Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 26 May 28 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] May 27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mailer Diablo 12:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spencer Clark

The guy ran one race, and not even in the NASCAR premier series - not notable in the least. Wikipedia is not an obituary nor a tribute encyclopedia. TonySt 00:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Delete per nom. Also, the whole part about his death seems to be pure conjecture. Bill (who is cool!) 00:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Hdtopo 00:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per cool Bill. Gwernol 00:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable road accident victim. Also has 61,599 Google hits(not counting the above mentioned article). Also TonySt, the Busch Series is A premier NASCAR series.[1] --D-Day on WHEELS!!! 00:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's an encyclopedia you should be able to look up anything and everything. You guys are ruining wikipedia with your over zealous deletions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.218.8 (talk • contribs) .
Please take a look at the policy on what Wikipedia is not. Encyclopedias are not "anything and everything", they have policies and guidelines about what merits inclusion. Wikipedia has such policies and guidelines too, for example see WP:BIO. Thanks, Gwernol 00:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • O ok I guess your referring to the part where it says "there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover." He was a winner of semi pro races. Some may be interested in that top especially if “NASCAR West Series” is ever expanded to an article in the future. NASCAR is a fast growing sport and drivers have to start somewhere.
  • Keep For reasons above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.218.8 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdla (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep. He does seem to meet the WP:BIO criteria, though the article should be expanded. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 02:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If he becomes important at some point in the future we can just add him again. Balso Snell 02:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable non-entity --DV8 2XL 02:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Mr. Lefty. He's somewhat notable. If someone deletes the article, someone else can recreate it. --Starionwolf 02:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, maybe a mention somewhere would be good. --Terence Ong 03:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:BIO is not policy. I find the whole idea of notability questionable. Having this article will not harm Wikipedia especially if there is later expansion. Tomdla 05:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I agree. If the presence of this page is used as justification for other tribute pages to be included, then that could be harmful to WP. Paddles 10:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP this is not near as bad as some of the bands I have seen. this can be expanded and should at least be given a chance... Also WP:BIO is not policy...Eagle talk 04:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO for me. If this guy was still alive the article wouldn't be here, seems like a memorial per WP:NOT. Rockpocket -talk- 07:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Weak Keep - Won some awards and races and achieved some success at a lower level of NASCAR, though not at the top levels. It seems comparable to doing well in the minor leagues of baseball. Though Wikipedia is NOT a memorial, which is the article creator's apparent intention. Conditional weak keep if more sources are presented verifying these claism.Wickethewok 07:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Google search shows a respectable amount of relevent pages regarding the subject of the article; coupled with his recent death I think it could be useful to have an entry on him. Chet nc 07:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesnt meet WP:BIO for me. --Arnzy (whats up?) 10:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO. Condolences to the page creator, but he is not notable enough to include. Paddles 10:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (although conditional) I don't know what the concensus is on how notable a NASCAR driver needs to be to get a WP article, and perhaps someone can enlighten me there. I strongly suspect that this guy would be below the bar. If so, then the fact of the recent death is completely irrelevant. It might be relevant over at Wikinews, but not here. In short, if someone can show that this guy meets the concensus standard for NASCAR drivers independently of his recent death, I'll reconsider my assessment, but it's "delete" for now. -- Deville (Talk) 12:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Nick C (Review Me!) 13:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as per nom. non-notable Bwithh 13:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per others who voted Keep. The person is notable. — Wackymacs 14:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn MarineCorps 14:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. Seems entirely worthy. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I know little about racing, and what leagues/classes are notable, but given that the newspaper article cited describes him as "up-and-coming," I'll take that to mean he wasn't quite notable. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Jon Lester is an up-and-coming young pitcher for the Boston Red Sox. I don't believe he's played a major league game, but he's an extremely noted AAA player in the minor leagues. I see him as a decent parallel in terms of similar career tracks at this point, and I doubt Jon Lester would even be considered for deletion, let alone be deleted. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep won a few important races, 89,900 GHits. Probably okay M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 22:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP driving in several major NASCAR series plus accident victim make him notable. He was a potential up and comer in NASCAR. He meets our proposed revised standards for inclusion (which are currently in the formative stages) at WikiProject NASCAR because 1) he has unusual circumstances (accident victim), and 2) he was a current driver in the Busch series. Royalbroil 00:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC), revised twice since
I have compared Spencer Clark's career to the WP:BIO guideline. I have compared him to the "living persons" section since he is not dead long enough for history to have recognized his contributions. In the sports section, he clearly meets "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league." The Busch series certainly meets the criteria "the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles" since almost all Busch series drivers have articles. Also, EVERY Busch race is nationally televised in the United States (since the 1980s), and serious (and even not so serious) NASCAR fans watch races from both series (the same applies to the Craftsman Truck Series). The drivers (as well as team members) in all three series are fully professional full-time employees in racing. The Busch series is far more well known than AAA baseball because of the higher exposure. Also, the high number of articles announcing his death clearly demonstrate that the "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" is clearly meet. Royalbroil 13:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think him being an accident victim makes him notable. Hundreds (thousands?) of people die in accidents every day, they clearly are not all notable. I don't think that whether he is alive or dead should be criteria for deletion or keeping. Wickethewok 00:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - nn. —Khoikhoi 04:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be notable Crazynas 06:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn 66.98.130.128 14:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems somewhat notable. I don't think his death is all that relevant to whether he warrants an article, but the fact that it received significant coverage would imply notability. ScottW 17:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - racing in the Busch Series establishes WP:BIO. B.Wind 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, his career might have been short lived but he did have a career which was recieving attention. Warhorus 02:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP The NASCAR Wikiproject has compiled and profiled nearly every driver to race Cup, Busch, CTS, and ARCA. Clark counts. BTW, look how many porn stars have a Wikipedia entry. If Clark goes, you can delete the entire porn section for the same reason. WillC 13:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as a major member of Wikiproject NASCAR, it is important to have this driver in the records. Casey14 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Seems notable enough. 099 peter 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Royalbroil. -- DS1953 talk 04:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The NASCAR Busch Series is the second most important NASCAR division. Every driver who took a part in a race in this championship should be included. He should be deleted if he had only taken part in regional series. --Pc13 09:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepAfter some of the silly stuff people including a lot of the objectors here vote to keep, this guy seems to be absolutely famous. Maybe some of the local dirt track drivers should not be kept... Williamb 01:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was: Delete. Prodego talk 02:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India Basher

Delete seems to be a neologism and inherently WP:POV. Ultimately unencyclopedic. See similar page that was recently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India_bashing. Prod and Prod2 were removed after edit which did not substantially improve the article. Gwernol 00:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep

"India Basher" has been a commonly used term, which has been in use for several decades. You can check for it using google.
These politicians have indeed been "India bashers". All those with neutral points of view will agree. You can read about their India-related activities in the newpapers as well as official government records, some of them on the web. You can also find documents authored by them on the web.
The insurgancies by the separationists, supported by them, have had a great impact on the people of the affected regions.
This article is unrelated to the deleted article. --Cardreader 00:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. 135 unique hits on google. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, someone's axe to grind. Doesn't even qualify as OR. Pavel Vozenilek 02:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 02:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If India bashing got the boot so should this. Balso Snell 02:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is the same as the "Indian bashing" article which was already deleted.--Jersey Devil 02:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism, jargon dicdef, POV appears to be primary purpose. I think Cardreader mistakes the reason for the delete vote: it's not related to whether the people listed in the article are worthy of our contempt but whether the subject matter meets minimal criteria for inclusion in WP. It does not. (Sorry forgot to sign this earlier Ande B 03:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete. So people supporting human rights for minorities are "India Bashers". Interesting. If you don't agree you're presumably an India Basher too. --LambiamTalk 03:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Can you explain what you mean by "people supporting human rights for minorities"? I think you are opposing the article based on your personal perspective.--Cardreader 15:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The reason I favour deletion is that the page is recreation of deleted material as well as (IMHO) an attack page. Both are actually ground for speedy deletion (CSD G5, CSD A6). --LambiamTalk 19:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, POV fork. --Terence Ong 03:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed my vote to keep, article rewritten in an encyclopaedic tone as well as article has expanded a lot, but a rename would be better. --Terence Ong 01:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This article is much more significant than the existing Anti-Catalanism, Anti-Turkism, Serbophobia, Polonophobia, Lusophobia and many others. The "India bashers" listed have had great impact, affecting hundreds of thousands. A movement like Khalistan would have been funny, if it had not resulted in killing of newspaper editors, politicians, ordinary individuals and not to mention a prime minister. The "India bashers" were among the most important supporters of this movement.--Whitesurf 03:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment The people listed in the article may be notable. The topic of the article, however, is not encyclopedic for the many reasons described above. Primarily it is a slang definition and the WP is not a dictionary or political glossary. The definition belongs elsewhere. Ande B 03:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ande B. Article does not appear to be neutral. --Starionwolf 05:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ande B's reasoning. IMHO, the rest of the geopolitical-phobia articles should go too. Rockpocket -talk- 07:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ande B. --Arnzy (whats up?) 10:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Ande B. Paddles 10:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious POV pushing, and as per Pavel above, this doesn't even rise to the bar of OR. --Deville (Talk) 12:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I think the Wikipedia concept of "neutral point of view" is being misused here. Having a "neutral point of view" does not mean that facts that are non-palatable to some are to be excluded from Wikipedia. The views of the "India basers" mentioned in the article are well documented and well known. They have influenced government policies and had significant impact internationally. --Cardreader 15:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view --Cardreader 15:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ande B. - Nick C (Review Me!) 13:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep factual and significant article. It needs to be expanded.--Bandyopadhyay 14:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems a POV fork to me. Are we going to have an "X basher" for every possible variant of X? Delete ++Lar: t/c 16:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Lar. ( Wow, just read Lusophobia - it should be deleted. ) Shenme 18:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete – as unencyclopediaic neologism – Gurch 18:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly nothing but a protologism and a list of people the creator feels it fits. I've never heard it and it's not explained in any depth. DougOfDoom talk 19:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment:The term "India Basher" has been in use for decades in this exact sense. Please see the top three references. It has been in use even before internet bacame a major medium. There are a lot of articles in an encyclopedia that many well-educated individuals have never heard of. That is what encyclopedias are for. Someone who has a PhD in philosophy many not have heard of Runge-Kutta methods, that does not mean this topic should not be in an encyclopedia. This is a developing article, please allow time for it to develop.--Cardreader 21:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Cardreader, The primary problem with the article as it is now envisioned is that it is definitional in nature and WP is not a dictionary. A previous incarnation of this article was deleted for similar reasons. This does not mean that the information is necessarily inaccurate, only that it belongs elsewhere or needs to be reformulated. Perhaps an article entitled something along the lines of Current political and social disputes in India could cover the material in which you have an interest while avoiding the mere definitional nature of the current one. Such an article would provide a place for descriptions of many serious disputes that need appropriate coverage in an encyclopedia. Just an idea. Ande B 23:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply to deeptrivia: I understand your question here but we have only this one article to vote on at the moment. If you find the above listed articles to be candidates for deletion, then set them for an AfD and we can see what happens. From what I have read (I could be wrong, of course) WP has decided to not be bound by precedent in making decisions on disputes. At first this appreach bothered me then I realized it brought a necessary measure of fairness and flexibility while helping to prevent the admins (all of whom are volunteers like you and I) from painting themselves or later admins into a corner. The policy also averts needlessly legalistic arguments that can be quite pointless, particularly when WP dispute resolution is still in a nascent stage of development and Admins are not consistently available. I have seen some WP projects that attempt to regularize or standardize the editorial and organizational approaches to be taken regarding certain topics or areas of interest. Perhaps that might be something you would be interested in trying. Good luck. Ande B 03:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is not OR .It can be either renamed or merged into another suitable article.Bharatveer 03:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep The article is currently OR and non-encyclopedic. But unless all the phobias and anti-isms stated above by Deep are listed for deletion this shouldn't either. If someone who is bold is willing to turn this article into an encyclopedic entry, (this article does have potential) then I'll give my full support. GizzaChat © 07:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The article lacks context or explanations (e.g. why is the label "India basher" limited primarily to US/UK politicians critical of aspects of Indian state policy? when did the term first first come into use?), and suffers from excess POV content not needed to explain the neologism (e.g. repeated valorization of Indian democracy). Per Gizza, I'd switch my vote to a keep if this could be entirely rewritten from the perspective of Indian media studies, rather than a nationalistic rant. Anirvan 07:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: When did the term first first come into use?: That would need some research. In print, it definitely goes back to Jesse Helms' 1982 invitation to Dr. Chauhan. When India declared a state of mourning on the death of Winston Churchill in 1965, it was recalled that he was a critic of Indian National Congress, Gandhi and India as a new democracy, but I believe the term "India Basher" was not used then.
Comment: why is the label "India basher" limited primarily to US/UK politicians? Probably because they have had the most impact on India.--ISKapoor 18:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: It appears that any Western figure who expresses an opinion that is contrary to the national interests of India gets to be called an India Basher, irrespective of how rational the justification for that opinion. That does not appear to be the same thing as Indophobia, which would be defined as "excessive" or "unreasonable" fear or dislike of India based on "prejudice, hatred or discrimination". As such it appears an arbitrary, pejorative - and unencyclopaedic - label. Rockpocket 19:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV-fork per Lar and establish consensus on other such forks curently existing on Wikipedia. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Article needs improvement but there is no logical reason to delete it. - Holy Ganga talk 10:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopedic. Either move to Wikitionary as a definition or delete. No more a concept than [COUNTRYNAME] bashing, where [COUNTRYNAME] is any country in the world! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak Keep; It is widely known that India is the subject of bashing. However, it should be retitled. Raj2004 01:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article has been expanded somewhat and is now much better. It still needs additions and improvements, but it is now an informative article and has links to several sources.--Vikramsingh 01:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename "India Basher" was not used in any of the sources I looked through via the page. Maybe US Anti-India Sentiment. Not sure.... Sethie 01:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all of above. Silly article. Fertile ground for conspiracy theories. Anwar 06:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: For those who may not be familiar with the records of Edolphus Towns and Dan Burton, I have added quotes taken from the US Congressional Records.--Vikramsingh 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The content may be valid but India basher is not a valid topic. I agree with Sethie that perhaps it could be renamed to anti-India politics or something more appropriate. or inserted into politics articles of the involved countries. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 15:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No question about it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - neologistic title, POV-ish, OR-ish. btw, I don't see an AFD tag on it. Somebody removed? couldn't make out from a cursory glance from page history --Gurubrahma 10:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sukh. ImpuMozhi 16:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by lister. — FireFox (UTC) 20:58, 27 May '06

[edit] Graphic arts

The definition on Graphic arts is very broad. This seems to conflict with the history section which discuss mostly just woodcuts and movable type. Graphic arts should redirect to Graphic design; the 2 terms are synonymous. Someone on the Talk:Graphic_arts page has already suggested this. There is no info to merge over. There is some overlap with Printmaking, but the Printmaking page already covers what's on Graphic arts. Clubmarx 00:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the AfD tag and replaced it with a mergeto to Graphic design. --Clubmarx 03:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep I would not be suprised if this article title was an FA! Raichu 00:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, redirect, expand, and clean-up per nom, and comment: this is Articles for Deletion, not for merging, renaming, and redirecting. It's a lot easier to simply tag the article with {{mergeto}} and then start a discussion on the matter than it is to create confusion with an AfD and leave the closing admin having no idea what to do with the article-merge it himself? tag it to be merged? AmiDaniel (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Graphic design, merging should be done and AFD is not a place to do merging, add merge tags would be better. --Terence Ong 03:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Make this a disambiguation page. On the talk page of Graphic arts I have argued that the article should be merged with Printmaking. I have no problem if one of these directs to the other; I don't care which to which. Although there is overlap, I do not agree that the terms "graphic arts" and "graphic design" are synonymous; to me they mean different things. Escher was a graphic artist: he used lithography and woodcuts. He was not a graphic designer. So apparently the same term means different things to different people. An acceptable alternative may be to make this a disambiguation page: Graphic arts may mean: *Printmaking, the art of ... *Graphic design, ... --LambiamTalk 03:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox (UTC) 20:59, 27 May '06

[edit] Other side of the pillow

Unencyclopedic nonsense. I almost listed this for speedy. Raichu 00:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Utter nonsense for purposes of encyclopedic inclusion. At best, this is a slang dicdef. I would have voted for speedy given the chance. Ande B 01:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete It's not utter nonsense, because it's all true. Here is an article citing Scott's use of the phrase. Prince did once perform a song title The Other Side of the Pillow on his album One Nite Alone...Live! It is however unencyclopedic, and his usage/coining of the phrase should be mentioned only on his Wikipedia page. In fact, I'll do that myself. Zepheus 02:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
My original comment above regarding nonsense was not sufficiently clear so I've tried to fix the phrasing. Just because someone famous has said something, that doesn't save it from being "nonsense", particularly for its proposed use as an article. There are plenty of true but nonsensical things in this world! Ande B 02:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If we have this, where is John Madden's "boom"? Balso Snell 02:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's nonsense per Ande B. --Starionwolf 02:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete G1 --Terence Ong 03:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nonsense. MaxSem 06:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, like the phrase, but thats all it is. Not for Wikipedia per WP:NOT. Rockpocket -talk- 07:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per G1. --Arnzy (whats up?) 10:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think it meets the G1 crteria for speedy though. Paddles 11:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete sort of comes under WP:NEO Ydam 11:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 13:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - However I do find the other side of the pillow to be cooler. Benjaminstewart05 17:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete – as borderline speedyable nonsense – Gurch 18:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete nonsense. --Dakart 19:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Obviously a well-known term used in a variety of places. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:57, 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) 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angel Ninja vs. Devil Ninja

Non notable webcomic, deleted previously by prod. Launched in April 2006 with the article written by User:Angelninja. You can see the webcomic here and it's lack of Alexa rank both here and here. - Hahnchen 00:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 00:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 1) The comic started last month. 2) "angel ninja vs. devil ninja" gets only 130 Google hits, and less than 20 are unique. 3) The article asserts no notability, and is written like a three-line ad. -- Kicking222 01:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete if possible as a recreation (G4). It's advertising anyway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment For the record, PROD deletions don't qualify for CSD. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Must be those contestation rules... if its contested, it must go to AfD immediately. So, just delete per nom. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 03:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable webcomic. Wickethewok 07:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - ad for non-notable webcomic per WP:WEB. Rockpocket -talk- 07:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. --Arnzy (whats up?) 10:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, vanity. Paddles 12:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete – as recreated prod deletion, per nom – Gurch 18:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN webcomic. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Crazynas 06:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Warhorus 02:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete The comic gets an average of 40 unique visitors a week and is listed in the top 5 on google and yahoo! and it has been updated to include more information. -- Angelninja 20:49, 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) 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maddland

This webcomic was nominated not long ago with 1 keep vote making it a no consensus. I believe that the outcome was incorrect and am renominating it for deletion. This webcomic, can be found on the free host Comic Genesis, found here. The comic isn't mentioned on the Alexa report for comic genesis, and even if it were it probably wouldn't make it notable. The only previous keep vote for this, was due to a Google search giving 71 links, which incidentally makes it non notable. - Hahnchen 01:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Hahnchen 01:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The webcomic seems rather non-notable (the article doesn't do much to assert significance), and the lack of Google hits support this. Not having its own website doesn't help, but even if it did, my vote would be the same. -- Kicking222 01:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. Rockpocket -talk- 07:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Ydam 11:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Paddles 13:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 19:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Crazynas 06:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've copied it over to Comixpedia. You'll find it here. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Frager

Delete - putting article up for deletion as per request. Individual fails to meet WP:PROFTEST, article lacks verifable sources and needs citations. Article fails to meet WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY also. Strothra 01:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, unverifiable, nn. --Terence Ong 03:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:PROFTEST. A bit suspicious overall. Rockpocket -talk- 07:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Ydam 11:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 12:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleanup and cites required. He has several books available through Amazon which supports notability. Paddles 13:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The article is not attempting to establish his notability as an author but as a professor which he fails to meet. --Strothra 18:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Given that the article is a stub, and that it lists four publications (albeit without ISBNs etc.) I think it's a bit presumptuous to state that the article is attempting to establish notability only on a professorial basis, not as an author. The question is whether he is notable enough to keep, giving time for an editor to add cites and cleanup. Paddles 11:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, just because someone wrote books doesn't mean they're notable. —Khoikhoi 04:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons given above. DVD+ R/W 04:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Paddles also claims to be founder of a graduate school, makes notable, clean up, and cite Crazynas 06:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Not notable Bwithh 22:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Author of many books, published by prominent imprints (Harper collins, Prentice Hall, Barron's). WP:PROFTEST is a red herring here - the fact that he is also a professor doesn't detract from being a noted author. Also "article lacks verifable sources and needs citations" is a reason to clean up an article NOT grounds for deletion. -- DS1953 talk 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing here suggests that any of his publications are that well-known or significant. Being an author does not by itself make someone encyclopedicly notable. Zaxem 11:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 23:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Stand-up Comedy

Page briefly describes what stand-up comedy is, then gives extremely rough profiles of four arbitrary British comedians (who already have Wikipedia entries). British stand-up comedians are already collected in the list of stand-up comedians, which is sorted by country. Would suggest a merge with stand-up comedy, but this page doesn't have any insightful content. Delete. --McGeddon 01:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom. Completely unnecessary page. My favourite part is "let's have a look;" That's classic. Zepheus 02:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Truly unnecessary page. Ande B 02:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I would love to add something witty, but there's nothing to say. I'll echo the use of the word "unnecessary" and leave it at that. -- Kicking222 02:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unnecessary. --Terence Ong 03:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; I agree with everyone who has called this an unnecessary article. Bill (who is cool!) 03:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I love, See also: laughter. Rockpocket -talk- 07:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's have a delete. Totally unneccessary. Paddles 13:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. We already have Category:British comedians, also. --Metropolitan90 15:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I like the idea for the article as this is a major form of comedy that will have a place in history. However the current article is hopelesly unencyclopedic and a bit off topic. I hope somebody recreates this article properly. HighInBC 00:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Crazynas 06:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - However, I could see an article existing that discusses the history or unique traits of standup comedy in Britain. This isn't it though. ScottW 17:24, 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 delete. Sango123 (e) 23:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory White

No evidence of novel on a web search, might be classified as a hoax or a vanity article Philip Gronowski Contribs 01:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Really doesn't seem notable; unless sources of his noteworthiness are found, this should be deleted. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 02:26, 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) 23:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost Encounters at Carleton County Jail

Delete Non-encyclopaedic, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought WP:NOT/WP:NOR blue520 02:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Exorcise ASAP. I see a prod tag was originally removed by the creator. Voice of Treason 02:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Speedy if possible. Personal anecdotes about field trips have no place on the WP. Ande B 02:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. This isn't LiveJournal. Postdlf 02:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I do feel bad for the kid who wrote the article, as judging from his opening paragraph, he does seem to be extremely polite. -- Kicking222 02:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia doesn't normally host blogs or essays. I do feel bad for the student. --Starionwolf 02:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bill (who is cool!) 03:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT. --Terence Ong 04:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I, too, feel sorry for this kid, but probably for grammatical reasons. Chet nc 07:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per OR and WP:NOT, I'm sure someone can direct this guy to an appropiate place to host this stuff Ydam 11:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but allow it to go into my userspace for posterity. --Sunfazer |Talk 11:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Polite, not vandalism, but not encyclopedic either. Paddles 13:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Although the actual tour (and the jail) could be mentioned on WikiTravel - Ottawa as a place to visit. Also - if the creator wants and can't find somewhere else to host it - I'll put it on my website (contact me on my talk page). TheJC TalkContributions 19:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT WP:NOR Crazynas 06:10, 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 merge to References to Star Trek and delete. --Ezeu 06:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References to Star Trek in South Park

Extreme fancruft. Note that this was previously up for deletion but was kept, the motivation for most of the keep votes being that References to Star Trek in The Simpsons provides a precedent. Well, that page was recently deleted (though it had previously survived an AfD), so the precedent no longer supports keeping this page, but rather deleting it. Precedent or no, this page is unencyclopedic and filled with tenuous fanboy armchair speculations. -lethe talk + 02:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or possibly merge with South Park. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 02:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per broken precedent. Danny Lilithborne 02:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete do not merge with South Park for same reasons as AfD nom--expensivehat 02:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete And I'm a fan of stuff like this! Ande B 02:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, of no encyclopedic value. Postdlf 02:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, un encyclopaedic--blue520 02:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I started that first afd and still think this should be deleted per unencyclopedic fancruft. I also think that "precedent" is an invalid argument to begin with as there are tons of other unencyclopedic material out there that haven't been deleted yet.--Jersey Devil 03:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with References to Star Trek, as was apparently done with the Simpsons one at some point. BryanG(talk) 03:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That merger was out of process, since the result of the debate was delete. -lethe talk + 20:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 04:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge after removing speculations. MaxSem 06:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with References to Star Trek per BryanG. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per BryanG. -- Tangotango 07:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per BryanG's precedent. Wickethewok 07:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per BryanG Ydam 11:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Paddles 13:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above; nom leaves out critical detail. -- FRCP11 15:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Merging is one of the possible results of an AfD debate. In this case however, the result was not merge but delete, and any subsequent merge that was done was out of process, and therefore should not be used as a precedent. However, I was unaware that it was done, otherwise I would have mentioned it, I'm sorry for the oversight. -lethe talk + 20:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - Not justified on its own Benjaminstewart05 17:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with References to Star Trek per BryanG (and maybe merge References to Star Trek in Futurama as well?). TheJC TalkContributions 19:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, just as I suggested with the Simpsons version, and it's unfortunate the result with that one turned out for deletion. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 23:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Per all above.--Hezzy 00:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. —Khoikhoi 04:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete and Do Not Merge Ridiculous fancruft spam Bwithh 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. It's not an encyclopedia article. Erik the Rude 18:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge per above. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to some fansite outside of Wikipedia -- Hirudo 15:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge non-speculative content. Eluchil404 21:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This would become unwieldly on a merged page, but it is notable information. -Branddobbe 03:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete extreme fancruft KleenupKrew 03:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and I kinda like it like Ande B but c'mon, it's fancruft. Jersey Devil point re: "president" is well taken. Possibly Merge with References to Star Trek, per BryanG if that article isn't itself fancruft. Armon 15:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Two very popular shows that merit extensive analysis and coverage. Merge is not a good idea because of length. --JJay 16:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 11:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not of any help to this encyclopedia; useless information OTAKU 03:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Shanel § 06:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winterland (band)

This article should be deleted because it hasn't produced any record yet. [2] When they are famous, we can recreate the article. Delete as per non-notable. Tony Bruguier 02:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Vanity page promotion and a poorly drafted one at that. This wannabe group of self described musicians has not made even a single recording! Thus, not notable under any standard. Ande B 02:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete possible speedy for nn band.--Jersey Devil 02:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn band. --Terence Ong 04:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No recordings, a small clutch of sporadic performances, doesn't meet present criteria. Delete but good luck and all that. Ac@osr 08:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. There seem to be at least two bands also called Winterland that are more notable than this group. Paddles 14:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete the article doesn't even assert notabilty (CSD A7) as I understand it. - Motor (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. I see no assertion of notability. Next time use {{db-band}}. I tagged it. Grandmasterka 04:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Motor Crazynas 06:12, 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) 23:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evergirls Ninja Power

As far as I can tell, non-existant TV show. Yahoo search yields zero results. Links inside page go to totally irrelivant pages. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 02:41, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Running gags in Seinfeld

Content of this page is (or can be) sufficiently covered in the articles Seinfeld, Jerry Seinfeld (character), Elaine Benes, George Costanza, Cosmo Kramer, or the articles for individual episodes, or it's simply not worth including. There's also a fair amount of unsourced editorial opinion, for example:

  • "George will go to any length to prove a point, no matter how minor."
  • "George is obsessive about minor details..."
  • "Elaine, though considered more intelligent than the other three characters..."
  • "Cosmo Kramer is the most mysterious of the four..."

There are lots of "always," "usually," and "(character) thinks that," none of which are verifiable.

Finally, the nature of the article title is problematically vague; what constitutes a "gag" and not simply character development, what constitutes a "running" gag (several of the listed items, such as Elaine's bad dancing, occur only once), etc. Dylan 02:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep This obviously needs a clean-up, but I think it's worth keeping. Danny Lilithborne 04:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge A disciplined cull and merge into individual characters and/or Seinfeld would be ideal. Subjective and crufty as an article subject. Rockpocket -talk- 07:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per above. Do we really need articles this crufty? Ydam 11:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I liked Seinfeld, but this is crufty. Paddles 14:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Many of these are character traits rather than running gags. Take what's good and merge into the individual characters' pages. SubSeven 18:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's crufty.

  • Delete and do not merge Fancruft Bwithh 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above. Crufty and beyond repair/redemption. B.Wind 01:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vauge and unenclyclopedic. HighInBC 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge While this page in and of itself is inadequate, the intent to classify all of Seinfeld's running gags and quirks is an admirable one. This should absorb the "Culture of the Seinfeld Universe" articles as an index to the individual pages, and it needs a full re-write. Sgm 12:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Armon 15:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good use of list form to examine comic motifs in this pathbreaking show. Requires more time to gestate. --JJay 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep What if the article were edited and modified so it was more like the Running gags in Friends page? It definitely can't stay in its current state, but could be a really good page if some Seinfeld nuts went to work on it. Dalton Imperial 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I made some changes to the entries under Elaine and George. Are these better or is the consensus still that it should be deleted? Dalton Imperial 20:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. Zaxem 12:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 23:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midnight's Ghost

Seeming nonexistent page, gets two unrelated Google hits. Same author User:Jayonwenu has created several other articles on seemingly nonexistent topics. See:


Dylan 03:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't verify the claim. Cheers. --Starionwolf 03:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 23:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aimini

This page seems to be an obvious advertisement for peer-to-peer software. It has three edits by a user (appropriately named Aimini) and one by an anon which was vandalism. Only one link points to this page from peer-to-peer it was placed there by User:Aimini whose user page is a replica of the offending article. --will 03:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete After re-reading the article, I do think it is an advertisement. --Starionwolf 03:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Hey, I tried to clean the grammar.  :p lol. Cheers. --Starionwolf 02:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 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. Sango123 (e) 23:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangor lakes

This is an odd procedural addition to AfD. This one seems to have been tagged on April 14th, but the user seemed to not complete it, so, here I am, completing it over a month later. No vote from me, just a procedural adding to AfD. Metros232 03:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete Unsourced. Of questionable notability. I can't for the life of me figure out what this article is attempting to do! Nor can I find a reason to keep it unless the person who created it can come up with some sort of explanation or plan for development. Ande B 04:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Unsourced, so I can't really tell what this article is supposed to be about... Wickethewok 07:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - usourced, speculative, contrary. Just plain weird. Rockpocket -talk- 07:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unsourced/verified WP:V. There is also this email here Talk:Bangor, New South Wales, posted on that page by the original AfD tagger.--blue520 14:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Paddles 14:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WHAT??? No clue what this is here for... Original, unverified research and should be a part of Bangor if it was written better and verifiable. Grandmasterka 04:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 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 12:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Wiggin (author)

Deprodded article. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. The "Golden Clitorides" Award doesn't seem to have more notability. It's awarded by the ASSTR [3], which is, in itself, notable, but I don't if it warrants a winner getting a Wiki article, which is what I'll let you all decide. Metros232 03:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Terence Ong 04:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom or maybe redirect to Ender Wiggin. I'm quite hesitant to vote to keep an author who has only published several pieces online only. Wickethewok 07:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you can point out some major publishers of erotica? There really aren't many. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO for authors. Death by Fucking sounds like great literature, though. Rockpocket -talk- 07:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable biography, according to WP:BIO.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability for the authors of erotica is probably harder to establish than for mainstream authors, simply because publishers are less likely to touch the genre. A Golden Clitorides award does suggest some notability, being a major prize on a significant online publisher (or distributor) of erotica. But is it enough notability? I'm not sure, so I abstain. Paddles 15:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Paddles. His argument sways me more than it might sway him/her, and I'd normally ignore this type of AfD, but considering the difficulty of erotica to have any significant publishing, it does no harm in having articles on the best of an overlooked lot. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I would disagree with the premise that erotica doesn't have significant publishing outlets. Erotica publishing is a fairly big business. For example, Harper Collins recently created an imprint for erotica publishing[4]. ScottW 17:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad HarperCollins stepped up. Geared toward women, however, I'm not sure it demonstrates that it's easily big business, and I should have clarified in my original comment, erotica pulbishing isn't going to get a lot of mainstream press as a result of its subject matter. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - almost notable perhaps, but not quite there yet. Redirect the resulting empty title to Ender Wiggin - Ender in later life was a universally-renowned author (if not under his own name :o) ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 20:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons already given. DVD+ R/W 20:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 23:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tuza

Seems to be a non-notable term. Perhaps it deserves a mention in the Eckankar article, but there seems to be little sources to support this term as being particular notable aside from simply meaning soul or spirit to this religion. Metros232 04:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete This is a simple dicdef. Ande B 07:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Possibly a candidate for speedy A1 but borderline. Paddles 15:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --BillC 17:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 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 12:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cesidian Root

Non-notable. See also series of interlinked pages created by same user, such as Micronational Professional Registry, Fifth World Council Accreditation Agency, Fifth World Council, etc. (all up for deletion). JW1805 (Talk) 04:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 04:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 12:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Although this will probably be seen as an example of first-world prejudice. :) Paddles 15:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • How kind of you not to view this as information for journalists. You act like I live off words, not money! I need advertising from someone else, someone in control of the airwaves, not Wikipedia, quite frankly. What makes you so powerful? I know of nobody that was obscure, and was helped by a Wikipedia article. Journalists in July will need to access this information all of a sudden, information about TTF-Bucksfan and the Fifth World Council, real world organisations, with real world people working for them, but if they make any comment about the information that is lacking, I'll tell them, on national TV, that Wikipedia isn't really an encyclopedia, and it isn't. It is just a bunch of envy-filled geaks that will talk about something when it already is, and thus they don't help democracy or global positive change in any way. They don't exist at all, for the purposes of democracy or positive global change through information, because the information you'll find there you can find elsewhere, and it is probably less biased. Wikipedia really doesn't deserve its nonprofit status. What makes a flat in Hurstville, Australia (read here), and that's all it is, more important than an Intercontinental Internet like the Cesidian Root, and the latter is just a corporation of my nation? Anyway, I won't give nothing, nothing at all to Wikipedia and its bosses, when I start that country out of thin air soon, and being a Wikipedia Admin won't get you a citizenship either! You won't be considered a professional, good enough to meet the standards of the Micronational Professional Registry, because if a professional information administrator thinks that the Cesidian Root doesn't deserve an article, but OpenNIC, a total joke, does, then anyone can run a Wikipedia, even I! I'm not breaking any rules here, or proposing articles that aren't already found in the Wikipedia, so if you are going to ax TTF-Bucksfan, then I demand you axe Atlantium, and virtually all the articles here. They don't have a more important nation. If you delete Cesidian Root, I'll demand similar treatment of the lesser OpenNIC. --IndigoGenius 15:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wow, what a tirade - not exactly a way to gain sympathy or credibility in the eyes of the people who have - or haven't - voted on the AfD. A few things for your consideration: WP is not a crystal ball - it's not for storing information about entities that may become notable at some future date. WP is not for advertising. WP is not for pushing agendas. In my view, your comments above support deletion of the articles, because you make it sound like you are using WP for advertising, to make a point, and are claiming future (not current) notability. If this becomes notable on or after July 1, then it'd be fine to have an article. Remember, however, that articles have to have a neutral point of view, and you don't own the article or control what changes are made to it; if people make changes you don't like, you basis for objection/changing them has to be because they violate WP criteria, not because it's not what you want to say about the subject. Paddles 16:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Further Comment. I own the Cesidian Root, in the sense that I have the faith and good will of people working for it, and without profit so far, and I have access to their resources, in the form of servers internationally distributed. I own the operation, the organisation, not even its servers. I don't own true information about the Cesidian Root either. Newspapers, publishers own that, or they pretend to by charging a price for it. The Cesidian Root not only hasn't made a profit so far, but has actually lost money, principally my money. A great deal of money because I'm building more than just an alternative DNS root. I'm not trying to gain votes here. I'm a King, not a President (although I'm a President elsewhere), someone with responsibilities far beyond what most people can even imagine, and even I'm feeling a little overwhelmed now, and I have no secretary to help, but if the Cesidian Root has to be deleted, then I demand fair and equal treatment, and I have no sense that I'm getting it so far. I see an article about the OpenNIC here. We carry each and every one of their TLDs, they are absolutely nothing special, and they didn't even have the decency to reciprocate with us through their service. Does Wikipedia reward parasites, and keep truly decent entities and groups obscure? I don't know. I'm not God, although some people think I said that also. I'm a human being working his butt off to change the world into something better than what it is, and quite frankly any preconceived bias here works against the Wikipedia more than it does against me. You can't stop me, only God can, and he seems to be doing the very opposite. So I don't depend on Wikipedia for fame, although some micronations do. But I demand fair treatment. If Atlantium's flat is newsworthy, and it is not, then the world's first intermicronational and international organisation, and an Internet more technologically advanced than ICANN's deserves even more space, not deleted articles. If the Cesidian Root deserves to be deleted, then the OpenNIC you could live without by just using our root deserves a delete even more. It seems to me you are all continuously judging things you know nothing or little about. At least have the courtesy to judge the information, not me. I'm a human being. Only God, not the Wikipedia, expects me to be perfect. At least do your research, and make a fair assessment of the articles and the information. I'm not seeing that here. All I'm seeing is a call for a delete, because we are not front page news material yet. If that is Wikipedia, then you are just a rebroadcast of already biased news sources. You are not an independent organisation that from time to time sees something positive, and decides to accept it as worthy of an article. Britannica will do the same, but some people think you are better. Show me. --IndigoGenius 16:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable (but thanks for the essay, which no-one will read) The JPStalk to me 21:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let's all invade the Kingdom of IndigoGenius and annex it and enslave its people and steal its fabled treasures. Bwithh 05:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You cannot invade the Kingdom because it is not of this earth... Remember what the guy from Nazareth told Pilate? He has always told the truth, even though some people think he never existed, and some may even think he was a liar. And whether Wikipedia Admins help or not, the Root of Jesse's ensign will stand tall, nonetheless (Isaiah 11:10), and the whole thing will fall on top of you like a pile of bricks... Even Kings, and Presidents, and Prime Ministers will stand speechless before him, so you won't be any less stunned, trust me. You may think IndigoGenius is in control of this Project, the Project to liberate the Children of Abraham, the meek, but in truth it's the Guy Upstairs who is in control, and I'm merely a wise child who wishes nothing more but to please him as much as possible. --IndigoGenius 15:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Whosasking 05:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Um... wow. Just ... wow. Delete - 34 Google hits, not notable at the moment. Tony Fox 18:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete article, rant, user, ....? Not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete article per nom, with notable yet incoherent rant. Note that this is, per the rant, a religious institution, for all intents and purposes. --Dennis The TIger 01:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 23:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aimini P2P

Spam article. A duplicate article (Aimini) is already listed for deletion above (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimini --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, spam, advertising. --Terence Ong 04:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam, advertising --Starionwolf 05:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement, spam. I hope there aren't any more of these Aimini pages to review. Ande B 06:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, there aren't others, the only other contributions by the author are User:Aimini which is the same as the articles for AfD, and one line on Peer-to-peer. Paddles 15:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm grateful to hear that! Ande B 19:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spamvertisement. -- Tangotango 07:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Paddles 15:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Duplicate of Aimini, advertisement and spam. 65.49.176.150 16:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC) [Kariia]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Crazynas 06:25, 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) 23:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writer's Beat

Non-notable forum. hello,gadren 05:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:WEB criteria. --Terence Ong 05:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not notable. --Starionwolf 06:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Appears to be nothing more than a promotion for a web site. Ande B 06:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, promotion. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 07:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable. The JPStalk to me 21:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Srikeit Crazynas 06:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • More Input more info on deletion JHarrison 13:36, 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: Merge into Auckland Prodego talk 02:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attractions and Landmarks in Auckland

Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. hello,gadren 05:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. Merge into Auckland or Category:Visitor attractions in Auckland. Nice list though. --Starionwolf 05:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. This article was split out from the Auckland article without discussion. I've included this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand, and drawn attention to it at Talk:Auckland.-gadfium 05:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for the comment. I'll go read the other discussions now. Cheers. --Starionwolf 05:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Auckland. --Midnighttonight 05:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Auckland, at least until there is consensus at Talk:Auckland as to what to do with the items listed here. If kept, the title will need decapitalising to ...landmarks.... BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to "Notable features of Auckland" or merge. People often set off the deletionists alarm bells by using bad titles. Travel guide stuff is "where to stay", "where to eat", etc. This is valid encyclopedic stuff. -- RHaworth 07:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back into Auckland pending discussion. -- Avenue 08:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Auckland and see what the editors who work on that page think.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 08:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikitravel --Arnzy (whats up?) 10:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
See this on why that can't actually occur. --Midnight tonight 09:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of NATLFED entities

A bulleted list of front groups is probably out of place in an encyclopedia. It also borders on original research. Whosasking 05:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - The list, once properly sourced, would be pretty useful to those interested in NATLFED. Almost voted for a merge here, but the size of the list, if legitimate, may warrant it's own page. Chet nc 07:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if sources are cited. --Terence Ong 14:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment on citing sources: I happen to be the principal author, and I expect half of the entries won't survive strict referencing (and the references will occupy more space than the surviving entires). The list is based on a webpage based on a mid-1990s edition of the natlfed-published directory Invest Yourself which fails to meet the reputable source standard. Whosasking 06:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The proper place for this is on NATLFED's own website. Paddles 15:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The National Labor Federation article is all we need about this group on Wikipedia, the rest is excessive coverage of a marginally notable topic, i.e. cruft. KleenupKrew 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks useful per above. --JJay 01:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Yanksox 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Design for X Methodologies

This article appears to describe an obscure engineering term. Despite being in existence for nearly a year, its only inbound links are from lists of articles needing attention. I'm not an engineer, so I may be a poor judge of this topic's importance (the term gets only 35 google hits, for what it's worth), but I don't think that it's encyclopedic NatusRoma | Talk 05:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - I don't quite get what this article is about... whatever it is, it needs to be renamed and rewritten, which is called a delete. Wickethewok 07:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename - Now that someone has explained what it is. Wickethewok 00:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Lol, not really. DarthVader 08:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is awkwardly named and is in need of further improvements, but its topic is not obscure. There are a bunch of design methodologies: Design for Assembly, Design for Changeover, Design for Manufacture (or Design for Service), and many more, generically referred to as "Design for X". The searchterm "Design for X" gets about 37,500 hits. For a much clearer text, see e.g. Design for X on the Better Product Design website. --LambiamTalk 08:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep but needs a serious rewrite. I myself considered nominating this article for deletion, but after google turned up some valid results, I decided against it. Although this article does need a make over, as except subject experts no one can make much out of it. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. --Terence Ong 14:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Give it time... disk space is cheap, human effort isn't. Bryce 14:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but needs cleanup. Concept appears to be valid. Paddles 15:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above Crazynas 06:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. although slightly biased as I am the inital author, I think the article has a valid place in the engineering section. However, I agree with NatusRoma that a title change should be considered. I suggest "Design for X" inline with other articles on Wikipedia such as Design for Six Sigma. Hopefully, this satisfies the part of the human population who evaluate value in terms of google hits. ;-) Michael Reik 19:34, 29 May 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep. In the past I have practiced Design for Yield (maximizing the likelihood that integrated circuits work when first tested) and Design for Test (designing integrated circuits to minimize flaws that are not revealed during testing). I had not heard the phrase "Design for X" before but it instantly made sense once I began to read the article. Gerry Ashton 23:12, 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 Joelito (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Philip Limbert

  • Delete - Grammar school principal doesn't seem like a notable enough position to meet bio criteria. Wickethewok 06:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Nearly all of us are employed for most of our lives, this does not make us notable! Ande B 07:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete - Yes, nearly all of us are employed for most of our lives, just like actors, politicians, etc, those people are notable for their profession. I would argue that so are prinicpals of schools. If that were not the case why would there be a category for principals? I included this article for the sake of completeness, since he is referenced from the article on Harrogate Grammar School Peterastbury 07:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response - Not all actors and politicians are notable. Also, I would like to point out that members of the principals category are primarily famous and notable for things other than simply being a principal. Wickethewok 07:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response - Okay, well I'm new to wiki and still finding my feet so will bow-out to your greater experience. Incidently, where can I find a copy of the bio criteria you mentioned earlier? Peterastbury 07:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response - The general guidelines for biographies are found here: WP:BIO. Wickethewok 07:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response - Thanks, will take a look Peterastbury 07:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable. -- Tangotango 07:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Thoroughly non-notable. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 07:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I must say that I find the present state of affairs, where articles on the most minor characters from fictional universes cannot be deleted, while academics must have done something groundbreaking to remain, a lamentable situation, but researching the links, I can find no notability for Dr. Limbert other than being a headmaster. That is not enough.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I think you've hit on something there, Fuhgettaboutit, but I don't know that we will be able to anything about it anytime soon! Ande B 07:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Personally, I'm all for deleting the minor characters from fictional universes too. Paddles 15:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment minor characters from books with 500,000 or greater copy print run can reach millions of people, how many Principals can claim that? Crazynas 06:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Regretful delete. per Fuhghettaboutit. Such is the nature of following an honest profession. Write your own zine or appear as an extra on Star Trek and the world wants to know about you - educate thousands of kids and all you get is two little 'n's. Rockpocket -talk- 07:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As a teacher myself I can say that teaching is its own reward. It's not a profession you enter for money or fame. Peterastbury 07:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've got to agree with the foregoing sentiments. In addition to those who spend their lives educating chilbren or adults (and I'm one of them), I highly value those who have routinely saved the lives of children and adults, people who work as nurses, paramedics, firefighters... all of these people contribute more than their share to our wellbeing yet are pitifully represented not just in WP but anywhere in the media. Not to mention safety inspectors and those who represent neglected or abused juveniles. The list could go on, I suppose, yet I guess none of them are as "interesting" as a cartoon character. Sad state of affairs. Ande B 19:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong 14:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable enough for inclusion at the moment. Paddles 15:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete A google comes up with nothing, however if more information comes to light which is verifiable about his role and notability in education, then I may reconsider this opinion.Benjaminstewart05 14:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Harrogate Grammar School. I share sympathy with Ande B. Cheers. --Starionwolf 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I live part of the year in Knaresborough and drive past the Grammar School in Harrogate regularly. Unless they're going to put a banner on the top of the roof proclaiming the notability of the guy... and then make the banner in some way notable (perhaps call the Harrogate Advertiser?) then this is just another school teacher. And if he deserves an article, then me as just another graphic-designer-who-trained-as-a-journalist-and-still-writes-professionally needs one. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 20:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC) (on his way to start the article Redvers the writer).


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rogues Gallery

Disputed prod. American band little-known at home but alledged to have sold two million overseas. Unreferenced. Hoax. -- RHaworth 07:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per DarthVader. (double redirect! ;D) --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of verfication Ydam 11:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, misleading article title. I was expecting something on serial killers! --Sunfazer |Talk 11:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unverifiable, so smells like a hoax. WP is not for conspiracy theories you made up one day. Paddles 15:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 15:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't verify the existance of the U.S. band. I did find information about a Barn Dance band in Surrey Hampshire, UK. Cheers. --Starionwolf 20:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Complete hoax. If they were that big, I would have heard of them. And almost everyone else. Grandmasterka 04:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. From the user who brought you The Suicide of Leroy Sorbiec comes another "notable" topic that somehow nobody has any record of. lowercase 00:40, 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) 23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Suicide of Leroy Sorbiec

Disputed prod. Non-notable unpublished novel. Possibly hoax. -- RHaworth 07:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Original article author placed in an edit summary: "Deletion request removed due to the fact that there is no formal reference sources. Quotes were obtained directly from the author." This is unacceptable per WP:NOR, and the fact that no formal reference sources exist underscores the non-notability of this unpublished work. lowercase 08:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources for reference available for study means that the claims as to notability are unverfiable. The article can be recreated when the novel has been reviewed in one or more Journals of Record and critically acclaimed.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 08:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no reliable sources, original research - Motor (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons stated above. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Hmmm, I just voted on another AfD where User:Chunkymonkey was a major contributor to the article in question. Paddles 15:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, lacks of sources. --Terence Ong 15:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find any info about the Suicide of Leroy Sorbiec. I even checked the Library of Congress in the states (USA). Cheers --Starionwolf 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, and a lot is unencyclopaedic. The JPStalk to me 21:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Masterjamie 23:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sossoon

Delete. Article makes no claim why this social networking service provider meets WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Alexa rank of site is 96505. Google returns less than 1000 hits, 242 of those unique. lowercase 08:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sossoon is rising rapidly on Alexa, and will be hosting 3 large networks

  • British Business Club (bbc.sossoon.net)
  • Sanga (sanga.sossoon.net)
  • Academici (academici.sossoon.net, moving from the OpenBC platform)

At this time we can not disclose this information on the Wikipages, but it will be in the entry starting june 1st. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric woerdeman (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Until the website has achieved notability as per WP:WEB it won't be a good candidate for inclusion. Notability criteria doesn't include the hopeful expectation that the subject of an article will one day achieve notability. The article should serve as the record of the already-established notability of the subject.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per (aeropagitica) and nom. DarthVader 08:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Point taken. I have added internal and external links, and could add external links that discuss Sossoon and it's merits. The Alexa ranking is mentioned as a criterium. What ranking would be considered sufficient to merit inclusion of Sossson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric woerdeman (talk • contribs)
  • There isn't a magic number. GHits and Alexa rankings are used as pieces of evidence to support/refute notability, they're not sole criteria. Oh, and please sign your comments by adding four tildes at the end. Abstain for the time being. Paddles 15:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per (aeropagitica). --Terence Ong 15:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam. Advertisement. Etc. Also because Sossoon is rising rapidly on Alexa and will be hosting 3 large networks so is not at this moment notable. Also because at this time they can not disclose this information on the Wikipages so they're not at this moment notable. Fame first, dmoz second, Wikipedia third, please. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 20:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:57, 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 speedy keep: withdrawn by nominee. I stand corrected. GeorgeStepanek\talk 22:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ferret legging

Hoax. Can be traced back to this humorous article from Harper's Magazine. I suggest we delete unless and until someone finds a more authoritative reference. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - but make clear that it is an urban legend. Why quote Harper's from 1995 when the article itself cites Outside Magazine from 1983? I thought the activity was true but after a quick bit of Googling, I have decided otherwise. But it is sufficiently widespread as a legend to justify an article. -- RHaworth 11:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've read this story, and if it's a hoax, it's an awfully elaborate one: see this book, and note especially the title (ISBN 0812991524, if you want to search elsewhere). --Calton | Talk 12:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Possibly a hoax although referenced in a book but possibly not [5]. We need to document the part of the human race that sends up rockets as well as the part that puts firecrackers up their noses. - Peripitus 12:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not sure whether it's a hoax or not, cuz I hardly even knew about it till now, but at least it's a sport, fictional or nonfictional. - Cat's Tuxedo 7:57 AM, 27 May 2006
  • Keep --Terence Ong 15:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep not only is this not a hoax. or urban legend (I have seen competitions televised a couple of times on the bbc). but it does not originate from a 1995 article in harpers magazine. the first time I saw ferret legging was in the mid sixties. Sadly wikipedia in its reliance on google for references is unlikely to find any much before the nineties, because even the BBC didnt get its online act together much before the end of that decade. this is an activity that is pretty much limited to rural shows and fetes as such it probably wont ever be authoritatively documented. DavidP
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 21:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Triangle

Non-notable and/or vanity --Kbh3rdtalk 02:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - No notability and no google hits Peripitus 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete - this is a new game that some people invented, and it seems pretty fun, they are just trying to spread it around the world, just because they dont have a website that google finds doesnt mean that people don't deserve to play the game.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.151.185.121 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 May 2006.

That is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

--Kbh3rdtalk 03:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You're a bunch of engineering students and you dont know how to set up your own webpage? Bwithh 05:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Where does it say on the "What Wikipedia is not" page that users may not post information on regional recreational games?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.173.174.251 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 May 2006.

See Wikipedia:Verifiability Peripitus 06:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete - I agree, after seeing this article i played the game and found it incredibly fun, If this article is deleted it will serve as a hinderence to user page creation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.151.185.116 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 10 May 2006.
Comment all of the support and contributions from anon users seem to come from "University of Missouri-Rolla" and all commenters/contributors have only edited this article Peripitus 03:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

relisting as the debate is no longer linked to an Afd page - Peripitus 10:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not for establishing notability. — TKD::Talk 15:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Human effort isn't cheap, disk space is. Besides, it may not be very notable now, but give it time :) (I am NOT associated with the original authors of this article, their University, state, social circles, or engineering department.) Bryce 15:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I know you consider yourself an "inclusionist" Wikipedian, but you've literally never once voted to delete something. It doesn't matter how cheap disk space is- if something's non-notable or made up, it's not worth that extremely inexpensive space. -- Kicking222 16:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, nn. --Terence Ong 15:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If this VfD goes against the article (as it may well), I will gladly host it for the authors. If they are interested, they can email me at bryce@lanset.com. Since the page is under the GDFL I might do it without any input, but I tend to forget about these things :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day pretty much says it all. -- Kicking222 16:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • In addition, "Super Triangle"+"card game" gets one Google hit [6], and that hit isn't even related. -- Kicking222 16:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article says the rest: "Super Triangle is a relatively new card game." Ok, let's wait for the national championship of the world universe contest winner list of best players ... or something ... Shenme 18:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom for non-notability. TheJC TalkContributions 19:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because who cares. Danny Lilithborne 21:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Lost me at It is a simple card game originating at UMR by engineering students. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a amateur webpage hosting service. Bwithh 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 to delete. Prodego talk 21:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hail Mary (translations)

Was on {{prod}} , but template was removed. Article doesn't really belong in wikipedia and there doesn't seem to be another project where this can be moved to. Garion96 (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It already was removed from Hail Mary, to create this article. Garion96 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Then change my vote to strong Keep. I know that comparative translations are important for language study, and I think they can be useful for anthropological and theological study, too. --Mikeblas 15:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to an appropriate location. — RJH (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least until someone can state and resolve the reason why not to keep, with the existence of The Lord's Prayer in different languages. Yes, the WP is not a repository of translations, but where is? Shenme 19:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is really a sub-page to the Hail Mary article in that it supplements the article. As there is no way that I know of to actually make it a kind of sub-page, I think it should be kept. But if not kept, at least move to Wikisource. Crypticfirefly 19:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mikeblas's opinion. --Starionwolf 20:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not this. I'm not sure about Wikisource, but c'mon these do not even give a reference to where the translations are from. Kotepho 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on Wikipedia or another Wikimedia project. Fg2 00:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If wikisource accepts this, then of course I also support a move. Garion96 (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an english wiki, perhaps these translations can be put on other language wiki's and then interwiki linked. This does not serve english speaking people seeking encyclopedic information. HighInBC 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't think all the languages have Wikipedias. And sometimes speakers of English do want texts in other languages. Is Wikisource the right Wikimedia project for it? Fg2 08:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, weakly. I created the article from material removed from Hail Mary mostly so that this discussion could happen before deleting it. It makes sense to have the English and the Latin versions in that article, but it snowballed from there, I guess. I do find it interesting, though. --Kbh3rdtalk 23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete strongly. I didn't realise the Lord's prayer article existed: that should be deleted as well. Simply put, if you want the Hail Mary in a different language,go to that relevant wiki. Hail Mary itself isn't English, so it can't be difficult to find. I may be an inclusionist, but there are limits. Dev920 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Simply put, the relevant wiki might not have been started yet, and even if the Wiki has, the relevant article might not have been started. The information should be kept on some Wikimedia project. We should identify the project before deleting the article. Fg2 00:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you will find that all the languages that are on the page have their own wikipedias. There really is no reason to keep this, or the lord's prayer or any other translation pages on the english wikipedia Dev920 11:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, transwiki to WikiSource.  Grue  18:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dev920. Armon 14:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --JJay 16:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mackensen (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Jones Library

Completing nomination by 217.155.34.61 (talk · contribs). Perhaps not notable? DarthVader 11:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 13:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Major academic library at one of the largest universities in England. Twittenham 15:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to main article. --Terence Ong 15:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into University of Liverpool. If an article contains no content besides "This is the main library at That University," then it should just be a redirect to That University. -- Kicking222 16:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into University of Liverpool per Kicking222's idea. --Starionwolf 20:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Kicking222 Armon 15:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Migdalia's cuban cafe

Advert for nn cafe. Prod tag removed by author without explaination. Matt Eason 11:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 11:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete cubancafecruft --Deville (Talk) 12:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 13:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, advertisement. --Terence Ong 15:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Paddles 16:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ginger tom

Possible vanity article, seemingly non-notable, possible copyvio from [7] Molerat 12:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - this band did not chart in australia so misses WP:BAND. Independant release of albums with major label backing. Review I found of an album "The world's most embarrasing demo!" does not indicate notability. - Peripitus 12:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 13:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 14:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 15:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN, clearly vanity. Paddles 16:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Not Vanity, at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Blonde (talk • contribs)
      • Comment Well, that's a convincing argument if I ever heard one. :/ Danny Lilithborne 21:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I was just saying that there was no intention of vanity :/ Mr.Blonde 00:50, 28 May 2006
  • Delete Not notable, vanity, not neutral point of view. I did try to make the page neutral though. Cheers. --Starionwolf 20:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 21:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom, looks like a copyvio, and otherwise not meeting WP:BAND. DVD+ R/W 23:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Has released an EP but doesn't seem to have had much impact. No signs that they meet our music notability guidelines.Capitalistroadster 05:42, 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 The result of the debate was speedily delete per CSD A1. The JPStalk to me 21:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grasith

It sounds like something out of a video game, but I can't find any of these terms anywhere including Grasith and Perginz. Delete as a non-notable, possible video game, element. Metros232 12:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 13:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A1 per nom. Paddles 16:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD A1 (no context). And even if there was context, I'm sure it still wouldn't be notable. -- Kicking222 16:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Looks like fancruft or a hoax....low google hits. 65.49.176.150 16:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Kariia
  • Speedy delete per CSD A1. I can't verify the names in the article. --Starionwolf 20:32, 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) 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfranchise

Pure advertisement, returns ~72000 Google hits, most of which are just about buying into "Unfranchise" --james °o 12:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Is there such thing as adcruft? Amalas =^_^= 12:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this dull dull spamvertisment please. Reads like another Quixtar effort- Peripitus 13:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 13:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 14:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Soembody's been trying to clean it up, but let's face it, it's a sales pitch, pure and simple. Fan1967 14:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. --Terence Ong 15:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Paddles 16:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Badly written spamvertisement. 65.49.176.150 16:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Kariia
  • Delete per nom. --Clubmarx 19:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. --Starionwolf 20:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creations of Peterklutz (talk · contribs)

  • Transcendental state of Consciousness, Cosmic Consciousness, God Consciousness, Unity Consciousness, Brahman Consciousness.

The author has created a number of articles whose only text is: "Transcendental Consciousness is a unique state of consciousness created i.a. through the practice of Transcendental Meditation, as taught by His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi". Unencyclopedic - Wikipedia is not a place to promote "transcendental meditation" or state their claims as a fact. Delete all. - Mike Rosoft 12:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and radically Change Before 85.30.186.206 hijacked this page, it was a redirect to samadhi a unitive state of consciousness. I say turn it into a disambig page- with three definitions: TM's version, the book "Cosmic Consciousness" by Richard Bucke and just a general definition of "oneness" or something with a link to samadhi or enlightenment. I have changed my vote BTW Sethie 04:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Apparent from the article text, they are placeholders to be filled by the creator and/or any other person knowledgeable in the subject. By removing these placeholders the very purpose of wikipedia appears to be defeated. Also evident by the wording this is not a promotion of any particular form of mediationm, but simply to extol an analytical concepts used within TM. At this time I would strongly suggest that Sethie activities vis-a-vis TM related articles are monitored. The reason being several repeated deletions of sections where I have tried to explain some phenomenon related to His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.186.206 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete All for now. Let the author recreate when/if s/he actually has something to put in them. The one line that is in each article now is unacceptably POV, so there's nothing salvageable. Fan1967 13:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom and others. Paddles 16:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all and revert edits by Peterklutz and 85.30.186.206, as he (I'm safely assuming they're the same person) has added this stuff to disambigs and other pages. -- Kicking222 16:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all in those named in the nomination per Fan1967. I see nothing wrong with having an article about, say, Cosmic Consciousness, but if one removes the POV expression, then there's nothing left to keep. --BillC 17:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • (1) The fact that Seethie does not understand the scope for an article about different state of consciousness confirms this man's fantastic ignorance about a subject he has made himself the unsolicitated censor of. (2) Rosoft is a self-proclaimed nihilist. If these two gentlemen are serious in promoting the expansion of knowledge - they should not only support the continued existence of these stub-like articles, but promote elaboration on them - not censor them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.186.206 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Wikipedia is for encylopedic documentation, not proselytizing. There is nothing encyclopedic in any of these stubs. Rosoft's beliefs are irrelevant. Fan1967 21:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect all to transcendental meditation. These are dicdefs of the same thing and do not appear worthy of separate articles. Grandmasterka 04:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete most, Keep Cosmic Consciousness which is a perfectly good term having nothing necessarily to do with 'transcendental meditation'. It was coined, or at least extensively used as early as 1905 by a Canadian doctor, Richard Maurice Bucke, in his book Cosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind which was republished in 1942 and is currently still in print. Over the years those who I have met who have read the book consider the topic quite notable, although the current article does not really address anything. After this is over, I would be happy to write an appropriate article. Bejnar 23:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment After the AfD is over, you're free to write a different article with the same title. The title is the only thing salvageable from this one. Fan1967 21:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Fan1967 and comments. Also revert edits by Peterklutz and 85.30.186.206, per Kicking222. Armon 14:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris McDaniel

Non-notable radio host. Part of the article is a copyvio of this (scroll down a bit for it). Metros232 13:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete NN. "Nationally syndicated" radio show, actually broadcast on five stations in: Laurel, MS; Columbia, MS; Forest, MS; Pascagoula-Moss Point, MS; Brandon, MS. Fan1967 13:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 14:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. I can't find any information about him. --Starionwolf 20:41, 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 Redirect to Transcendental Meditation. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Spiritual Regeneration Movement

This one line of info is contained in the TM article. User has created a number of one line pages that add no information.


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

The result of the debate was: Delete Prodego talk 02:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPod wedding

Rarely used term, non-encyclopedic information, not verified, etc — Wackymacs 14:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete with low Ghits--Jusjih 14:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Bill (who is cool!) 16:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. --BillC (who is not cool) 16:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (Currently) non-notable neologism explained in a messy article. -- Kicking222 16:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move to a more appropriate title. This is something my fiancee and I are considering, and it's covered in a variety of bridal magazines. Legitimate phenomenon, legitimate article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 22:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism, iPodcruft. It's about as legitimate as creating an article titled "Microwave Thanksgiving." OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because its a stupid fad dosent mean people shouldnt have acces to knowing about it. I say keep it but shorten to say, only a definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.7.166.171 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment If a notable entry is a definition-only, it should be transwiki'd to Wiktionary; however, since this is a non-notable neologism, it doesn't even belong there. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • What are you using as a definition of notability? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
        • 587 Google hits isn't that much, most of them referencing one CNET article or something else. People have been using digital technology for photography/music in weddings for years (long before the iPod). It's still a neologism with little to show for other than one CNET article that a few other sites have picked up on. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
          • So the Bridal magazine cutout that my fiancee has plastered to the fridge doesn't help, either? ABC news, perhaps? i mean, most other things with this sort of media attention would be fine, I'm not sure where the animosity toward this in general is coming from. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm sure that when the microwave oven first became popular there were numerous articles in notable magazines about how it could make preparing a large meal (like Thanksgiving) easier. The bottom line is that it's still just a neologism/Heloise Hint about one of the many DIY ways to save money on a wedding. It's simply iPodcruft and not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not notable, you could always make music mixes with old technology. Not enough demonstration that it is a real social phenominon. HighInBC 16:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per HighInBC. —Khoikhoi 17:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted as idiotic marketing neologism of no notability Bwithh 22:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per 202.7.166.171. Abeg92 22:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but make a note on iPod Article, as a curious fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.13.31.30 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep - informative as an encyclopedia article. If it has to be deleted, keep the info at least somewhere on Wikipedia. CoolGuy 18:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X Vietnam (album)

The content is unencyclopedic. There has not been evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC and low Google hits when searching "X Vietnam" album. Deletion is hereby proposed. Jusjih 14:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete possibly speedy per nom. Keep per below Yanksox 14:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The band Quilapayún (not mentioned in original version) appears to meet WP:MUSIC, so the album is automatically included. --Rob 17:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. The band Quilapayún looks notable per Ghits, though I have not found a lot of Ghits for X Vietnam as an album. It will be better if the article is expanded.--Jusjih 12:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deletion would amount to systematic bias.--Nick Dillinger 13:07, 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 The result of the debate was speedy delete under A7 The JPStalk to me 21:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ubiquitous Kings of Rhythm

Not-notable band. Mikeblas 14:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete per nom Spearhead 15:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. There's no attempt to assert notability. Even the article admits they're just four music students who like to hang out. They don't even have their own website, much less a recording contract. The article doesn't mention any CD releases, record labels, tours, etc. This article is the reason why {{db-band}} was created. And, FYI, their name gets 24 Google hits, of which 4 are unique- WP, two MySpace pages, and a LastFM page. -- Kicking222 16:50, 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 14:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blacklight Skies

Non-notable band. No released albums,. not at allmusic.com, and so on. Mikeblas 14:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete per nom Spearhead 15:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I would vote speedy delete, but I think claiming that your own band (the article is, of course, vanity) is "up-and-coming" technically is an assertion of notability, although I would argue that. But yeah, this is an easy case. No albums, label, no AllMusic... no WP article. -- Kicking222 16:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Not notable. Sorry. --Starionwolf 20:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:29, 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 14:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexamericanada

non-notable neologism Tom Harrison Talk 15:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • says you - a very common word usage especially in conservative circles. try googling it.--Tomtom9041 15:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
google Tom Harrison Talk 15:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Tom Harrison's own Google link gives less than 1300 hits. -- Mikeblas 15:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Seems to be used by a wide range of people, perhaps through multiple coinings. Note that Google only gives you about 73 unique pages, though it mentions 1300 hits. Shenme 18:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. n-n-n. -Will Beback 21:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable neologism. Madman 21:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Neologism. DarthVader 23:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Rockero 19:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 19:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Guinnog 12:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laming

This is a dictdef, and a neologism. Few Google hits (that aren't related to the popular last name "Laming". Mikeblas 15:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not even worth a transwiki. -- Kicking222 17:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable neologism. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. (never come across this phrase and I play a lot of games online). IMO, the most likely use of it would be related to lamers. (see also: trolling is related to trolls). TheJC TalkContributions 10:17, 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 14:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Depot Hill Media

per WP:CORP Ioannes Pragensis 16:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's just so much descriptive semi-advertising ... they've "formed last year with the launch of their first site this January" and this seems to be part of their marketing. The only article linking to here is WBXO, which may need to be AfD'd also? Shenme 18:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • An ad for a company that gets a whole ten Google hits. Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 19:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 23:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't at All advertising, they are NON PROFIT r 21:39, 27 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 speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 17:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Evil

Appears to be cut and paste trolling N. Harmon 16:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as soapboxing, point-of-view personal essay, biased to the hilt. The warning at the beginning is a nice touch.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as {{db-attack}}. Bonus marks however for the warning at the start. --BillC 16:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete rant. Denni ☯ 16:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. Also, I see no reason that Yahoowiki should not be blocked from editing. His only contributions are this article, which warns that he will begin vandalizing articles about America, and then a vandalization of American University. Isn't threatening to disrupt WP, and then doing so, sufficient criteria for blocking? -- Kicking222 17:09, 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 Speedy keep on withdrawal of nomination.Capitalistroadster 05:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allan Whitwell

Article is a biography that does not conform to WP:BIO N. Harmon 16:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC) I would like to withdraw this as an article for deletion. N. Harmon 19:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as a non-notable biography. (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, following BillC's cleanup.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  23:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible keep and complete rewrite Obviously, as this article stands now, it's a mess (although obviously written by one of his students, which is very sweet). However, the last phrase (which I'm typing correctly) is that he was a "silver medalist rower." This is true. A quick Google search of "Allan Whitwell" shows that said claim is true- THIS MAN WAS AN OLYMPIC SILVER MEDALIST. In fact, he's even listed at Great Britain at the 1980 Summer Olympics. Thus, Allan Whitwell obviously deserves an article; if not enough information can be found about him, then Allan Whitwell should be a redirect to the above Olympics article. But, considering he passes any possible notability criteria, the article should definitely not be deleted without at least becomming a redirect. -- Kicking222 17:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It appears I was somewhat overzealous in recommending the article be deleted on the basis of notability. N. Harmon 17:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I can't say you shouldn't have done a Google search, but I certainly can't blame you. The article as it stands is completely garbage (although, as I already stated, sweet). -- Kicking222 17:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have now tidied it up. --BillC 17:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for being an Olympian, and speedy keep if the first delete voters will agree. --Rob 17:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, following BillC's cleanup. Middenface 17:49, 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 CSD-A7 speedy delete. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 20:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cassandra Richards

Userfy (or should that be REuserfy since the history shows the article is a move from the userpage of the author. Does not comply with WP:BIO. N. Harmon 16:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as a vanity bio that does not assert notability, userfy, and protect against recreation. -- Kicking222 17:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Need Help

Im the user Cassi5656 and am aware that I am not meant to be modifying this dissucussion, but Im not sure how else to do this. I accept that moving my site isn't wanted on wikipedia and would liked it put back under the user name if its possible? Thanks : )


Thankyou for restoring my Userpage, and I assure I wont move it again! Cassi : )


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asix

Vanity page of non-notable company. Author deleted PROD tag. cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not vanity to survive 13 years in the peruvian market, it is history. Probably it is non-notable for the companies in the first world, but in Peru this is truly hard. That is why I believe that it has to be mention, please help me to improve my article to meet WP requirements if possible.--Czevallos 16:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If it is deleted, maybe I should write an article of the Peruvian new media market history, is that possible?--Czevallos 16:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment for Czevallos First, first-person words such as "our" should be deleted at all costs. If an article has "our," it's advertising, which is not allowed. In addition, the article needs to be copy edited (for spelling, grammar, and whatnot). Third, and perhaps most importantly, some other external links or references would help. If there are any other sites that show why the company is significant or has given it an award, that would be extremely beneficial to the article (even if that web page is not in English). -- Kicking222 18:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've copyedited the article a bit, and added some wikilinks. Best of luck on the AfD. :] --Keitei (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Sam Blanning(talk) 16:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Hard to see how a person from New Jersey who doesn't speak any Spanish can judge the notability of a company in Peru. The article might be advertising, but even so it should just be cleaned up. N. Harmon 17:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, there are no reliable third-party sources for this article in any language, so I fail to see how language skills are relevant here. If the article was verified by Spanish-language newspapers, it might be relevant. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I fail to see how my location makes a difference. The fact that the founder of the company had to create the article speaks against its notability. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - can't say I approve of spam/vanity. No proof of notability (yet, at least). Wickethewok 19:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in cases of self-promotion, there is a strong presumption against the article, and I can't say that this one demonstrates notability. Should we be giving vanity-pushers the benefit of the doubt? No way! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Wikipedia is not (yet) a yellow pages style phone directory Bwithh 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jade Reuben

Although associated with a number of (edit: one) notable people, there's no evidence that this person is herself notable. Bar wikipedia mirrors, Google finds one PR puff piece (Jade Reuben is a PR person, incidentally) and one mention in an archived chat. MSN finds nothing. Yahoo finds one. There's absolutely no evidence whatever that she meets any of the criteria of WP:BIO: she's not "widely recognized", she hasn't received "significant press coverage", and she hasn't achieved "renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Moreover, even if being in business with someone from a short-lived band does make one notable (which would mean the lady who paints Madonna's toes is notable too), there's no verification that any of the claims made in the article are true, so I believe it fails WP:RS too. Middenface 17:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction - she's associated with one notable person (I misread). The other notables mentioned are associates of an associate. Middenface 17:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's research. --BillC 17:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I also like the external link to Getty Images, which doesn't actually have anything to do with the article's subject. -- Kicking222 17:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 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. Mailer Diablo 14:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IF Skin Zone

Delete. Article was tagged for speedy deletion, but it does not appear to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Nevertheless, this is an article about a web forum about getting skins for other web forums, with no claim to notability whatsoever. Alexa rank of over 100000. lowercase 17:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • An article about a non-notable website, which doesn't even link to it. Delete as vanity and failed attempt at spam. - Mike Rosoft 17:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nothing notable here.. SubSeven 18:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 23:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:29, 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 14:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heather Veitch

Article was being considered for speedy deletion, but another editor removed that tag. I do not believe the subject is notable (WP:BIO). N. Harmon 17:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. No claim of meeting WP:BIO. lowercase 17:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep On one hand, jcsgirls.com has an Alexa rank of about 100,000, and I'm not a fan of porn. But on the other hand, JC's Girls is apparently a pretty big deal. A Google search for "Heather Veitch" [8] produces over 13,000 hits and over 300 unique hits (Googling "JC's Girls" also brings up 15,000+ total and 300+ unique hits). More importantly, Wikipedia:Notability (people) specifies that notability is demonstrated if, quote, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Looking at some of these "Heather Veitch" Google hits, there have been stories on JC's Girls and Heather Veitch from MANY reliable sources. Veitch appeared on CNN and MSNBC (although I in no way consider Tucker Carlson "human," much less "reliable") and was written about in The Daily Telegraph, the Los Angeles Times, and many other newspapers (I'm assuming the article was done by Reuters or AP). So, perhaps unfortunately, she clearly passes notability tests as a newsmaker. -- Kicking222 17:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the good argument of Kicking222 above. lowercase 17:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BIO. There is an ample amount of material on her to make a complete biography. --Rob 18:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kicking222. -- DS1953 talk 04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I just saw on Current TV that she was the third most requested entry in the category of 'Heathers' on Google. I immediately went to the Wikipedia to find out more, especially after hearing that the televangelist Pat Robertson had a nickname for her.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Profit.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PROFIT

Delete. This article underwent a prior AfD, but it was invalid -- The recreated material CSD is not valid for pages deleted by {{prod}}. That said, this article is spam. There's no claim to notability, and the company's website has no Alexa rank. lowercase 17:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and protect against recreation Spam, non-notable, etc. -- Kicking222 17:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment All the external references in [9] would also have to be deleted. They all refer to software used in the industry, and this website has as much or more useful content than most others. So it is not clear how discrimination will be avoided here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.189.188.114 (talk • contribs) .
  • Weak Delete Previous unsigned comment has a point about links in the Technical Analysis Software (Finance) article. Maybe someone from THAT article created a bunch of wanted pages and others obliged.
  • If deleted, recreate as redirect to Profit. -- saberwyn 00:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete software should be easy to find google hits for. A search for all of "PROFIT", "Tradewiz", and "technical analysis" found 11 unique google hits. Two of these 11 were on the company's site. That site does not have enough traffic for Siteadvisor to have bothered testing whether it is a good or spammy site. None of the remainders are reliable sources. In addition to a lack of claim to notability, this is clearly not notable. GRBerry 00:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Weak Keep Just a wikipedia user comment. I was reading your text about technical analysis recently and ended up here. It seems hard to me to define a cut off criteria for a product to be kept or dropped from the pages without risking some appearance of favoritism. I can understand the idea of listing the most popular or a standard, but once other competitors are included, where the acceptability line is crossed can, at times, become fuzzy. I wonder, as a lay person, even about the legality (loosely applied) of such “endorsements” vs. rejections, on a public resource like wikipedia.

In my mind, either all but the “standard” are removed or simple references to available products are allowed to stay. As long as they are not long advertisements, with lists of features and blatant spamming language. If anybody is interested, they can always go and look for more information at the vendor's site.

I realize it’s a thin line between being an encyclopedia and a vendors catalog; still, coming to think of it, having a list of available software associated with a topic is a good complementary service to readers. And standards are usually expensive, so not all users are looking for them.

Again, just some food for though...Keep up the good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.208.110.77 (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete per nom. --Peta 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I created the article. I have used several of the programs that do have their entries and found this to be the best. The website contains more content than several others that have entries. For consistency, either keep this or delete all others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chartist07 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment User has 7 edits, all PROFIT related. lowercase 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes. My first entry, being a trader and technical analyst. Perhaps my last, given how my contribution was welcomed.
    1. Delete
    2. ???
    3. PROFIT!  Grue  18:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry about the faulty speedy (by me), but I still think this article be deleted, and then redirect to Profit per above. Petros471 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Whitford

Non-notable/vanity page/hoax. Can't find any sources for the content of the article, and considering he is supposed to be the youngest politician and a "famous politician" seems odd. TheJC TalkContributions 17:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nominator. The "youngest person" thing is no big deal - someone can stand on their 18th birthday, and surely lots of people have already. Middenface 17:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. --BillC 18:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I probably would've speedied it given the horrible vanity tone and lack of sources. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:30, 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 userfy and delete Joelito (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Webb (magician)

Non-notable magician. WP:VAIN article created by Magicsteve. Only one google hit [10]. Homepage is magicsteve.ca, same name as the user who created the article. No sign of notability and vanity. IrishGuy 18:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Userfy and delete per nom. -- Kicking222 19:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy and Delete Nice article, but the magician is not notable. --Starionwolf 20:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy and delete. Not notable. DarthVader 23:00, 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, bink bink!. Mailer Diablo 14:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy frog-U can't touch this

I don't think this article requires its own article, as Crazy Frog already mentions the song, as does Jingle Bells/U Can't Touch This (which contains more information than this article does about the song) and also links to U Can't Touch This --TheJC TalkContributions 18:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. There's no information here. Shenme 19:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Now. Personally, if I ran the world (or just WP), I would delete everything ever having to do with that stupid frog. But at least this is one article that really doesn't deserve to exist. -- Kicking222 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If anyone doesn't add any citations or references. --Starionwolf 20:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom — ßottesiηi (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete maybe merge somewhere, but certainly doesn't need it's own article. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with no merge per nomination. --Metropolitan90 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 01:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to U Can't Touch This since microstubs about alternate versions of songs really suck poop; and that U Can't Touch This has it's own article and can be easily mentioned there. -- | Page | contact 04:48, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 14:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No More AOL CDs

This isn't an encyclopedia type of entry. Basicly all it is, is just a campaign against a company. Articles like this, don't add anything meaningful to this site. Peter Tangney 18:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. Easily verifiable, has been mentioned in a non-vanity book, featured on the CBC, Network Computing, PC World, Fast Company, etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jeff. The site's Alexa ranking is around 1,000,000, but the phrase (in quotes) gets over 30,000 G-hits. It's apparently an important enough topic to have an article in another language, too. But I'm mostly voting keep because of Jeff's research. -- Kicking222 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jeff — ßottesiηi (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Reasonable notability established. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. The article does look like an advertisment though. --Starionwolf 00:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. "Basically all it is, is just a campaign against a company"? Well, yes... Which has nothing to do with whether it is notable or deserves to be here. I would say keep anyway. Grandmasterka 04:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Speedy Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not (yet) a dumping ground for random bits and pieces of information and marketing. Bwithh 05:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what product these folks are marketing, but this article reaches no speedy criteria. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 05:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per badlydrawnjeff. The subject is a campaign against a company, not the article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per badlydrawnjeff. ~Chris {tce@} 20:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are some POV concerns in the later paragraph, but the article itself is encyclopedic, as shown by badlydrawnjeff. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Sunday, 28 May 2006 at 20:37 UTC
  • Keep, per badlydrawnjeff. xompanthy 21:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Organization appears notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:55, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Destination 4

No valid sources- Article has no reason to exist until and unless it is confirmed Grz 18:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom, though there is a book by this title apparently, doesn't look to be a notable book though. Wickethewok 19:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; wikipiedia is not a crystal ball — ßottesiηi (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Send it the way of Ghostbusters 3, Mrs Doubtfire 2, and Kung Pow 2. C'mon guys, wait until there's at least one frame of film. Fan1967 21:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Yamla 21:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a ball of crystal or crystall ball. --Starionwolf 00:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. They never confirmed anything, they stated that FD3 was the last film in the series. Empty2005 00:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. Maybe a liquid crystal display under certain circumstances, however. I must agree with Fan1967. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a crystal ball and this just appears to be wishful thinking (Pally01 07:50, 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 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WBXO

per WP:WEB Ioannes Pragensis 19:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 19:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under A7 The JPStalk to me 21:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 23:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Pure advertisement. Ande B 23:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy delete per A7. Advertisment --Starionwolf 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. As far as I know A7 does not apply here, but this should go anyway as it's still an ad. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huda orfali

Vanity page. cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete the three books that the article mentions do exist (I added ISBNs). One, however, is published by self-publishing house iUniverse.com, and another by PublishAmerica (which denies vehemently that it is a vanity press). The benchmark set by WP:BIO is "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" I can't find much evidence of that, bar a few blogs. Middenface 19:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the findings of Middenface, but also because the article is complete vanity by User:Hudaorf, who, unsurprisingly, has never edited another article. -- Kicking222 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Nn and vanity. DarthVader 22:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above: Vanity, advertisement, not notable. Ande B 23:01, 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 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q45 (rapper)

Q45 (rapper) An unsigned act, who I believe fails the WP:MUSIC criteria. There are, however, enough assertions of notability such that this isn't a CSD. Middenface 19:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Passages like Q45 is a rapper's worst nightmare, hip-hop's greatest savior, and a labels biggest dream are a clear violation of WP:NPOV so unless cleaned up, it's a delete from me.Ac@osr 19:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete WP:VAIN — ßottesiηi (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even if cleaned up. He's non-notable and it's NPOV vanity. That's all that needs to be said. -- Kicking222 21:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity page, POV, advertisement, not notable, WP is not MySpace, where this article seems to be more at home. Ande B 22:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, blatant self promotion. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:29, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty Red Kiss

Per WP:WEB; a never printed novel existing only online; vefy few Google hits Ioannes Pragensis 19:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom — ßottesiηi (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity page, advertisement, not notable. Ande B 22:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. SorryGuy 00:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Week keep. I'm not sure if it was added before or after the AFD nomination, but there is content indicating that this was one of the first online novels, which gives it additional notability. With more and more such works appearing, Wikipedia may need to develop a policy regarding such articles. 23skidoo 04:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    Does this mean you want to keep the article for a week, then delete it? ;) --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The novel was printed. Please revisit the page before deleting. Thanks. Nitsuko. May 30 2006

  • Delete. I'm still not convinced its encyclopedicaly notable just because it's been printed was may have been one of the first (but not THE first) on-line novels. Zaxem 12:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trans Tasman Croquet Test 2006

I can't quite tell what this is. Is it a notable event? No outside sources. Also, I believe it to be vanity (editor is one of the people the article mentions). Wickethewok 19:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity, WP is not a web host, not notable or verifiable (Single Google hit didn't even turn up the group's web site. No Google news entries.) Ande B 22:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This doesn't appear to be "major-league" croquet (if there is such a thing). Non-notable. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons already given. DVD+ R/W 23:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because it is vanity. However an international between Australia and New Zealand is as "major-league" as it gets. --Bduke 02:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If it can be tidied up, I'll go for keep. --Bduke 08:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Subject may well be notable enough but needs verification and general tidyup. Capitalistroadster 06:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 06:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Representative international series between two countries should be easily notable. I did a google search which found several different websites which mention the series currently being played in Victoria [11] [12] [13] [14], so I don't doubt the authenticity. OK, croquet's not cricket or football, but it is a sport that's played in Canada, the UK, United States, Australia, New Zealand and France. The article certainly needs tidying up, and the organisers haven't really got their act together to promote the series, but other than that, what's the problem? -- I@n ≡ talk 06:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • OTOH, I'd have no great qualms about this being deleted if the author is not interested enough to expand, wikify and provide references. -- I@n ≡ talk 00:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per links provided by I@n. Inter-country sporting events are notable enough for me. Ansell Review my progress! 07:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per I@n. -- Synapse 09:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete nonnotable. Wikipedia is not a provincial newsletter Bwithh 22:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if tidied up. What's so provincial about an international sports event? JPD (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn sporting event.--Peta 02:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most individuals "tests" in any sport are not notable enough to warrant an individual encyclopedia page - and nothing suggests there was anything unusually notable about this one. Zaxem 12:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (A3). — FireFox (UTC) 20:47, 27 May '06

[edit] Fabrocks

Vanity page for a little-known web forum // Windchaser 19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was CSD-A7 speedy delete. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 19:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raphael RUBIN

Raphael RUBIN A vanity article (admitted by the subject) by some non-notable Ph.D student. No evidence of notability, subject/creator removes repeated PROD and CSD tags. Middenface 19:46, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season

Not an encyclopedic topic. This is just the editor's opinions on what will and won't matter in the upcoming season, in other words a crystalball. Metros232 20:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as crystal ball with no prejudice against later recreation as an encyclopedic article. BryanG(talk) 20:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per BryanG; recreate later — ßottesiηi (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Keep and cleanup Per SorryGuy. The second paragraph needs to go or reworded to be neutral. Cheers. --Starionwolf 21:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Wikipedia is a Non-Prophet organization. --D-Day What up? Am I cool, or what? 22:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per BryanG. Ande B 22:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean-up. The second paragraph and the key match-ups is POV and crystal ball but the lead sentence and list of bowl games, their dates, and the networks which will be airing them should remain as it is encyclopedic. SorryGuy 00:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sorry and the fact that there is an article entitled 2007-08 NHL season hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. What a mess. But there are verifiable details of the 2006 season that could be documented here. ScottW 17:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep By no means is it premature. Osomec 18:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per SorryGuy assuming the POV sections are removed. -Big Smooth 22:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dryer lint

This seems to be original research about what lint is and "creative" things to do with lint. Metros232 20:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom — ßottesiηi (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find any sources or verify the claim. --Starionwolf 22:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete although I did find it rather entertaining. SorryGuy 00:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 00:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ezekiel Pobanz

Ezekiel Pobanz A member of a band which has release one album on an independent label. WP:MUSIC sets a benchmark "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" (my emphasis). So I believe there's no indication that Mr Pobanz or his Ass Head cohorts meet the standard of notability normally required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Middenface 20:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and probably autobiography — ßottesiηi (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Looks like a hoax - no sign of the group at Merge's site and absolutely no Ghits at all [15].Ac@osr 20:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Even if it wasn't a hoax, he would still be so non-notable (as a 15-year-old kid in an insignificant band). -- Kicking222 21:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Hoax, vanity, total nonsense, even vandalism. Ande B 22:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't verify the existance of him or his band. --Starionwolf 23:09, 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 14:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gumbot

Article is a prime example of WP:NFT. No proof of this existing outside this article. Metros232 20:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom — ßottesiηi (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 20:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Definitely a WP:NFT case. The only G-hit for "Stafford Williams"+"gumbot" is a WP mirror. -- Kicking222 22:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Appears to be hoax if not then vanity or advertising. Definitely not verifiable. Ande B 22:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't verify the claims either. --Starionwolf 22:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as externally unverifiable. Maybe recreate as redirect to Wellington boot as a possible misspelling of "gumboot"? -- saberwyn 23:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 06:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nosferatu Helstar (album)

non-notable album Bennie Noakes 20:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Can you AFD categories? There's a Category:Helstar that doesn't need to be there, in my opinion. Bennie Noakes 20:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, notable bands get notable albums. However, this should be moved to a proper title. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable at this time. Belongs in article about the band itself; the band's article is pitiful and could use some expansion and improvement. No need to break this into a separate article. Ande B
    • Why would we merge album information to this band when the overwhelming standard is that albums get separate pages? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply If I have misunderstood the standards then my comment to that effect should not apply although the album itself does not appear to be notable in any way. I've been puzzled as to why inconsequential albums show up with their own pages when their rather inconesquential performers have bare bones coverage. Can you direct me to the page that expresses this preference? Ande B 23:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's a page that expresses the preference, it simply is the common practice, and one I personally see no reason to abandon here. The infoboxes on album pages alone contain a worthwhile chronology on the bottom that would be broken up by adding it to the band page, for example. There's certainly plenty we can do to expand Helstar without resorting to removing otherwise decent and useful stubs. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
While not official policy, it has been proposed that editors create the artist article first, then the albums, then (if notable) the songs. GentlemanGhost 07:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. I know that this isn't policy, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Music states that albums should get their own page. If the band only had one album, then I could see merging this back to their article, but they have several albums. --Joelmills 00:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although the article on Helstar is indeed woefully small, I don't think that invalidates the usefulness of the album article. It should be renamed, though, to Nosferatu (Helstar album) as Nosferatu (album) is already taken. And it looks like we need to create a disambiguation page for Nosferatu in general. GentlemanGhost 06:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar Van Nooijen

Non-notable election candidate loser. Has survived previous AFD but two IPs have attempted to nominate this for AFD without completing the process (see talk page). Similar articles have been deleted: for e.g.. Although this is more a technical nom for me, I'm voting delete as non-notable. The JPStalk to me 20:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete 615 ghits — ßottesiηi (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable, and I say that as OULC 129.67.55.156 21:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable --Starionwolf 22:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for the reasons put forward in previous debates. Candidates for major parties are of interest to those who are interested in politics. I make this prediction - if it is deleted, at some stage there will be clear agreement that an article is needed for this man. His notability will increase. --Bduke 02:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. This page started as a vanity page, with corresponding vanity edits to the OULC page. Both having been NPOV'd, his non-notability is emphasised. Mtpt 10:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --82.45.210.9 22:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was speedy delete as G1. The JPStalk to me 21:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huntington Island

  • Delete hoax; already picked up by Google ! JoJan 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom — ßottesiηi (talk) 20:58, 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 14:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop TV Icons

Orginally prodded by User:Jamoche, but was removed. His reason was "WP:OR & listcruft. Can't see how this can ever be anything but subjective". The only other edits to the article were by User:Paul Arnott. I would say delete, per User:Jamoche's comments. Whomp 21:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete; far to subjective and should probably be a list anyways. — ßottesiηi (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per above. The JPStalk to me 21:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 21:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --Starionwolf 22:22, 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 14:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Take My Hand

One line about a song. Adds no information to that currently in the album entry (at Life for Rent). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents says "Songs are not generally notable, and should be listed under album or artist as appropriate" Inner Earth 21:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom Ande B 22:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedied. Tawker 01:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Abbott

Vanity article. I had these [16] [17] [18] discussions with User:67.167.100.96, the subject of the article and whom is most likely also the creator (User:Jeffrey abbott) of the article (just not logged in). He has requested deletion, which would normally fall under CSD G7 if he signed on with the JA account and listed it himself; however I am listing this for him as a courtesy, and thus am putting it through the full AfD. --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, appears to fail the criterial of WP:MUSIC. Middenface 22:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Perhaps userfy? DarthVader 22:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per AbsolutDan. Not notable. Someone can try to userfy the article if possible.  :) Cheers --Starionwolf 23:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:21, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catorce improv

Catorce improv This article was nominated (well, only stage3 of AfD) by 63.226.15.225 (talk · contribs), so I'm just fixing the nom. If I were to guess the nominator's intention, I'd say they'd be concerned about the notability of the subject, which appears to be a local theatre troupe.Middenface 22:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Completely non-notable. The article is vanity and, for the most part, a joke. "Catorce Improv" gets 5 unique Google hits (32 total), including WP and a mirror. They don't even have their own web site. -- Kicking222 22:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kicking222. DarthVader 22:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It looks like a vanity page and an advertisment. The Troupe is not notable. Sorry. --Starionwolf 22:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like an amateur group that performs twice a month. Barely a step above "Let's put on a show. My dad's got a barn we can use." Fan1967 23:05, 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 Joelito (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestling board

Only content advertizes not notable web forum with 83 Google hits. Not in top 100,000 by alexa. :) Dlohcierekim 23:32, 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kirsten Baker

NN minor film actress. She's had bit parts in two major films and a few more minor films. She has also had a few minor TV appearances. Not really enough notability to live up to WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Week Keep - Real person, on IMdb.
    • Inclusion on IMBD does not automatically make a case for including a person here. IMDB does not maintain that someone is notable, simply that the person has appeared in a film at some point. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 00:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable. IMDB is not a 100% reliable or credible test of notability Bwithh 00:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO.--Peta 02:23, 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. Mailer Diablo 23:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandrian School of Anatomy

I believe we inherited this from an old encyclopedia--possibly the 1911 Brittanica. It seems to be merely a collection of four largely unrelated anatomists who worked or studied in Alexandria at times centuries apart. Alexandrian school is a common term, which is probably what led to this title, but that isn't what this article is about, and I can't find any examples online or in print of this term being used elsewhere. Galen and Herophilus have articles already, and I created articles for Rufus and Oribasius. Since the useful content is elsewhere already, and this article appears to be nothing more than an accidental collection (not to mention being a mess of florid and biased turn-of-the-century writing), I propose we get rid of this. --RobthTalk 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Osomec 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete duplicates exisitng material and origin is unknown.--Peta 02:22, 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. Shell babelfish 14:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FPS: Feet Per Second

Possibly non-notable computer video game, deprodded by author. It is still in development, and the article does not make any real claims of notability. Invitatious 00:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating FPS: Feet Per Second (video game) because it is a duplicate. Invitatious 00:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete both pages It looks like an advertisment and vanity page for a game or company. FPS: Feet Per Second (video game) is a duplicate. --Starionwolf 00:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please delete both, I am the author of both, so... --User:Adamski07 13:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS - defaulting to keep. —Whouk (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sims 2: Pets

  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}}

Pure speculation. Other than a teaser trailer at E3, EA and Maxis have made NO statements even confirming any of this. The only statement from the PR department was that the expansion pack was not announced at E3 and it will be announced sometime after E3. The article contains nothing but guesses and has absolutely nothing credible on which to base itself. Which unfortunately doesn't seem to fit speedy deletion policy. Until such a time that Maxis confirms or denies an expansion pack this should be removed. Its also unlikely that even if they go with a pet theme that it will be called this. Crossmr 00:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete if the article doesn't cite any official sources. Cheers --Starionwolf 01:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a crystal ball clause. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Do you think E3 would lie to us? It is unlikely that this is a fake. As seggestions for adding pets to the game have been flooding the forms of The Sims 2 website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.186.60.96 (talk • contribs) .
comment since you asked, yes, there is lots of precedent for games shown at E3 not to be made, and besides what has E3 told us, it certainly didn't say "upcoming EP for The Sims 2 PC game". --Crossmr 00:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a real game in development, and even if it is deleted, the article would be remade in a few weeks. All the other expansion packs have an article each, so this should remain in my opinion. Jamandell (d69) 22:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Its been confirmed and is being developped, no reason to delete. Theonlyedge 22:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep THe video directly says "Sims 2: Pets" and there are small clips from it. --71.241.153.148 02:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is just too much speculation at this point. If this really does turn out to be the name and new focus of the expansion then the article can be easily created we have some hard facts to back it up. --Hetar 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is an alledged expansion pack, and the article states that. However, we know that something is coming, so even if it isn't an expansion, but something more random (even though it blatantly is an expansion), then the article can be adapted. I don't think it should be deleted because it would only come back in a matter of days, so there is no point in doing that. Also, I agree with Theonlyedge's note. 13756 18:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - At this point in time, there is too much speculation. As this Gamespot article points out, is it an expansion? Spinoff? Stuff pack? etc... CrystallinEntity 04:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

comment http://www.snootysims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18790 This is an e-mail from EAs PR department regarding TS2 and E3. As you can see EA clearly states that the EP was not being shown at E3, and since that is all the official information there is, it has not been announced at this time. Everything else at this point is pure speculation. --Crossmr 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Crossmr, please stop attacking every comment that supports the article. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You have made your point, and let people make theirs.
Theonlyedge 02:29, 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koolmoves

This article seem to be basically an advertisment for a product. I doubt this has the required notability. skorpion 00:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable software. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 02:21, 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 KEEP —Whouk (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Andrews (actor)

NN actor. Has played bit parts in a number of movies and TV shows as a child actor. Otherwise, there is little biographical information about him and the article is not likely to be expanded much further. Also does not live up to WP:BIO *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 00:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the actor is relevant enough to retain, after all, it is very subjective to judge what is important, as regards to relevancy of a living person. In this case I consider an actor a John Carpenter film, and of several tv series to be relevant for one of the biggest encyos in the world!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.122.24 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep — Sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Just not notable Bwithh 22:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep barely notable --MarsRover 22:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable, but article needs cleaning up. B.Wind 02:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable resume. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:47, 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 Early close - blanked by sole author, other editors only added tags...- Delete. HappyCamper 19:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tasty water

"Tasty water"? We have a separate article on water that's tasty and what makes it that way? Merge with Water, as most of the information is duplicated within the article itself, or in the article on regular water. Morgan Wick 00:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Though the article does cite one source, I don't think that source is referring to something this specific. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My article is my own original empirical research. Everything I wrote is based on experience and obvious things. I don't know why it should be deleted. Cuzandor 05:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Cuzandor's description of the article as "his own original empirical research". Zetawoof(ζ) 07:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • reluctantly Delete - I truly wish this wasn't WP:OR and had the qualities this wiki requires. Very funny read - but unfortunately not really uncyclopedia either - Peripitus 12:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete due to OR concerns. Almost BJAODNable, though... Tony Fox 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because elitism is cool!!!! ~1~1~1~~ Cuzandor 18:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because I'm not jewish so i can't be a scientst either, only jews do great discoveries Cuzandor 18:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because only jews can be right, they own sciente Cuzandor 18:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Yanksox 01:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erika Anderson

NN actress. Played bit parts in a number of films and on TV. Little biographical information is given either here or on IMDB. This article is not likely to expand. Plus, it does not live up to notability requirements on WP:BIO *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Her roles include the title character/female lead in a movie with Nicolas Cage (Zandalee). --Metropolitan90 01:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Metropolitan90. Passes the notability bar for me, though the article needs to be expanded. Not every actor needs to be as popular as Julia Roberts to warrant an article. 23skidoo 04:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable Bwithh 05:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — Sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep More notable than vast numbers of other actors with articles. Osomec 18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - meets WP:BIO as she was in several widely-released films, and not just as an extra or a character with only one line. B.Wind 02:23, 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 14:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insane Cullerton Deuces

Not-notable faction of a particular street gang. Only source seems to be their website. 3 google hits - no verifiable information. Wickethewok 00:53, 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.