]
      • (I can vouch for appearances in at least two other Lancashire media; however their websites do not keep archives; verifiability does not equate to access via Google - this is verifiable via print archives).
Multiple non-trivial published mentions? See above. Verifiability? This group certainly exist, and their views have been considered by decision-makers. Notability? They are certainly notable enough for the councils in question to consider, and this is the important measure of a pressure group's notability (but notwithstanding the media mentions above). Neutral point of view? That's a question for the article-writers; articles are not deleted because they are POV; they are discussed and re-written until they are NPOV. See any other politics/pressure group article.
Someone researching this topic or watching Lancashire media will see mention of this group, and there should be an encyclopaedic article they can turn to for reference. An article including the above citations is not worthy of deletion. Aquilina 13:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
First some links aren't on point (at least the first three). This article is about the specific group. Somebody needs to update the article (not this discussion page) with independent sources about "Friends of Real Lancashire", not just the issue of old counties. The problem with articles like this, is they can sit forever in a poorly sourced state, because there so obscure, nobody cares to update them. If it's not updated in the course of AFD, it probably never will be. --Rob 14:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: for the moment, I'll abstain. I'll wait to see if the article is updated. I suppose now, there's a chance it will become worthwhile. I don't quite understand why independent sources weren't added at the start. I'll try to check the article just before the AFD closes, and cast an appropriate vote then. --Rob 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, I should have left a further note about the first three links (those from the BBC) - if you click on the "reveal extra detail" button under the description heading on each of those pages, it gives a list of the screen caps, interviewees and content of each of the news items - that's where the explicit mentions are.
I am currently extremely busy indeed in real life, and have very little time to edit (see my user page and contributions). I am willing to incorporate this information as soon as I can, should nobody else do it first. I just wanted to show that this article has the potential to meet Wikipedia standards, and didn't want to see it deleted before I had the opportunity to make it so. Aquilina 15:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I've now had a go at including these references in the article. Lancsalot 13:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Please could you clarify exactly which parts of WP:RS the BBC, Hansard and records from county councils fail to meet? Aquilina 10:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn community group.--Peta 05:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The evidence above suggests the converse. Please could you clarify why you believe the group is non-notable, despite being considered in local and national government and multiple appearances in national media? Aquilina 18:35, 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!
Ezeu 00:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being mentioned in Hansard just requires an MP to say the words. BBC Local TV coverage ... meh. Local newspapers... Gee, it's not like they're ever short of stories. -- GWO
The point about Hansard is that their campaign was being advocated by an MP - they weren't just being namechecked. And the nature of the group means that they will primarily be of interest to local rather than national press. This does not mean they are insignificant (Lancashire is a county of 5m people). Wikipedia has entries for various Cornish nationalist groups which are of far less significance. Lancsalot 10:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Pressure groups exist to influence councils in their decision making. There is evidence above that councils and parliament have taken this pressure group's views into account. That establishes notability; surely anybody studying the actions of these decision making bodies should be able to research here the groups explicitly mentioned? This group's actions have been covered in the most notable regional media sources, and this region is the size of a smallish country. Aquilina 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete just to shut this AFD up. --Agamemnon2 10:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Keeping it would do the same. Lancsalot 10:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments like that whittle away my faith that this AfD is helping us to write an encyclopaedia. Aquilina 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - clearly meets the guidelines for notability and verifiability. Really wasn't expecting to vote this way, but the links are convincing. Vizjim 11:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above. And I'm from Yorkshire. Ouch, that hurt. Jcuk 11:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep... with a lower case k' - whilst I am ideologically opposed to the group, (being a Greater Mancunian!) and would love to have this pressure group expelled from the universe (and not towards the heavens either!), I agree with Aquillina's earlier comments that it is very much a verifiable body, which is more county specific than the Association of British Counties, and . It does however need a little cleanup/revamp and is in danger of violating NPOV in the future given that the organisation (!?) does have a clear agenda. Keep with a cleanup. Jhamez84 18:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - just because the nominator doesn't agree with the group's policy is not a valid reason for deleting the article! The same argument was used to try and delete the main Association of British Counties article, but as that clearly failed, this should fail too. There are numerous reliable and verifiable references to this group and their work. Owain (talk) 12:16, 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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moonbat

  • Delete nn neoligism created by blogger. Last afd was kept via no consenus without, it seems, the closing admin taking out the keep votes from meatpuppets. Jersey Devil 11:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. In very wide use- both on the internet as shown by google [31], and in the press where I get scores of hits from newspapers like the Washington Post, Boston Herald, Times of London etc. -- JJay 11:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. Books that describe word usage are called "dictionaries" -- GWO
  • Comment:Thanks for that little bit of insightful information. I'm not sure why it's relevant, though, because this is an encyclopedia article that discusses a concept. For comparable articles see Category:Pejorative_political_terms-- JJay 10:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Gee. Well, that would be because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- GWO
      • There is a huge intersection between encyclopedias and dictionaries. If there could be no dictionary entries here, a big chunk of wikipedia should be deleted. Can you explain "moonbat" in 10 or 20 words, as in a dictionary? Medico80 17:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I, a non-american, used wikipedia to look up the word, after having read it on several political weblogs. It is essentially a biased word, and the article should of course try to explain it a bit more balanced than it does now. Medico80 11:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wiktionary. It's a dicdef, folks. Quite a good one, albeit for a neologism that just about sums up the level of political debate in the US. -- GWO
  • Transwiki per GWO. ScottW 13:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. DarthVader 14:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 15:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki as above. Devotchka 18:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JJay. --Striver 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JJay abakharev 23:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JJay --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Medico8, also per Wingnut --chorankates 1:46, 26 May 2006 (MST)
  • Transwiki digital_me(t/c) 15:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, widely used on political blogs and forums. Rhobite 16:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE - Vanity User:Allen Funt
User's 2nd edit at wikipedia. -- JJay 02:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for there is more in the article than simply a dicdef. B.Wind 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, informative, several users have commented on how they actually came to Wikipedia to find out about this term, making it notable. Joffeloff 00:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Keep - at long as it is noted to be a pejorative term, there is no harm in keeping it in WP. --Ben Houston 07:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article is concerning an important topic since moonbat is used commonly om political blogs. I found this article by doing a Google search for Moonbat to find out its meaning and the article was very helpful. --apollo2011 21:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful definition of word used in the center / right blogosphere.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dundee University Shinty Club

Non Notable university sports team, plus precedent for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh University Shinty ClubYdam 11:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete 520 Ghits--Jusjih 14:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. B.Wind 22:14, 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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mucoid plaque

Unknown in the medical community, non-medical term, violates WP:OR, WP:NOT, copyvio,[32] is unencyclopedic and Wikipedia should not list all possible idiosyncrasies posing as medical condition/therapy. Or is it an advertisement?

Dr. Anderson is in the business of selling such products, as well as books and media that promote the concept.

Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOR, as evidenced by the following: "The phrase, “mucoid plaque,” is a coined term that I use to describe various conditions found throughout the body" -- Dr. Richard Anderson, N.D., N.M.D [33] -- Samir धर्म 11:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, for obvious reasons.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Closing admin please note that this is the same person that put it up for deletion --mboverload@ 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course, the nominator can have his say, can't he? Or, is nominating itself sufficient?Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The term clocks up a fair number of ghits, however those are almost entirely on websites selling things. Remove this as a neologism that hasn't cauhgt on. Dr Zak 11:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteDefend vigorously blocking POVAdverSpammingFraudulent editors or merge into a "health fraud (colon)" article. Tearlach's original article was good, there is some merit in having an article on a fraud like this, but unless the POV-pushing anonymous editor can be prevented from turning it into apparent support for the ridiculous and self-serving claims involved and a sales tool for quackery and charlatanry WP is a bette rencyclopaedia without it. Tearlach should be notified, having started it. Midgley 12:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Doesn't Answers.com uncriticaly copy Wikipedia content, rather than it being a copyvio?. Midgley 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops, had another look, and (whispering) it would seem you are right. Making it worse, because wikipedia is now the source.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge per Midgley. Into health fraud. Yikes! Kukini 12:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've changed ....Midgley 21:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP I have just changed it to stating that it is a health fraud in the first line. I think it is important that we dispel this myth on wikipedia. --mboverload@ 18:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per mboverload. I've no great attachment to the article (I didn't come to it until late 2005). But it is a fairly entrenched and vigorously promoted scam, with more Ghits than many other topics in Category:Quackery. Despite the hassle, I think there's more benefit in shedding light on it than sweeping it under the carpet. Tearlach 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In that case we should keep it in some form. I'm bothered by the amount of effort that could involve. A version would be difficult because it is frankly not stable. I'd actually support reverting to Tearlach's original version, I don't think there is great improvement since. I do wonder if a change of title, so that this quackery is dealt with within the frame of an article on people who pay to have their bottoms washed out, what the colon actually does etc. Perhaps putting "fraud" in the title eg Mucoid plaque (health fraud) (or even Health fraud (mucoid plaque) might actually reduce the conceptual problem, and reduce the appearance of reality it gets via Google and answers.com and so on. Sorry to run on.Midgley 21:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The (whatever) in names is really only used to distinguish things with the same name. I'm making this up, but say Chicken Egg (hippie movement) and Chicken Egg (band) --mboverload@ 00:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • ... thus far ... I could criticise it myself in that it mixes data and classification, but WP:IS NOT an ontology or relational. And the brackets are optional. Midgley 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. This link alone on quackwatch would justify its notability IMO. Crum375 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a notable concept, whether it's reflects medical reality or not.--Pharos 23:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per Midgley's comment above. Let's make it clear real quick that this is a fraud. --Chaser (T) 00:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I am suspicious that user Heelop who was and is presumably from User:72.224.168.161 has a commercial interest in this. It is possible that this AFD should move on to an RFC on this user, and perhaps more generally on the defence of WP against such health frauds and editors corrupting the WP in order to advance their agenda. Midgley 09:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, having seen the changes in the past few days I still do not see the need for a separate article. The term can be discussed under health fraud, or quackery, as has been suggested by others.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, do not rename (it is not a disambiguation). Make sure that it is clear that it is a fraud, and that nobody removes such messages. -- Tangotango 07:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I check my Wikipedia watchlist obsessively so don't worry about any edit getting past me. --mboverload@ 07:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This "condition" is mentioned every night on multiple television networks via infomercials. The people perpetrating this lie are making it up in order to make a quick buck, and consumers need to have some source of truth. Wikipedia entries rate highly in search engines, and this article may educate some otherwise ignorant consumers. Not a real medical condition, but that doesn't stop the con-men trying to push their "colon cleansing" products. I can't watch late night TV without seeing this scam. Besides, we have seperate articles on phrenology, homeopathy, and dozens of other health scams.
  • Rename but keep as notoriety established. JFW | T@lk 21:21, 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. Sango123 (e) 14:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow University Shinty Club

Non Notable university sports team, plus precedent for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh University Shinty Club Ydam 11:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete 936 Ghits--Jusjih 14:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:27, 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. Sango123 (e) 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Andrews University Shinty Club

Non Notable university sports team, plus precedent for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh University Shinty Club Ydam 11:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete 684 Ghits--Jusjih 14:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:27, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veripic

Blatant advertisement. I caught this article months ago on RC Patrol and edited, wikified and tagged it as needing cleanup and references. Since then nothing has been done except to make it more blatantly into an advert. Hasty Delete Zunaid 11:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: If anyone else feels there is merit in it, please also consider adding Dataworks Plus to this nomination. Although it is not as blatant as the above, it still seems suspiciously like self-promotion, not to mention that it includes cross-promotion of Veripic as well. It has been tagged for cleanup since December 2005, with nothing being done since then. Zunaid 11:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 2: While we're at it, Digital Photo Management seems to be an article almost exclusively about SQL database storage of digital photos (needless to say, also mentioning Veripic along the way), whereas a Google search of the term brings up more generic things like photo album software. It is more subtle than the above two, but still seems like self-promotion of a field (and it's associated software) in order to CREATE awareness rather than report neutrally and encyclopedically on already newsqorthy facts. Zunaid 11:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete rather strong POV, and adcruft to boot. -- stubblyhead | T/c 17:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an ad. Devotchka 18:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete one and two, but Merge DPM into Digital Asset Management and get rid of its promotional stuff about companies. --Chaser (T) 23:52, 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. Sango123 (e) 14:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PhotoArt

bordering on patent nonsense, probably original research, link looks like advertising... the works, really! Happy-melon 11:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unsourced and as it stands violates WP:NOR. PJM 11:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Relmi is sprinkling herself over various parts of WP - this is classic vanity. If anyone can suggest speedy, I'm in for that too. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete – nn protologism dictdef with totally incomprehensible explanation. --LambiamTalk 18:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Author deleted the article except for the AFD message. --Starionwolf 06:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Article blanked by author, therefore CSD7 -- speedy delete -- Henrik Ebeltoft 00:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prophet-Elite war

nn video game fancruft. The search Prophet-Elite war Halo (without quotation marks) gets a massive 34 hits on google AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 11:32, 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. Sango123 (e) 14:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DaVaR freeware

New DAVAR freeware page was created. Delete this old article so it is not duplicated. ValenteM 11:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. About 600 Ghits cannot be notable.--Jusjih 14:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Duplicate article. DarthVader 14:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the accidental duplicate article. --Starionwolf 18:29, 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. Sango123 (e) 14:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naismith Family, Carolina Family

Earlier deleted via WP:PROD, then contested and restored. The reason for its deletion still stands: it's an apparent neologism with no sources and none that appear on Google. Most hits for "Naismith family" relate to his literal family. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, Wikipedia:No original research etc. Delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm being bold and adding Carolina Family to this AfD, as it appears to be another related neologism created by the same user. Ral315 (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete Carolina Family too per Ral315. DarthVader 07:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 13:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Peta 04:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ral315 (talk) 11:57, 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. Sango123 (e) 14:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cull Group

Advertising article for non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. Originally listed for Afd on 18th May by Anon user after prod on 10th May. Peripitus 11:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator - Peripitus 11:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as prod'er. dewet|✉ 12:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If anyone wants to follow up, at the time of prod'ing the above, I also prod'ed a number of other article creations by the same user. These have in the meantime been reverted, but included Jeff seaver and Freethought Association of West Michigan. See Special:Contributions/Jeffseaver and contributions from at least two other IPs to those pages for more possible AfDs. dewet|✉ 14:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn--Jusjih 14:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 14:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, ad. Note to closing admin: there are also redirects to this page. Fan1967 14:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- nn. - Longhair 11:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pn, nn Clubmarx 16:41, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford scholar

Modified nomination comment: this was created by a vandal and looks like a prank or spam for a minor hotel[34], but please note Bduke's comment below: it seems pretty old (founded 1887) and may have some local historical significance to Melbourne. Presumably just a form of spam. Seems like a completely insignificant hotel. The author, Privacypolicy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who has also vandalized other articles, has repeatedly removed an {{importance}} tag from the article, and a request on his talkpage to explain the importance of the hotel was just blanked without comment.[35] up+land 11:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete Possibly a private joke (hence a versatile term that can be adapted to (almost) any situation), nothing to do with the hotel. See old Fran article, old Andrew Smith article. Mr Stephen 12:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 14:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is such a hotel: http://www.oxfordscholar.com.au/, but I could find not the slightest indication why it might be any more notable than any other of the over 100 hotels in Melbourne. --LambiamTalk 18:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uppland.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete incoherent nonsense, if you ask me. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This hotel does exist. It is fairly old. It has, as far as I know, played an important role in the life of Melbourne. It needs someone who has access to sources in Melbourne and who knows what to look for to improve the article. I have added some information, but I have not lived in Melbourne long enough to know where to look. I think it can be made into a good article. I will vote later. --Bduke 00:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination if you can make this into a nice article. up+land 03:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Will wait to see Bduke's opinion later on.However, a search of Australian New Zealand news sources was dominated by references to Oxford scholars. Capitalistroadster 03:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this article, create a new one called Oxford Scholar Hotel, Melbourne. I was going to move it but realised it might stuff up the AfD. Remove the phrase about the "versatile term", isn't it just rhyming slang for a dollar? --Canley 04:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Not a notable hotel in Australia. --Starionwolf 06:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Oxford is a notable pub in Melbourne. The current article is however, worthless. -- Synapse 10:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Update: I've added what little I know, but I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of Melbourne's older pubs. The Oxford is very popular and certainly notable in Melbourne; not in Young and Jackson's league but probably in the top ten. Unfortunately it's own web site is (like many of Melbourne's pubs) mostly incomplete, incoherent, incorrect, and filled with broken javascript. -- Synapse 10:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I can not see that you added anythink. Did you forget to save it? --Bduke 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It appears so :( I only expanded on the location and features/interior, anyway, I'll make sure to save it this time. -- Synapse 04:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move to Oxford Scholar Hotel; notable. -- Synapse 09:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - article faisl to express notability. The JPStalk to me 20:24, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Iraq War veterans

The function of this list is handled more effectively by the categories Category:United States military personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison and Category:American Iraq War veterans. Keeping the list simply asks for it to stagnate. Kcordina Talk 12:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge the content. The page should become a redirect.--Jusjih 14:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Woefully incomplete, even of notable vets, and utterly maintainable. This is why we have categories. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Category more appropriate. (Apart from AfD, this page is totally POV, anti-war.) --Chaser (T) 22:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per stubbyhead. Pavel Vozenilek 20:07, 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. bainer (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Simplified Bible

Completing nomination. Conscious 13:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:New Simplified Bible:

I am requesting that this article is deleted.

  • This article is, I believe, merely advertisment
  • Despite the large size, I believe that most of the content (always written without a signon) was by the author of the translation; if this were not the case I doubt that the article would even exist. There are many things which make me suspect that: edits always done anonymously, huge content on something really non-notable, the wikipedia edits usually contain "according to the author...", when I added a list of critiscims of the translation in the article the rebuttal appeared on the authors site and links were added to the rebuttals within the wikipedia article.
  • This translation (despite the author having laboured for many hours on it), is non-notable. It has never been published and never looks likely to be notable.
  • It was already deleted previously and has been recreated

It might be thought that I have something against the translation since I have put a large amount of effort into the article describing why I believe the translation is a bad translation, but I fully support articles on notable bad translations, such as the Jehovah's Witness official translation, but I do not support articles on extremely non-notable translations, and whether it is a good or bad translation is irrelevant. In someways it makes me sad if my "criticisms of the translation" part of this article go (which I think is a good rebuttal of the translation errors made), but the real problem with this article is that it is just self-promotion. Brusselsshrek 11:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • See the first nomination. Conscious 13:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Don't know if there are any other notability guidelines for this, but it isn't like new electronically distributed Bible translations are threatening to fill the encyclopedia with translation-cruft. This doesn't read like the first article with was justly deleted, and comes closer to being encyclopedic. Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't a new translation; it's a self-published copy-edit of existing translations. --John Nagle 17:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. AFAICT, this does not meet WP:WEB. Basically seems like someone did WP:OR, put it on the Web, and expects to use WP as a vehicle to promote it. Crum375 19:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. --LambiamTalk 19:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Per Smerdis's inspection above, don't think it qualifies. --Chaser
  • Delete as generally non-notable, though I don't think WP:WEB or WP:OR should be applied to Bible translations, nor this for that matter. --Chaser (T) 22:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep well...it doesn't sound like advert to me, but it's only got 25^2 (=625) Ghits. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per first AFD. Wickethewok 04:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I mentioned in the introduction to this AfD request I did extensive work on this article during which I became highly suspicious that ALL the other content which was added anonymously was done by the author of the translation themself. It is difficult to convey to you without a great deal of work how just how much it seemed that I was writing some sort or information in the "Criticisms of the translation" section, and all of a sudden, under an anonymous edit, there would be a rebuttal written in an encyclopedic style of the type "According to the author...blah...blah...blah". An example of this sort of very suspicious style of editing:
  • In the Revision as of 09:11, 3 April 2006 I wrote ridiculing the extremely grandiose name which the author had chose for the translation "The New Simplified Bible Limited Edition II". Then, in the Revision as of 10:45, 4 April 2006 in one of a number of anonymous edits the article the name of the Bible is suddenly no longer "Limited Edition II". Now, had the Bible actually changed name and some observant Wikipedian was updating this newly found important information or was it (as I suspect) really the author of the translation trying to hide one of the more easily hidden stupidities of his self-promotion having read my encycolopedic criticism in the article?
  • If you think this is actually the author of the translation doing some self-promotion, then take a look at the further edits done at the same session by the anonymous 4.228.204.115 or for example the suspiciously similar IP address 4.228.204.206.
Brusselsshrek 06:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the original AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:24, 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 it's already been merged and made into a {{R from song}}. — May. 24, '06 [18:22] <freak|talk>

[edit] My Shit's Fucked Up

Not notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brusselsshrek (talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not a nomination. That's not even a sentence. Please remember that AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and that a well-written nomination can give a big boost to the value of the discussion itself, and to your chances of getting your way. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 17:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy A7 DELETE RN 23:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandwiche

Vanity page. Skeezix1000 12:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete WP:CSD-A7. Accurizer 13:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete CSD A7 - there is no assertion of notability.--blue520 14:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Pretty classic. DarthVader 14:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Just a joke and vanity page from some high school kid. No assertion of notability. Devotchka 18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Definitely (in my opinion, and no offense to Vader not a BJAODN candidate. If Brandon himself didn't write this article (say, if it was a joke done by a friend), I'd feel really bad for Brandon if this was archived on WP forever, even on a BJAODN page. -- Kicking222 18:57, 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. Sango123 (e) 14:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temeka's Video

Non-notable video store. Does not meet the criteria in WP:CORP. Skeezix1000 13:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete 11 Ghits only cannot be notable.--Jusjih 14:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 14:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 14:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Mr Stephen 17:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since I can't get any GHits at all. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable --Starionwolf 05:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eeriecore

I think this page is practically vandalism. Possibly another attempt to reclassify nu metal bands so the author can try to pass of their tastes as more crdible. I have never heard this term used in this context, it has almost no links, it is poorly explained and devoid of information. Switch 13:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete 25 Ghits only cannot be notable.--Jusjih 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As it stands the article is next to useless as it does not mention a single proponent of the supposed genre - only its "influences". Were there any actual information in the article it might be more worthwhile; but even then, as has been said, the lack of Google hits (nearly all Wiki mirrors or Myspace pages) suggests that it has never been used in a critical context. Seb Patrick 14:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Looks like an attempt to use Wikipedia to make a practically-unheard of term seem notable. Devotchka 18:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I'd love to add something to the discussion, but it's all been said. -- Kicking222 18:58, 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. Sango123 (e) 14:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oath of Refuge

This article does not describe a traditional or widespread Buddhist practice, but is the invention of one person; it is unverifiable (all mentions on the web point back to this article) and there is no evidence that anyone actually uses it. This makes it a subject which is too trivial for Wikipedia. The username of the person who created this article is also verifiably linked to that of the stated author of the text [37], suggesting that this is a vanity project. The introduction to the article also gives the false impression that this is a generally used Buddhist text, which is not the case. RandomCritic 13:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete less than 60 Ghits--Jusjih 14:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Tom Harrison Talk 14:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, which said everything I wanted to! Devotchka 18:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the basically perfect nominaton. -- Kicking222 18:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per, as they say, the nom Zero sharp 01:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nice catch, Random. bikeable (talk) 05:40, 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. Sango123 (e) 14:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pocket G2

This software has been in "limited alpha" for more than a year. The website tracking the project, http://www.pocketg2.com/ is stagnant. Its forum has less than 200 posts. Mikeblas 14:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 14:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if the article isn't updated in a few days. --Starionwolf 18:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The article hasn't been updated in five months; I doubt the next few days will matter. -- Kicking222 19:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:48, 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. bainer (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zvi Mowshowitz

Closer's notes
The only argument in this deletion debate was notability. Those in favour of deletion raised the argument that the article did not meet WP:BIO (an argument made without qualification), and an argument that card players generally are not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Conversely, IdahoEv made a comprehensive argument about the subject's notability and prominence within his field.
In my opinion, the "keep" argument was by far the most persuasive and outweighed the limited and weak arguments raised in favour of deletion.

Delete this professional magic card player. I mean, really! 172 unique Google hits [38] which is very very few for a dude who used to be a "popular internet writer". - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Am pressuming he confined most of his writings to just a few sites, which is common to do. Even very popular writers might post all their writings to a single site. Mathmo 03:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 14:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn per WP:BIO. Crum375 19:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If we have any other articles on professional collectible card game players, I would look into that too...--Pharos 23:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 23:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. If he'd won the World Championship like Finkel or been widely known for something else like Williams, I'd probably have voted keep. -- Grev 01:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep [39] Mathmo 03:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Has a decent chunk of coverage in the book Jonny Magic and the Cardshark Kids, which I've added. Notable enough for me. -- Norvy (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Zvi was extremely well known for developing format-breaking decks that exploited card interactions; After having read a book on deck design circa 2001, he was for several years the only pro player of the game I could name from memory. His play and contributions probably affected the design of the game more than any other single player, as he demonstrated more than once how cards dismissed as unplayable were in fact game-dominating when correctly understood (one example discussed [40]). The game's creators describe him as having "broken more ...cards than any other player in Magic history [41]) ). Wizards of the Coast hired him as a result, he worked on the game's R&D and wrote a column for them for several years until just a month ago [42]. IdahoEv 09:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep everyone knows Zvi.  Grue  08:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does this article really meet WP:BIO? The claim that everyone knows Zvi is clearly false since I don't know him. He may be known is some circles, but is that encylopedic? Vegaswikian 02:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
From WP:BIO: Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports. Zvi has won a Pro Tour and a Grand Prix, made four Pro Tour Top 8s, and earned a total of over $140,000 playing Magic. -- Norvy (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as obscure non-notable fancruft. entirely unencyclopedic. Bwithh 18:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note on professional magic

... for those who consider articles such as this merely "fanboyish", or don't consider the game to be a "sport".

Magic is played by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, and played professionally by tens of thousands. The Magic professionnal world championship has been held annually since 1994. Individual events have prize purses over $200k, the Pro Tour's annual purse is $240k, and the top pros have lifetime winnings well in excess of $300k.

Magic has all the trappings of a smallish professional sport: thousands of professional players, television coverage, player sponsorships, large prize purses, an international governing body, trade publications in both print and electronic media, and a Hall of Fame.

Magic should be considered the same as any other professional game/sport played for money, such as Chess, Poker, or Pool, and as such its important, famous, or influential players are eligible for inclusion. Given that many other games with professional competitions are treated like sports WRT WP:BIO (Wikipedia contains entire pages just for lists Go_players and Poker Players, for example), Magic should be no different. It is certainly newer than many other professional games, and perhaps attracts types of players some would consider "fanboys", but those facts on their own shouldn't constitute a basis for not treating it seriously as a professional sport. I would also note that there is significant and growing overlap between professional Magic and professional Poker; a number of Magic's top players are also professional Poker players, including Thomas Keller, Noah_Boeken, Jon_Finkel, and David Williams

As an international game, players like Zvi are visible to a wider audience than the typical US college sports player.

Phrases like these ("professional magic card player. I mean, really!" and "obscure non-notable fancruft") expose a fair amount of personal bias about what constitutes a legitimate sport.

Zvi in particular may not have won as much as some of the others, but was probably more influential on the game's evolution than any other single player. IdahoEv 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I am prepared to admit my bias against including such things as "professional magic card players" into Wikipedia - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:55, 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 KEEP —Whouk (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Hart

He sounds like a top bloke, but there's nothing to suggest he's notable, though that information has been asked for. --Hughcharlesparker 14:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep and clean up and expand. "Dogface Soldier" was a pretty popular song (hit for Russ Morgan in 1955). GassyGuy 17:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verifiable sources can be provided. I only got 54 ghits for '"ken hart" "dogface soldier"', but it may be that there's info available in back issues of stars and stripes or something. -- stubblyhead | T/c 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wrote a notable song with sufficient additional accomplishments to be considered notable himself. Those additional accomplishments need to be sourced, however. Powers 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dogface Soldier alone qualifies him. Google comes up with lots of stuff on it, and the song is good, too :P Crum375 19:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Dogface Soldier gets 262 unique google hits [43], whichis pretty damn good for a song from the 1940's. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I must say that I didn't realize that by putting an unsung hero into the annals of cyber history would cause such a stir, but this is good. I want to say Thanks to those of you who say Keep and can see that the significant importance of Wikipedia is to historically log events, people, places, things, happenings, etc. that have never been given their due notoriety. I intend to keep my personal association with Ken Hart out of this article, and keep it completely factual with the help of Wikipedians... I work for my livlihood, and have limited time to grow this article, but I hope that the Wikiculture shall bare with me as I provide enough facts to allow others to assist with the article and spin-off other articles from this man's life that need to be known as well. As noted, Mr Hart died in February, and, coincidentally, his wife Jane has just passed away peacefully this past Monday morning..there are others in Frankfort Kentucky and military veterans who will supply me with the facts and/or become Wikipedians themselves. This is the least I can do for my friend and a man that touched so many lives. This includes prominent people, some of whom were not aware that Wikipedia even existed. This article can only produce a positive karma within Wikipedia. THANK YOU --ZorroZ 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per all above. --Merovingian {T C @} 03:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. If Dogface Soldier deserves an article (and my internet research suggests it does) then the article should be there and Ken Hart should redirect to it. AndyJones 20:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that as written it is a memorial and not an encylopedia entry. For instance, "lovely" wife would have to go (although I have no doubt about that fact myself), as well as the many obit-like items. IOW, a major rewrite is needed to transform what is currenly an obit into a proper WP entry. But being a publisher, actor, WWII pilot and co-composer of a famous song sung by troops everywhere with a monument for the song, assuming all properly sourced, IMO merits a WP:BIO entry, certainly under the "WP is not paper" policy. Crum375 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Scrape clean and start anew - Ken Hart is a notable enough composer, but Wikipedia is no place for a eulogy. B.Wind 22:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - All nay-sayers please review the latest version to see if we are there yet. Thanks, Crum375 00:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (author request) Kusma (討論) 15:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carsparefinder

Delete as advertisement. Previously prodded...tag removed by author. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. They aren't Halfords, you know. Dr Zak 14:58, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chile v New Zealand (2006)

Friendlies are very seldom notable enough to have their own articles, and this is no exception. See also short talk on WikiProject Football and proposed criteria for notability on the same project. Delete and if needed merge content with a created 2005-06 in New Zealand football, like many other countries have. – Elisson • Talk 15:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
  • New Zealand v Malaysia (2006)
– Elisson • Talk 15:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Chile and New Zealand football articles. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 15:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - insignificant friendly match. Merging all into a single article (would it not be 2006 in New Zealand football given it is a Southern Hemisphere country?) as a second preference. Qwghlm 18:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable friendly matches, there's no reason even to put that information somewhere else. --Angelo 18:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no merge Completely and utterly non-notable. There's no conceiveable reason to merge anything into anything else. -- Kicking222 19:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The football afficionados don't list it among their goals for that project. Also, Wikipedia is not a collection of sports scores. --Chaser (T) 21:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Even though it is me that has written those goals, they do not tell what a perfect Wikipedia should include, they are just a few things that really need to be in Wikipedia. Articles on notable matches are a bonus, while non-notable friendlies are not. :) – Elisson • Talk 21:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Good point. My apologies Elisson, I didn't notice you'd linked the project at top. Chaser (T) 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Like everybody else is saying, it does not make sense to have articles for irrelevant matches. Since there is no 2005-06 in New Zealand football article to merge with, both entries should be deleted in my opinion. Bruno18 01:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • These articles should be deleted, though in principle the information can stay in a per-year page. Conscious 04:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Mariano(t/c) 07:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.  Grue  08:09, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Springfield M21

I don't know anything about guns, but an article that starts out "No gun officially known as the Springfield M21 exists" has got a problem. From the orphan article list, not edited in 18 months. Note that it used to redirect to M21 (rifle) until this diff [44] pointed out that the M21 was not actually made by Springfield. Thatcher131 15:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete if redirect is not correct - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. "No gun...exists" is definitely a problem. Amalas =^_^= 17:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above; may qualify for A7. -- stubblyhead | T/c 18:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete articles about things that don't exist. -- Mithent 18:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Revert to redirect. If the gun M21 is sometimes known as "Springfield M21" even mistakenly, it is worth a redirect. The target article should mention this. Now, if it isn't a remotely common term, then none of this holds. A search for "Springfield M21" returns a number of gun sales sites that appear to sell a gun looking an awful lot like the one at M21 (rifle), so that would seem to support my point. (But I know about as much about models of guns as I know about.... well its not a lot.) - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
From Talk:M21 (rifle):
:Springfield Inc. makes M21 and M25 rifles which are loosely based upon their military counterparts of the same designation. Much like the way that their name implies a relationship the former US military armory, the commercial firm Springfield Armory capitalizes on the implication that their products are the same as those used by the military. FWIW: The article should probably redirect here. --D.E. Watters 19:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
This supports redirect notion. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 23:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to M21 (rifle). For a gun that doesn't exist it seems to be available at a lot of places. Though if I'm lucky I know almost as much about guns as Keith. Voice of Treason 15:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Aren't there any gun nuts firearms enthusiasts on wikipedia? After looking around wikipedia and the web, I will withdraw the nomination, in favor of some rewriting and disambiguation. It seems that the Springfield Armory, a US Gov't operation, manufactured the M14 Rifle, which was converted to the M21 (rifle) by the Rock Island Arsenal in the 1960s. Meanwhile, a private gun manufacturer bought the Springfield name and now operates as Springfield Armory, Inc. which does sell a model M21, although I can't tell if it is the same design and specs as the government model (I'm sure its at least close). I think there needs to be some disambiguation between models made by and for the military versus models made by the new private company for private use. Thatcher131 17:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment See now, this is exactly the sort of situation where polemic userboxes would come in handy. We could just go look for the users with Template:User_NRA. :) - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment FYI I asked the fine upstanding gun experts at Talk:M21 (rifle). - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:24, 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 Keep Computerjoe's talk 20:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ProgressSoft

This page was restored by DRV after community consensus determined that it was prematurely deleted while revising was in progress. DRV recommended relisting for further consensus, so here we are. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • NB:The applicable previous deletion discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressoft, as this content resided at a different capitalization at the time. The previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProgressSoft is not relevant to this discussion. For the DRV discussion, see here Xoloz 16:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep (Note that they could be viewed as a competitor of my employer, I'd comment instead of voting delete, but I don't think that bias should count against a keep vote.) While the initial references to their notability in the last AfD were at the company's web site, the cited sources in the article are press articles. (The company site versions are not press releases, they are images of the cited articles.) At least the second appears to me to include research the company would not likely have included in its press releases. The first does look like a repackaged press release. As I said last AfD round in a comment, it appears to pass WP:CORP point 1. GRBerry 01:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    Later comment. I've tried more research. I'm not sure this can get beyond being a short stub other than by being built on the Arabic wikipedia and then translated to here. There just aren't many English language references to them, and most of those aren't good enough sources - either reprints of press releases or one line directory entries. It looks like most of their product releases are, or at least were 10 years ago, to make available in Arabic language versions of software widely available in English language versions. Changing my vote to a weak keep.GRBerry 13:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Its notability is posited on screen captures hosted on its own website (look at the two references URL's). Unbelievable self-promotion. —204.42.22.114 01:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
No, as per my post above, its notability is posited and referenced to the originals that the company took screen captures of. GRBerry 01:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I don't see evidence of notability, even for criterion WP:CORP 1--coverage by the non-notable press doesn't create notability. Show me a Wall Street Journal article, I'll change my mind.-- FRCP11 12:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per GRBerry. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with GRBerry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teen Wrestling Association

WP:BIO WP:V Non-notable club, no references. John Nagle 17:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. Tried "prod", original editor deleted "prod", so we have to go to AfD. --John Nagle 17:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable (is it anything other than just a group of kids?), and seems to me like advertising to boot. Seb Patrick 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Verifiability problems are just the beginning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, particularly since they just deleted the prod instead of attempting to prove that they weren't worthy of it. Devotchka 18:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NFT more than anything... Roodog2k 21:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 05:17, 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 NO CONSENSUS. This is difficult, as the book does appear to be self-published and we routinely delete such works unless they are exceptional (usually self-publication indicates some problem persuading anyone else to publish it). However, the AfD for the book itself is not going to be a delete (I shall close it momentarily unless beaten to it) and this one is rather much on the edge of where we begin to consider deletion, particularly taking into account the preceding PROD/etc. So I think perhaps what should happen is a simple redirect to the book, which I will go and apply. This is an editorial decision, however, so it is reversible. -Splashtalk 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brooks Kubik

This article was restored by DRV consensus, following a determination that the previous AfD failed to consider all relevant information. Please see the DRV discussion for a number of significant points of information raised about the article's subject. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete The closest thing to a truly verifiable claim of notability is his published book. Its Amazon listing shows the publisher as Brooks D. Kubik himself, and the one and only used copy available is listed at almost a hundred bucks, suggesting that the print run was likely quite small. I've looked up self-published stuff on Amazon before and I'm often astonished by how many used copies there are. Although I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise, this looks like a self-published work with a very small print run, and so I vote to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind and because I can't find any true notability. Also, if this is up for deletion then Dinosaur Training must also be up for AfD, as the entire article is about Kubik. -- Kicking222 19:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- FRCP11 13:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind. Dr Zak 13:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though self-published as far as I know, the book is (still) fairly widely available from multiple sources on the web. For example: [45], [46], [47]. There are also a number of reviews of the book available on-line for those who look for them. Besides the book, Kubik has also been a regular contributor to several strength training publications (Hardgainer, Milo, Iron Master). Dsreyn 00:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Dsreyn. Mr. Kubik does seem to be somewhat known in strength building circles as far as I can tell. I'm afraid of deleting him simply because he doesn't appear notable to people not in the field. His book and contributions to strength training publications ot me makes him pessibly worth keeping. But frankly, I'd feel more confortable if some weight training folks were voting on this. --Lendorien 01:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure exactly what kind of "weight training folks" you're looking for, but I count as one if you mean someone who's a serious weight trainer and reads some of the magazines (subscribe to Milo, subscribed to Hardgainer until it stopped publishing). Dsreyn 02:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, what's the last time "Milo" had an article about Dinosaur Training in it, and what did it have to say about it? That's the sort of thing I'm getting at. Ditto the other magazines. Which magazines have him on the masthead as contributing editor? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not meeting the WP:BIO guidelines. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaur Training for some miscellaneous Googling. I personally gave Dinosaur Training itself a very weak "keep" vote, because Ironman magazine published a book on strength training with a substantial chapter by Kubik on dinosaur training, but one chapter in a print book by a "real" publisher plus one self-published out-of-print book does not add up to a notable author, and a handful of brief mentions by other strength training authors does not, IMHO, make him notable either. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: There is no valid reason to delete this article. The man is a widely enough published author, and has a following and affiliation with other authors and fitness websites on the internet. The sources of information are irrelevant, all claims are made reflecting the claims made by Kubik as opinion or statements of his practise by him, and not as facts. Furthermore, this is an article meant for expansion, and should be kept up for that purpose. All of you change your votes, they're ridiculous. Tyciol 21:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; in my estimation fails WP:BIO. A few articles and a self-published book, in the absence of wide public notice, do not constitute notability. MCB 01:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the following from Wikipedia:Importance is worth keeping in mind while voting:
An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:
1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
Kubik may not have general appeal to the masses, but he is definitely well-known and of interest to those in the weight-training community. Seems like there's something wrong when there's room for an article on Mr. Methane but not a legitimate, well-published writer like Kubik. fbb_fan 00:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a self-published book and a few magazine articles constitute a "well-published" author. Anyone can write and pay for a book to be printed up; there is no evidence that it ever sold any copies at all. The three magazines in which he is supposed to have published articles are not particularly well-known; I've never seen them at a newsstand or bookstore, even those that carry all sorts of body-building and fitness magazines. MCB 02:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It's more than "a few magazine articles". He was a regular columnist (as in, every issue had an article by him) for Hardgainer for several years, before he broke away to start his own newsletter, and was also a regular columnist for Iron Master. I agree that these are not common newsstand magazines; that does not mean that they are unknown in the community (incidentally, that complaint could also be used to discredit the notability of people in academic fields who are widely published in academic journals). Regarding your statement about the book, "there is no evidence that it ever sold any copies at all", do you *really* think the companies that are still selling it (I posted links to three previously) have never sold a single copy? I found the following statement at [48] (not Kubik's site), roughly halfway down the page:
In 1998, Dinosaur Training became even bigger...literally. When it came time for the second printing, Brooks added two additional chapters.
So if there was a second printing, could we agree that it is quite likely that the first printing sold out? Dsreyn 02:33, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Simmons

I am finishing this incomplete nomination for professor Simmons (he left a note at the help desk complaning about how it's still around). For some reason he doesn't want to have an article on Wikipedia. No recommendation on my part, just bringing here for discussion. --Hetar 17:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not notable by our standards, I'm surprised this wasn't deleted under prod. Being the possible author of a not-yet published book is not enough. I can't see any reason to thwart Prof Simmons on this! :-) — Estarriol talk 18:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable enough anyway, and the fact that he doesn't want the article on there makes it seem worthy of deletion. (I know that wouldn't always be the case, but it seems relevant here.) No one will be missing out desperately if we delete an article on this guy. Devotchka 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:BIO, WP:NN. May become notable in future. Crum375 19:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as requested at the help desk. If the subject says he's not notable, then why argue with him? (Although if he ever does become notable, then we can do an article on him later.) --Elkman 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability. Author of an upcoming book doesn't qualify. Normally, I object to subjects asking that articles about them be removed, but I think it's the right thing, in this case. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:59, 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, bordering on "No result". This is an AfD of the worst kind where two or three editors simply continue a debate they were already having without getting any much input from anyone else. This isn't helped at all by the descent into namecalling, bold and capitals at the end. This debate is not very useful for determining any kind of outcome, does not lean clearly in the direction of a delete, and anyway the previous AfD is much more sane and useful. -Splashtalk 20:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death Valley Driver Video Review

web site will little value which is not worth having entry on Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JB196 (talk • contribs) .

Keep: If you look at the history of the page and the discussion earlier, he tried to instert comment after comment about how the folks there are Nazis and stuff, I worked with him to get NPOV and add a comment that satisfied his concerns, but instead he decided that he wanted it deleted instead. The article is better then it was in the first discussion, see no reason why it should be relisted SirFozzie 18:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, absolutely no assertion of notability. No idea how this survived the first AfD. — AKADriver ☎ 19:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Notability comes from it's position among the community, as well as the controversies that are mentioned in the article SirFozzie 19:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Its "Position in the community" isn't mentioned in the article, and the "controversies" are essentially just webforum/usenet flame wars. Bleh. — AKADriver ☎ 19:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (both vote changes explained below) Conditional Keep per TruthCrusader's comment in first AfD: Its one of the largest fan sites on the Internet. But some independent evidence of notability would be welcome. --Chaser (T) 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
11,300 Specific Ghits on "Death Valley Driver Video Review".. would do DVDVR (15 million Ghits) but that has a lot of DVD Format stuff too, but considering the length of the specific phrase, that says a lot. SirFozzie 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the extra post, but I just reran the GSearch and it came back 27,000 Hits. Weird. SirFozzie 21:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
How about newspaper articles or another credible source? Chaser (T) 21:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if I can find it, but I'll look, (probably whole categories would have to go if that was a yea/nay point :) SirFozzie 21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
All I could find on Lexis was a reference to a wrestling move Death Valley driver: Lift an opponent into a fireman's carry and drop him sideways, so he lands on his head. in St. Petersburg Times (Florida), December 24, 1998, SPORTS; Pg. 7C. That being said, I trust the other assertions to notability, so I'm not going to change my own vote. --150.243.160.93 04:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC) thought i was signed in. Chaser (T)
Keep: the user JB196 has a history of bearing a personal grudge against DVDVR and the sole purpose of this new deletion request is to satisfy that grudge. As I stated the first time, like it or not DVDVR is one of the largest wrestling-oriented fan sites on the Internet. TruthCrusader 22:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is asserted in the article. Tons and tons and tons of Google hits. Very well-known site. Alexa ranking around 25,000. I see no reason at all not to keep this article. -- Kicking222 01:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete: As I said, it doesn't have the notoriety to be featured on Wikipedia. If we put every well known wrestling site that exists on here it would be clutter heaven. Where is Smarks/Rantsylvania? 411Wrestling? RajahWWF? SoCalUncensored? tOA (Otherarena.com)? Seriously, where are the entries for those web sites?
Furthermore, there used to be an article on wikipedia for TheSmartMarks.com and it was since removed, presumably because it is a web site and that is all. It is not fair for a web site such as that to have its entry be removed from Wikipedia and this one to remain. TheSmartMarks reaches a FAR FAR FAR broader community as it is one of the most frequented message boards in the pop culture world. It even got its own official poker line recently (http://thesmartmarks.com/partypoker). Yet where's TSM's entry (which previously existed...if it calls for it I'll try to dig it up)
Where's the articles for WrestlingObserver.com? PWTorch.com? The article itself is not exactly written from a neutral POV. It makes a small comment Lance Storm made out as if it was something that stirred up the entire Internet Wrestling Community, when in reality it was so minor the fact that its spotlighted is a joke. The day Lance Storm "goes to war" against DVDR (as is indicated by "DVDR vs. Lance Storm") is the day the Internet's existence should just end...
Even furthermore, SirFozzie, it is not fair for you to criticize me for trying to supposedly add comment after comment when just a few days ago you were editing my user page relentlessly to remove hostile comments you made a few weeks ago (such as "Don't know why I'm helping you since you decided since you weren't going to have your way with the article"---I've since reverted the page to the version it was before you removed those comments).
PS - Here are some recent threads about the downfall of DVDR: [49]
I have to go but I will post some more threads later on if I get the chance. There is another one I am having a lot of trouble finding. It is on CZWFans and illustrates my point that the site has suffered a grave downfall in reputation over the last few years, but I am having trouble finding the thread.
- JB196 10:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)~~
Again, I worked with you through several revisions on the talk pages of DVDVR and our talk pages to find a statement that would fit your request and reamin NPOV. The reason why I reverted my copying of how to list the article for deletion, is because if you look at the bottom of your talk page, the categories "Articles: Listed for Deletion"? Was trying to do you a favor because it was my fault that your page was so listed. If there are other such noteable communities.. why doesn't someone write them.. I'm not familiar enough with the sites to do it justice. (Resigning this since I can, thanks Bix) 24.62.82.234 20:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Y'know you can just edit the old post and sign that... --David Bixenspan 19:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is an old thread about TSMs entry on wikipedia. Does anybody know why the "The Smart Marks" entry on wikipedia was removed? http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?showtopic=56905&hl=dames JB 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment Why don't you guys go fight this out on the article's talk page? This is clearly not going to end in a delete consensus. --Chaser (T) 21:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
That's where we came from. Sadly, JB196 wasn't happy with what we hammered out and came here instead. SirFozzie 21:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I find it difficult to understand the comments of "X and Y don't have entries, why should DVDVR?", that simply means people with the sufficient knowledge should spend their time in a more constructive manner and create entries if they feel so strongly about it, rather than engaging in a campaign against the DVDVR entry? Sasaki 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: In addition to what the above user posted, with regards to the earlier comment "Where is Smarks/Rantsylvania? 411Wrestling? RajahWWF? SoCalUncensored? tOA (Otherarena.com)?", according to alexa.com's traffic rankings, deathvalleydriver.com gets more traffic than any of those sites, and more hits than smartmarks.com as well. In fact 411Wrestling is the only one that even comes close. There is no reason for deletion. 00:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see much of a difference in traffic. between the two - http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&compare_sites=&y=r&q=&size=large&range=max&url=deathvalleydriver.com vs. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&compare_sites=&y=r&q=&size=large&range=max&url=www.thesmartmarks.com%2F

They look about the same.

Sir Fozzie - there are other notable communities (such as TSM) and someone did write an article on that but for some reason it was taken down. I also think that Chaser was right initially in that there isn't any evidence of any mainstream credibility for DVDR. The point is that its not fair for one site's entry on Wikipedia to be removed while another one is still kept even though they have similar statistics.

The reason why I reverted my copying of how to list the article for deletion, is because if you look at the bottom of your talk page, the categories "Articles: Listed for Deletion"? - That sentence doesn't make sense gramatically so I dunno what you mean. JB 00:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: What constitutes "mainstream credibility"? There are many entries for independent wrestlers and promotions on Wikipedia which are less well known than DVDVR, should they be deleted as well? Should articles about say for example less well known jazz musicians be removed because they do not have "mainstream credibility"? Sasaki 03:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "mainstream credibility" is really relevent here--Chaser bought it into the discussion, not myself.JB196 10:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's relevant either. I was looking for "independent evidence of notability". That said, I trust TruthCrusader's assertion that it's notable. --Chaser (T) 10:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Chaser - do you know anything about the web site in question or are you going just by what TruthCrusader says? And to anyone - what's the story with the TSM entry?JB 20:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Mostly TruthCrusader, though I reviewed everything again. For what it's worth, this page (from 2004) ranks the site 13th among pro wrestling fansites and this one doesn't include them, leading me to change my vote. Somebody should create a list of these sites and redirect this page to there.--Chaser (T) 00:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
May I point out that the second link should have no bearing on any decision? The main page clearly states "We are one of the most accurate ranking sites on the web with 30978 sites joining in 74 categories since September 25th, 2000. Click on a category below to add your site for FREE!", so unless DVDVR has actually been added to the site then it is unlikely to be listed. Sasaki 01:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Nonetheless, even if it were ranked first on both lists, there's no evidence it comes close to meeting WP:WEB.--Chaser (T) 02:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Your good point has nagged at me the last few days. I don't know enough about this and I am uncertain of notability, so I'm neutral.--Chaser (T) 07:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The mere FACT that Lance Storm has had a real life feud with this website because of its work-rate top 500 rankings should be more than adequate to show DVDVR belongs on Wiki. There are VERY obscure entries on VERY obscure artists, musicians, people etc that NO ONE outside their respective genre's would recognize, yet their articles stand. This whole AfD is the product of a few disgruntled users who were booted off the board, and whose names I will NOT mention here..though i will say one of them has a VERY uncivil remark on his User Page about DVDVR that Wiki, in its usual double-standard admin action theory, has YET to erase.

TruthCrusader 11:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a totally invalid point. Its a web site. He simply mentioned it, and I don't even think mentioned it by name. It's not a "Feud." Again, the point here is that there's a double standard. If TSMs entry was deleted, there's no reason why DVDR's entry should be kept either.JB196 12:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The SOLE Reason this article is even UP for deletion is because YOU have a personal grudge against it. Instead of being the bigger man and just letting it go, you are trying to take out your frustrations. The FACT is that Lance Storm did indeed have a VERY public feud with the website..the FACT is DVDVR IS one of the, if not THE biggest fan site devoted to wrestling on the planet..its gets MORE visitors and MORE Google hits than "The Smarks", which is a professionally maintained site. This whole process once again is a waste of time. TruthCrusader 17:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo: 17,800 hits for DVDVR Google: 28,000 hits for DVDVR Alexa: 1156 hits msn: 1105 hits TruthCrusader 17:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

TruthCrusader, why don't you first try to change your tone from this hostile manner and THEN come back and discuss the issue? JB196 20:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete per above. McPhail 16:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • COMMENT* Do we have any consensus on this? SirFozzie 16:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Forget concensus, that's not the issue anymore. The issue is why is past Wikipedia precedent being violated by having this article be maintained while the Smart Marks entry was deleted.JB196 18:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
As for the scope of this AfD, I certainly would believe consensus is an issue, after all, that's what we're trying to reach here.. SirFozzie 18:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said I'm fine with the afD being withdrawn but in that case I think a neutrality message should be placed at the top of the article.JB196 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
You had a shot to work towards a NPOV before this, and instead decided since you couldn't get statements from other boards calling the admins Nazis into the article, that you would try to get it deleted. Again,, I worked with you for several go rounds before this started.. you aren't looking for a NPOV, you're looking for a Non-NPOV that supports your acucusations. SirFozzie 19:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
SirFozzie - HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF CALLING ANYBODY A NAZI. I don't appreciate your tone nor your lack of civility as it pertains to this issue. I have never nor would I ever call anybody a Nazi, let alone somebody who runs a web site.

JB196 19:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How dare I? I dare because it's the truth. Remember this comment, you posted to my talk page? "Yes, we definitely do need to come to some kind of concensus or else we're gonna continue trading edits. It is not "unbias" to argue that the public perception of DVDR has drastically deteriorated over the past two years. Prominent message boards such as TheSmartMarks.com, CZWFans, ROHWrestling.com and many others have seen an influx of threads hating on DVDR. Just a few weeks ago there was a 2 or 3 page CZWFans thread where poster after poster after poster criticized the "Naziism" of the DVDR crew. Now obviously "naziism" is a stretch, but its not a stretch to say the general opinion of the board has very much changed for the negative as of late. So what do you see wrong with my wording in my edit?" SirFozzie 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
SirFozzie I don't know how you're able to get away with such blatant uncivility (sp?) on Wikipedia. You really have some cahonies, first to make this issue personal when it shouldn't be and then to accuse me of calling somebody a Nazi. The paragraph you quoted supports my statement that I have never nor would I ever call somebody a Nazi. HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF CALLING ANYBODY A NAZI. Talk about offensive... You may have missed WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF so please take a good look at those pages. JB196 20:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete and merge per nominator. Or more accurately, I deleted Podunk, moved Podunk (place) here and then restored Podunk to merge the page histories, as the nominator indicated some of Podunk would make for a good disambiguation header. Might as well give credit then to the authors of the disambiguation page, IMO. Everyone else then echoed what the nominator said. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podunk

This is a disambiguation page on which only one of the links is blue -- Podunk (place). The others links represent things that are fictional, non-notable, and/or minor enough to be placed in Podunk (place). I propose deleting the disambiguation page, moving Podunk (place) to Podunk, and then merging into that article the two or three of the red-linked topics which deserve mention in Wikipedia but not their own articles (such as the hamlet in Ulysses, New York) — GT 16:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • What he said. -- stubblyhead | T/c 18:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Crum375 19:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Nick Y. 20:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit boldly! ie, as per nom. GRBerry 01:17, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the consoles

First of all, the term seems like a neologism. It describs the competition between the next generation consoles, or perports to, but mostly it's just a comparison between them so far. Seems like original research, and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or soapbox. PROD removed without discussion. W.marsh 18:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not much on Google about it and most hits just describe a generic sort of thing unrelated to this particular article. The author of the article doesn't even seem sure whether it's "Battle of THE Consoles" or just "Battle of Consoles". Either way, NN, delete. Devotchka 18:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary article with a bad title ('battle of the consoles' is not so much a neologism as a generic term applied to many generations of consoles). There is already information on the consoles on their own pages , and this contributes nothing more than listing similar information again (there aren't even any direct comparisons made). -- Mithent 18:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, every console generation has been a "battle of the consoles" and there is nothing to make this generation special or verify the use of the term. — AKADriver ☎ 19:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Original Reaserch, not only that but slightly biased (PS3 is listed as having the "best" graphics. Deathawk 20:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research and POV - why this set of criteria over others? BryanG(talk) 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Battle of the Consoles"? People called NES vs Master System (and SNES vs Megadrive) "console wars", IIRC, but that doesn't mean we need to call the article that because it wasn't widespread enough. Certainly not a new idea, but we're not in the business of pushing neologisms unless people actually use them all the time, and they're not referring to any specific consoles anyway, just the ordinary competition between the market leaders. Plus, the article is pretty awful as it stands, PoV-pushing and pretty silly arguments too ("GTA first"? "Halo 3"? Oh please...) Calling this "original research" will make crank scientists enraged to have their work compared to this. And the PS3 "info" bit looks and smells like a copyvio to boot. Please put this travesty out of its misery. It smelleth, truly, verily not of roses, but promoteth growth it not. --wwwwolf
  • DeleteThe "bit of info on the PS3" belongs in another article, and the article itself offers a negligible amount of information. It is also riddled with an incredible amount of non-encyclopedic uses. Furthermore, "Battle of the consoles" fetches only 700 links on Google (although I believe this is a fairly widespread term, and almost all of the links on Google relate to this topic)--also, a copyrighted image.Adambiswanger1 01:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)growls) 13:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 15:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --Starionwolf 05:19, 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. --Durin 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J-town Tribe

Group of teens in Janesville, WI. No notability asserted, and does not meet WP:BIO. Recreated after speedy deletion; tag removed by author. I'm bringing this here to get a bit of consensus and to prevent the author to continue to repost it. Delete. bikeable (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and protect. Growing from 10 to 80 is not exponential growth, and it's drastically short of notability. — AKADriver ☎ 19:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe even speedy. I would have put a {{db-club}} on it. Unless they've been covered by the media or they're otherwise notable, it doesn't belong here in Wikipedia. --Elkman 19:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and send them to bed without their supper.Wildthing61476 19:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect, as per AKADriver. They aren't notable, and there's no need for the article. --AlbertHerring 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Adam Bishop 20:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. No Google hits for "Janesville Tribe" and anything I can find for "J-Tribe" seems to be irrelevant. Great picture, though, snerk. Devotchka 20:30, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Designer(c)2006

Page describes a software product called, very confusingly, Designer(c)2006. Looks almost completely like an advertisement for designs generated by the software package; the package itself sells for $3500 (!). Google finds 3 pages linking to it, one an ebay auction of a design. Delete as non-notable advertisement. bikeable (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete ad, nn. Crum375 19:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete definite ad. Devotchka 19:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. I do like the final line though: "At its current level Designer(c) 2006 is a pretty good designer." It seems to me it should be more than "pretty good" at $3,500.00, which is more than Photoshop, Illustrator, Painter, and Flash combined! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad, NN, and unencyclopedic —Mets501talk 01:41, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abe Geiger

I see that this has been tagged for clean-up. Maybe it's just the way the article was written, but I don't think that this guy is really notable. Or should we have articles on all fairly successful university athletes? Maybe he WILL be notable, but I don't think he qualifies as such yet.Devotchka 19:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete per nom. Seems close to criteria but missing it nonetheless.--Nick Y. 20:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully professional league or at the highest level in his sport. - Peripitus 22:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - so close to requirements. —Mets501talk 01:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: I reached this page while doing the clean-up, and I find that this entry is not notable page as per WP:BIO. --Bootblack 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as per article creator's request User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Jay Beaton

This was tagged for AfD at 10:06, 24 May 2006, but not followed up. So I'm continuing the process. And delete because it's junk that doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO (it was tagged for speedy delete, and the tag was removed). discospinster 19:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN and obnoxious. Hell, it should be speedy.Devotchka 20:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. He's a high school student. Period. Fan1967 20:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and trash the Beaton Punk while you're at it. GassyGuy 20:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've done it! Well, tagged it, anyway. Devotchka 20:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not Myspace. User should move this crap to his userpage and leave the Wikipedia space for notable and important articles. Mtmelendez 20:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Nick Y. 20:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Lame joke article. Excerpt: "...will likely surpass Jesus as the #2 most respected man on earth behind Chuck Norris." The rest of it is on about the same level. Frankly, I'm surprised it's lasted since yesterday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per nom and others. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete The joke has gone too far. I created this monster as a homage to my fellow classmate, but it has grown out of control. Everyone in the class has gone on to edit it. Please destroy it now, for the sake of my, and Ryan's, sanity.Sidewinder006
  • Speedy delete. ^ What they said. ^ —PaperTruths 21:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. I went ahead and added the speedy delete tag because the author requested its deletion--Bill 21:54, 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. Sango123 (e) 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Affinity Hub

Recreated after having been deleted following a prod. Only eight Google hits for this term, the first being the now-deleted Wikipedia page, and a couple others being mirrors. Neologism. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Definite neologism. Devotchka 20:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Nick Y. 20:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Only 16 Ghits? What is this, anyway? M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bejnar 23:10, 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. Sango123 (e) 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superdye

Creator removed a speedy tag and went on to expand this article, but this band still does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. — TheKMantalk 20:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. They don't seem to meet WP:MUSIC for me either. Plus, the article is clearly written by a member of the band--a quick look at the writing style of their webpage indicates that. Devotchka 20:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom--Nick Y. 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mtmelendez 21:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also, there are only 937 Ghits. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:19, 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. Sango123 (e) 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photon-splitting and elongation cascade for modeling the Big-Bang

signed original research paper--and a very poorly written one at that Gene Nygaard 20:33, 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 delete. Sango123 (e) 14:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chao Universe

nn forum. Can't get an alexa ranking on it because it's hosted at freeforums.com. There are also only 1530 total Google hits for "chao universe", and not all of them refer to this forum. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Ciao, Chao. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Nick Y. 20:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - NN. Vanity, Self-promotion. Also, please note that the article author has twice removed the AFD tag from the page.--Drat (Talk) 06:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment- Make that three times.--Drat (Talk) 02:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A web forum with 576 members isn't all that notable. — TKD::Talk 15:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chao Land

nn forum, alexa ranking of 1,369,825, only 1050 total Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom--Nick Y. 20:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN —Mets501talk 01:39, 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 Speedy deleted -- Longhair 03:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beaton Punk

Same guy as in the Ryan Jay Beaton page. NN. This guy sure likes himself. Devotchka 20:40, 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 delete. --Ezeu 00:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ideal User

Frankly, I'm not sure this should be deleted, but at least it should be moved to back-end pages (or whatever that's called) as an essay or something. I don't think we ought to have an "ideal user" or even this page when we already have loads of guides about how "anyone" can edit wikipedia. On the other hand, I don't want to give anyone a reason to claim we are censoring suggestions, even silly ones. Chaser (T) 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Edit: Strong delete as bad faith per Fbv65edel. --Chaser (T) 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong and Speedy Delete. The user who created the page, Jimster_260 (talk • contribs), lists User:Bachrach44 as being an "ideal user," yet Jimster has vandalized his/her userpage. Jimster also "predicts" the deletion of his article (in a day and an hour) on the talk page, and "feels this article may be deleted," as noted on the main section of the article. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the main list to some Wikipedia: namespace page. Remove the section about "examples of such users" as that could lead to some trouble later on Delete as a bad-faith, out-of-namespace page per Fbv65edel...Scott5114 21:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Good idea, but the article appears to be unencyclopedic and the result of original research. Article may be more appropriate on the user's page or website. --Starionwolf 04:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that this page was meant to be something in the Wikipedia namespace, but they were to new to understand that. Therefore, I vote to Move to Wikipedia:Ideal user, than tag it with {{Proposed}}.
  • Delete and put it out of its misery. Tyrenius 23:57, 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 speedy delete. Sango123 (e) 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BSS Prefects

Nowhere in this article does it say what exactly BSS is. (Searching Wikipedia for BSS - perhaps Bishop Strachan School, in Toronto). Even if some explanation can be found - is this really an encyclopaedic article? As far as I can see, it just seems like a waste of space - it's the equivalent of me listing everybody who lives on my road. In my opinion, this article should be deleted. CPCHEM 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The page is linked to from the Wikipedia entry for Bishop Strachan School, so that is definitely the BSS in question. GassyGuy 21:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. A7. What's next, listing class officers and head of the AV club and Chess club from every english-speaking high school in the world? Fan1967 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. Devotchka 22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. CSD A7. Doesn't assert notability and could never be notable anyway. DarthVader 22:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Lacking context, no assertion of notablity and most likely very non notable even once context is added.--Nick Y. 00:15, 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. Tawker 03:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sessa Frost

nonexistant character for nonexistant anime which might show up in 2010. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, let it come back if the associated project ever comes to fruition GassyGuy 21:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete until said anime actually exists. From the article: "yet to be released by it's creator Tinna in junction with her ex boyfriend Ted." Good luck with that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Apparently the author removed the content and concurred with deletion--Nick Y. 00:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment looks like the author doesn't mind its being deleted...i'm putting db-author. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete sole author wants the deletion. —Mets501talk 01:45, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fleshograph

Not even a neologism. Only one Google hit, and not for this term. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks like an attempt by Goddess4You to put herself on the map by renaming anthopometrie...which doesn't appear to have an entry here anyway. Devotchka 21:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Devotchka--Nick Y. 01:21, 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 redirect to Harry Potter fandom. --Ezeu 00:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Leaky Mug

This is not such a notable event – an April Fool's prank of a Harry Potter fan site – that it merits its own article. Wikipedia doesn't have separate articles on each of its pranks of April 1. I have already merged the content into the articles MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron (website). Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, it may qualify under A7. It's also a cut and paste job from MuggleNet#2006 perhaps I should read the whole nom first next time. -- stubblyhead | T/c 21:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Harry Potter fandom; you're right, that makes more sense. MuggleNet (or to The Leaky Cauldron (website), but from the look of the site that day it seemed to be more of a MuggleNet thing). --Allen 01:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment it may have looked more MuggleNet, but it was equally shared between the two sites. I'd recommend, if a redirect, to redirect to Harry Potter fandom, as it incorporates the two sites. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Allen and 65. B.Wind 22:34, 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 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smbok

I'm not really sure what this is, but "ITSMBOK" only has one Google hit, at the linked site, and it's listed there as trademarked. Advertising? Gibberish? I haven't a clue. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete It's Averish! Yanksox 21:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, also Itsmbok, essentially the same information. Accurizer 21:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 22:27, 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 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encrypt0r

Non-notable software. Prod tag removed by anonymous editor. cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Plus, it's an ad. Devotchka 21:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 01:29, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ST-RP

nn website, no alexa ranking, first person. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Definitely NN Devotchka 21:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Let me get this straight. It's been around since 2002, but has no Alexa ranking? Where are the servers located, in a sealed underground bunker? M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's incredibly obvious that this article's subject is completely non-notable, so for the sake of hilarity, I'm just going to say Delete per M1ss1iontomars. -- Kicking222 01:27, 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. No Guru 02:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Island Census (Lost)

Was formally Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Island Census, merged back into Characters of Lost page and split off again. Unencyclopedic and not complete, believed by many users on Talk:Characters of Lost#Census split. Delete. -- Wikipedical 21:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, this is fancruft that belongs on a fansite, not on an encyclopedia. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, or even close. -- PKtm 22:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above--Bill 22:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Rillian 01:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons given by nominator. DVD+ R/W 01:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42 times, if necessary. -- GWO
  • Merge There's never going to be a real concensus on this page. It needs to be merged back and left on the main page. Kant2k6
  • Speedy delete per consensus of previous AfD. ed g2s • talk 19:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. It belongs on a fansite. Chris 42 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not merge, per nom and GWO. -Whomp 22:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge it back with Characters of Lost page--Gonzalo84 01:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, with deletion of redundant information that is replicated on the Characters of Lost page and possible greater clarity on information that is 100% canonical (from the show) and of a lower level of canon (from the podcasts, website diary and novels). Also only those dates specifically mentioned in The Other 48 Days and other episodes should be used: for example, in the Season 2 finale Locke isn't sure if it's 60 or 65 days since the crash, so the Day 65 references are speculative.--Werthead 14:19, 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. No Guru 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York Open Center

Vanity. Minor business in NYC. provides "Swedish Massage, Shiatsu, Polarity, Acupressure..." and Yoga classes at $15 a pop. Delete. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Just an ad and a vanity page. Devotchka 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Nick Y. 00:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable business in New York. Sorry, but I have never heard of this business. --Starionwolf 04:32, 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. No Guru 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Luz Faeconi-Escobido

Not verifiable. Medtopic 22:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No Google hits. Toastmasters is a big group made of many small local clubs. Being a member or getting an award from them usually is not notable in an encyclopedic sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind--Nick Y. 00:35, 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. No Guru 02:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poes

Wikipedia is not a South African slang dictionary. Prod was removed by an anonymous contributor. The contributor's comment was originally placed in the article but I moved it to the talk page. Accurizer 22:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • DeleteIt could be placed in the vagina article as a slang term, but it doesn't warrant its own article. Master of Puppets That's hot. 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. Dicdef and I don't care how widespread it is. Devotchka 22:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is biased and offensive in its reference to government officials. It is a stereotype that all South African government officials warrant such accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.165.196.245 (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. No Guru 02:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Reluctant Townie

Delete: Non-notable column for a "renowned" writer who I cannot find anything about on the first pages on Google ([50]). Prod tag was removed by an IP. Master of Puppets That's hot. 22:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete: The anon who removed the tag also contributed this--"The Reluctant Townie" is a smartass but shows promise in his writing. ;-)" I got [55 Google hits for +"Ryan Jackson" +"News-Gazette". Mostly from his paper. Does not meet WP:BIO#People_still_alive. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 22:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 22:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. NN. Not ONE Google entry for "the reluctant townie". I suppose that if the author removed the prod tag, he doesn't feel like working on the article any to prove notability anyway. Devotchka 22:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I left a note on his talk page. . . . :) Dlohcierekim 13:21, 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. --Ezeu 00:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle Mariners/Players of note

Although I generally think that lists and categories both deserve their own spaces, this is nothing but a list of names. There is already a category which duplicates this list, and there is nothing here other than names. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. We have categories, let's use them please. -- stubblyhead | T/c 23:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. pernom--Nick Y. 23:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, not to mention having sub-articles is generally not the done thing. Confusing Manifestation 01:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Exactly the type of thing a cateogry is for. -- Kicking222 01:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. ScottW 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a duplicate article. --Starionwolf 04:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Willie Bloomquist :) -- GWO
  • Delete per nom, Houston Astros/Players of note as well Jaranda wat's sup 03:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Probably the single most important article on Wikipedia! ;) It differs from merely a list of all players by highlighting the important lynchpins of the franchise. --Fluppy 06:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. Give us some text explaining their notability, and then this would be something different. As it is, it does nothing that can't be accomplished by a category. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You people are no fun... --Fluppy 14:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was deleted by DakotaKahn. Sango123 (e) 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cancelled Due To Fire

Adding in missing template at the top. My vote is below. Bill 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Probably Vanity. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 23:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as a nn band with not claim of notability in the article other then "awesome". ---J.Smith 23:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, J.Smith's reasons. --Nnp 00:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per J.smith--Bill 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 22:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Not notable. Mtmelendez 12:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Cool3 12:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 02:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Nancy S. Kaplan

Doesn't meet WP:PROFTEST. Medtopic 22:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Nick Y. 23:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - one sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 22:37, 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. Two participants to the debate are few, but the arguments are convincing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terra Est Quaestuosa

NN game (only 1500 online players, which seems pretty small to me)--seems to be using Wikipedia to publish their game guide, walkthrough, etc.Devotchka 23:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Copywrite infringement with the on-line game manual.--Nick Y. 00:33, 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. Tyrenius 00:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backyard Wildlife Habitat

Fits squarely into WP:NOT, unencyclopedic how to, delete--Peta 23:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agreed. WP:NOT unless it can be converted into something other than a how to.Devotchka 23:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Seems like a real program however 99% of the article is how to. Keep Article vastly improved now with 0% how to!--Nick Y. 23:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Article has improved a little since it was prodded. Prod tag was removed, so the prod'er brought it here. I saw and didn't object to the prod while it was up. I suspect the original edit may have been by someone who helps run the program, given their username of Backyarder1 and total lack of other contributions. The topic is real, the program is real, the article is crud. Hmm... No vote yet. GRBerry 01:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm the one who removed the PROD tag. Now I've removed the original how-to content as well, leaving the article as what, to me, seems like a legitimate stub. --Allen 01:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand at least one scholarly paper entitled "Using Implementation and Program Theory to Examine Communication Strategies in National Wildlife Federation's Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program" has paid attention to it.[51] the program.] I lack a subscription to read the article... but it is by members of the game/conservation departments of two U.S. states. The program is also cited as a valid source for info on the topic by a third state's game/conservation department.[52] The program began in 1973, but apparently the NWF tried to republicize it (new press releases, this article, etc... in April/May of 2006. About 41 hits in a google book search. A book on the topic by the program manager ranked at amazon.com today as #13,890, yesterday as #17,296. Clearly notable. Allen eliminated the flagrant advertising, current version lacks required items but those can be edited in given time. (In fact, I'd rather do that than clean-up vomit, but toddlers don't work to adult's schedules.) GRBerry 01:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
And, as per {{sofixit}}, I've done some expansion. I think we now have an implicit assertion of notability. (I haven't found a site claiming "largest" or "oldest" or anything like that, which would be better.) I think it is still a stub. GRBerry 02:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Referenced program from a notable organization. I actually remember this one from my younger days. For some reason, my mom wouldn't let our back yard grow into a wilderness area. Oh, the oppression I experienced . . . ScottW 02:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per GRBerry. --bainer (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per GRBerry + the article changed for better since AfD --Ioannes Pragensis 06:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per GRBerry and Ioannes Pragensis. --Starionwolf 05:27, 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 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Black

Firstly, "Tall and handsome" is obviously not NPOV, and the article amounts to little more than an advertisement for an apparently minor (otherwise he'd have a real Wikipedia entry) radio celebrity.

  • Weak Delete. What a bunch of crap. Only 531 Ghits but he seems more than minor to me when I examine them, as much as I'd like for this entry to be deleted.Devotchka 23:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There may be some more to this guy but at the very least the current content needs to be stripped. Essentially no claim of notability.--Nick Y. 23:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:VAIN — ßottesiηi (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely non-notable. FYI, the Alexa rank for RobBlack.com is 920,345. -- Kicking222 01:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete He has a tv show/infomercial in the Bay Area, he's definitely not tall and handsome. He's short, fat, balding, and has downright freaky sideburns. Frequently dresses like the godfather gone bad. Is incredibly arrogant, he once bragged to an old lady that he had more money than her simply because she questioned one of his stock opinions. Most of what he says on the show is just copied from other news sources. His own advice is basic and amateurish, he once said buy air conditioning stocks because of global warming. Contradicts himself all the time, he says dont try to time the market but then he also says try to buy on dips and sell on spikes. Doesnt understand risk adjusted returns when comparing asset classes. --68.121.102.140 02:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rapid delete. Is there really a question about this? -- FRCP11 11:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rapid Delete. The porn director Rob Black is far more notable. "Rob Black" should refer to "Rob Zicari."JB196 09:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, and heaven forbid we should come between JB196 and his porno. McPhail 16:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: HAHA, McPhail...also I wouldn't really say he's fat judging by his site, robblack.comJB196 16:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Until just last week, it did redirect to Rob Zicari. I must have mis-searched and not found the existing Rob Zicari page, otherwise I would probably have just reinstated the redirect. Is it too late to do this now I've proposed deletion? -- Davidhorman 22:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Eh I'd say just go ahead and do it, the decision's anonymous anyway...JB196 14:31, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yuusuke Santamaria

Tagged for speedy as a hoax due to "wrong year of birth", which has since been changed. I have no idea about the (unsourced) content, but since "hoax" is not a WP:CSD, I am listing this here. Kusma (討論) 23:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless sourced -- I can find evidence for an actor of this name to exist, but not for the content of the article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"james" sketch. Kusma (討論) 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced --Nick Y. 00:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced. Looks unlikely since there are only 210 GHits for this person. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment there is an actor named Yusuke Santamaria, though...IMDB, Google. I'm not sure if this clears anything up, though. -- Scientizzle 03:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The Japanese Wikipedia article ja:ユースケ・サンタマリア about the real Yūsuke Santamaria does not mention his death, and the location given for his funeral is phony. Fg2 04:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The real actor's Web site is here (in Japanese). The Japanese Wikipedia article has been edited two dozen times since the date of his alleged death. Fg2 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete then, in light of Fg2's bilingual research. If the Japanese don't think he's dead...he probably ain't. This certainly seems like a hoax. -- Scientizzle 05:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Unsourced hoax.--Hezzy 00:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. The guy exists, he is very notable, but except his year of birth everything else in this article is pure invention. Better to start again from scratch. Tensaibuta 14:06, 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. Sango123 (e) 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "james" sketch

Tagged as speedy for being a hoax:

“

hoax, see also Yuusuke Santamaria”
  • Delete unless verified. RN 23:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete stupid hoax. Devotchka 23:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems to be not useful even if sourced. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuusuke Santamaria. Kusma (討論) 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Why 2 deletion tags? — ßottesiηi (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete patent nonsense well pretty close. I didn't make much sense of it. Maybe it was lack of context but it seemed a bit like a stream of consciousness than anything else. I can go with poorly written hoax though. --Nick Y. 00:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense or hoax. Not even worth of BJOADNification. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not even worth of BJAODNification. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Too many problems with this article to count. --Hezzy 00:17, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standard definitions of terms relating to mass spectrometry

This page does not serve a purpose and simply a platform on which to push a POV. It says that there is a commitee that is working on a draft document and then concludes that it is a major failure. The creator has a history of attacking the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry IUPAC which is the only internationally recognized governing body of authority in this area and a history of POV pushing on pages such as Deleted:M/z misconception in which he argued against an IUPAC definition. Delete Nick Y. 23:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unnecessary entry. Devotchka 23:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — ßottesiηi (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 01:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The truth is a bit more complicated: the group presented in this article is working on new definitions and has presented a draft which, unfortunately is in contradiction to the IUPAC green book. If anything, this article backs IUPAC definitions. Therefore this article is not POV and these facts should be stated somewhere. 83.76.121.36
  • Delete per nom. --Starionwolf 05:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As a scientist I find it deeply depressing that people on WP are fighting about standards. There are places in science to argue about standards and these should be done in a very sober way. This article is not helping so I think it should be deleted. Stop arguing about what is the correct standard on WP and just report what the different sides want. --Bduke 08:24, 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. Sango123 (e) 18:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goemaere101

Wikipedia is not a hosting service for class notes. I don't see it being a candidate for Wiktionary as it is a compilation of dozens of words (unless someone feels like doing a lot of work). I don't see a WP:CSD that seems to apply. Prod'ed, removed by original contributor. Accurizer 23:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete helpful for studying for the GRE, but not an encyclopedia entry. DVD+ R/W 23:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 03:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. Perhaps there should be a speedy deletion category for "articles" such as this one. Zepheus 05:25, 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. --Ezeu 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual First Amendment

Paean to non-notable theory of NN book by NN author. -- FRCP11 23:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom--Nick Y. 00:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. There are a great number of problems with that article, and most of them couldn't be solved by any amount of clean up. -- Kicking222 01:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment only 184 google hits, some of which are unrelated or to this article/mirrors. Abstain. - Jersyko·talk 01:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The book and theory aren't central to First Amendment jurisprudence, but it's a serious opinion that we can reasonably catalog. Besides, having the separate article will make it easier to stop the incessant efforts to insert heavily POV material into the First Amendment article. JamesMLane t c 18:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Are we to say that the way to override notability problems with an article is to incessantly try to violate Wikipedia standards in related legitimate articles? Seems to create some perverse incentives. Wikipedia doesn't do enough to punish bad actors, and it seems strange to reward them instead. -- FRCP11 18:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. (Not a violation of the First Amendment, as Wikipedia is not a government agency....) 20:35, 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. Even the voices to keep concede it cannot stay in its current form. --Ezeu 00:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Water safety

Tagged as a speedy:

“

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and we specifically don't want to give safety advice (legal concerns)”

No opinion yet. RN 23:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure how the other editors are going to see this, but I'm going to say keep and rewrite to avoid legal concerns and make it less of an instruction manual. Perhaps just a listing of the different safety methods and where they are used, etc. — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencylopedic at least in its current form.--Nick Y. 00:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What about transwiking to wikibooks? RN 00:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with no transwiki. Get rid of it permanently. I don't like the idea of the Wikimedia foundation being sued due to defective instructions. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but stubbify (or rewrite per Bottesini). Encyclopedic topic, and plenty of stuff has been written on it that can be presented without sounding like a how-to. We could talk about the history of water safety technology, different experts' opinions on what's best for different situations, and we could introduce various water safety organizations. --Allen 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As an instruction page it has no place here, and if someone wants to create an article on water safety technology there's no issue in starting from scratch. Nothing to salvage here but the name - 144.135.0.64 08:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC) ( forgot to login here ! - Peripitus 08:08, 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 delete/redirect to 10,000 Days. --Ezeu 21:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Keys (Blame Hofmann)

Delete - not every Tool song is notable. Wickethewok 00:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, this song appears to serve as a segue on the album. The transitionary piece may be notable as part of the structure to the whole album. Normally in favor of songs having their own articles, but would also not be opposed to seeing this one merged into the article for 10,000 Days. GassyGuy 00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Response - if it is only notable in context of the album as you say, it then seems best that any verifiable content should be moved over to the 10,000 Days article. Wickethewok 00:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Absolutely not notable enough for its own article. It's not a hit single- in fact, it's an instrumental piece, so it will never be a single. The song has no other significance outside of the album, and as such, it doesn't need a separate page. -- Kicking222 01:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kicking222--Nick Y. 01:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the album. -- GWO
  • Delete or redirect. Dylan 17:47, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State of Ohio Blog Alliance

Non-notable, probably vanity. -- FRCP11 00:08, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jaime F. Aguilera

This was originally tagged for speedy deletion. I disagree with said nomination–this person does seem to have some claim to notoriety (moreso than the average garage band, anyway. I've no real opinion on the merits, but I'd rather see this decided here. Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. NN as a political figure or as the son of someone notable. The subject has no exceptional claim to inclusion in Wikipedia. youngamerican (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per youngamerican--Nick Y. 01:16, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Ye

NN, vanity - 960 google results, first one is this article. Moe Aboulkheir 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom--Nick Y. 01:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Zepheus 05:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - vanity. B.Wind 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. — May. 29, '06 [05:22] <freak|talk>

[edit] Church of St. Andrew and St. Paul, Montreal

An article about an nn church in Montreal. Contains no information about why it is at all notable or encyclopaedic. Only gets 405 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 06:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn church. --Terence Ong 13:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep, a major local landmark and a large and historic public institution. - SimonP 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable as historical building; could note that this represents an English-speaking institution in a substantially French-speaking city. Also 405 Google hits are a bit much for nn status. Dl2000 00:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as the original poster of this article, (and my apologies for leaving it as a stub for so long, and for "vandalizing" the AfD, but only after someone pulled my original query on "nn church") I have taken great offence to the inital claim to someone who obviously does not know anything about the Canadian Milieu; there have been numerous events taken place in this building (CBC Concerts, Royal Visits, etc) as well as Sunday Worship. BTW, I'm not a Montrealer, but was present for the recent convocation of McGill University's Presbyterian College in the "A+P" --a very impressive building! And, this cathedral-like building is one of the few large Anglo Protestant churches remaining in downtown Montreal.Bacl-presby 23:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable historic building, reasons given by Bacl-presby, D12000 and SimonP. DVD+ R/W 23:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - established entity served/serving uncountable amount of worshippers. Lack of google hits should be less of a problem with regard to a religious institution that frankly has very little to do with the internet. --Shuki 22:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Expand and keep - right on the edge of the notability threshhold as it is presented in the article. B.Wind 22:45, 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.