Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 31

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

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted by MONGO. — TheKMan^talk 07:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Risen

I'm completing this AfD, from May 10, by anon user 151.201.18.20. -- Scientizzle 00:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• delete : self-promotion, irrelevant, not notable to most of the world—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weakarticles (talk • contribs)
• Delete Completely irrelevant, self promotion. R.E. Freak 02:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as completely non-notable. -- Scientizzle 00:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and why wasn't this finished before? Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. I found it on RC only because 64.141.56.184 had blanked it completely. -- Scientizzle

• Delete Per R.E freak. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 00:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 00:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7 nn group bio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7, no evidence of notability--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per A7. Thetruthbelow ^{Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk)} 02:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speey Delete A7, no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong 03:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• CSD - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --JChap 06:13, 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commonist

Non Notable/unsourced -- Zanaq 22:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/Merge into the appropriate article, but I don't think deletion is necessary. Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 22:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral It's a stub about a piece of software that does seem to exist. It is very short and uninformative but not an ad or vanity page. Farily minor piece of software which is directly related to wikipedia.--Nick Y. 00:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Aside from my philosophical belief that the behind-the-scenes Wiki stuff should be kept out of articles as much as possible, I feel this software isn't notable enough. Reyk _YO! 11:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move to a more appropiate namespace, either User: or Wikipedia: Computerjoe's talk 16:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. In case you don't know there's an adequate article at Commons:Commons:Tools/Commonist (that article there was written by me). Beside that it's just a stub without any useful information and what I dislike most is that the original author himself added the stub template to the article. I think this attitude throwing such stubs onto the feet of others qualifies deletion alone. Arnomane 23:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Wikipedia is also no place for self reference.
• Delete per above; also, one sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 22:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Weak argument given for deletion. Yeah, I suck at creating articles. I acknowledge this. Calling the article unreferenced isn't true, because, if one were to look one would see 2 references to it. Alleged "notability" has never been an official criteria for inclusion or deletion. This concludes my 5-am argument. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per naom. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 00:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 00:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: way to insignificant for an article, no indication of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. --Hetar 00:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move it to Wikipedia:Commonist--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move to appropriate user space or maybe WP:TOOLS. --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 05:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• WP: it. THE KING 06:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Aguerriero (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per B.Wind Crazynas 15:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Drosophila - Wikipedia doesn't seem to be a good fit for listings of all kinds of random software. Get this thing a SourceForge homepage and leave the encyclopedia to articles on encyclopedic topics. --Cyde↔Weys 17:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move per above digital_me^(t/c) 18:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or WP it... per WP:NOT. ---J.S (t|c) 19:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move per above --Wisden17 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move Surely there's room off the mainspace for a tool potentially useful for editors ? Equendil Talk 23:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Move In case it extends. The subject is useful, the article nearly empty, and deleting won't be a loss as well, though.CP/M 01:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, next to no information. If Wikipedia:Commonist is to be created Commons:Tools/Commonist contains ample information, no need to use this page. Daduzi 09:54, 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 Speedy delete. User requested deletion on Hetar's talk page. (EC with BigDT) PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mynetspot.org

With an alexa rank of 4,202,034 and a google search [1] revealing 1 hit I don't think this is going to be the next myspace anytime soon. With no reliable sources and no claims to notability this subject isn't ready for a Wikipedia article yet. --Hetar 00:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete alexa rank of over 4 million. [2] Does not assert notability per WP:WEB.--Jersey Devil 00:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Moot - it looks like it was just speedied by User:PS2pcGAMER BigDT 00:55, 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 redirect to Someday (I Will Understand). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Over to You Now

Article has been on cleanup since December. I stumbled across it with randompage and started cleaning it up, then decided there's no way to save it. It's a song of uncertain status from a Britney Spears DVD. It's not a single, has only barely been released at all and is, as far as I can see, extremely unimportant. Tuf-Kat 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Someday (I Will Understand), which is the single the above song is from--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per TBC. ~Chris (e) 01:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oops, thanks to User:Deleteme42 for putting this on AfD because I forgot and it's been languishing for almost a month. I stand by my nomination FTR. Tuf-Kat 01:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Someday (I Will Understand). --Terence Ong 03:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect' per above Crazynas 15:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• 'Merge and Redirect' per above digital_me^(t/c) 19:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. Nothing in the article is WP:V and much is WP:OR/WP:POV. Just delete all of it. ---J.S (t|c)

20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect per J.S. above, a lot of POV in the article. --Wisden17 23:32, 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 speedy delete as a hoax and possible attack page. -- Kjkolb 05:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cory Vatsaas

This is a prank. There are no relevant google hits. The text has been copied and pasted from another article. Same this was done for Ian Champion, which I have converted into a stub about a real actor. Zeromacnoo 01:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• What article was the c/p from? If it is actually pure vandalism, it can be speedy deleted as such BigDT 01:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Doesn't look like vandalism (it could be hoax though), but either way it doesn't seem to be notable, so delete per WP:PORN BIO--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. I suspect it's some sort of prank on a friend or acquaintance. No such actor was in those movies, per IMDB. Fan1967 01:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above--looks like a prank. "Twink Klinefelter" did kinda make me chuckle, though... -- Scientizzle 02:00, 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 Speedy delete a7 by Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC) as it appears his main achievement is having a company, but there is no assertion as to why this company matters at all

[edit] Derrick Threatt

Unverified vanity, CV, delete--Peta 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN, only 27 Google results [3]. Possibly also userfy to User:Moustacy, who seems to be Derrick Threatt as seen from his picture' licensing information [4]--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. -- Scientizzle 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I added a speedy tag on this. Completely non-notable, not even worthy of an afd.--Jersey Devil 03:53, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herstory

Non-notable subject, lacks sources after years of existence Xombie 01:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, seems to be a very notable neologism as evident by all the relevant google results. [5] The term is also used by a lot of feminist and lesbian organisations [6][7]. --☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete lots of google results, but the current article doesn't rise above the level of a dictionary definion. Delete without prejudice? BigDT 01:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I've tidied up the entry - it is difficult to extend such a simple concept beyond a short article - however it is an important concept in feminism, evidence of academic usage is easy to find.--Peta 01:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep possibly can't really be expanded beyond a dictionary definition, but is definently verifiable and has been used meaningfully in print for a while. Might consider a move to Wiktionary. --W.marsh 02:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Move/Merge I agree that it should maybe be moved to a Wikitionary entry or a small mention in the Feminism article. --Xombie 02:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Poor etymology aside, it's notable and it goes beyond a simple dictionary definition. There's been enough debate and controversial usage of this term to make for a good NPOV article can come of it. ScottW 02:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per ScottW.  -- TheKMan^talk 03:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Delete If we can transwiki this, and merge the encyclopedic elements to feminism (per Xombie), that would be ideal Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable term because of its political usage. Phiwum 04:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, and expand. If this is deemed not notable then AfD is losing the plot entirely, so what's the point of Wikipedia? As of a few seconds ago Wikipedia had 1,164,080 articles in English. Xombie, tell me how Herstory is less notable than ALL of those 1,164,080 articles? Moriori 05:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Many of those articles shouldn't be on Wikipedia and the race to the bottom is not much of a standard to add articles. --JChap 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The article consists of only a definition and references for its definition. It it does not appear to be anything more than a word used within feminism to describe a type of historical revisionism rather than an important concept meriting its own article. --Xombie 12:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki If this really is a coherent school of thought, write an encyclopedia article on it. Now, it's just a definition. --JChap 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Peta. Fluit 07:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I agree it is a notable term, but I agree with Xombie, it should be in Feminism.
• Keep Notable term in Feminist politcal parlance. Pvazz 08:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Feminism. It's a notable term, but there's not enough to actual hang an encyclopedia article on, except as a dicdef. (or perhaps a non-gender-specific-genitalia-def). -- GWO
• Merge as above - the article is essentially a definition and not really notable enough for its own page michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 10:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I've heard of the term, seems to be valid. JIP | Talk 11:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - definitely a notable term, but I question whether there will ever be more than a dicdef here. Metamagician3000 12:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As it currently stands, it's not much more than a dictionary definition, but if you can write a whole article on History, you can write a whole article on Herstory. In common use by feminists, academics, etc. There's tons of room for improvement, yes, but the topic merits an article. The Disco King 13:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a dicdef, can be mentioned in other feminism articles. Aguerriero (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ScottW. --Terence Ong 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to feminism, and/or transwiki as dicdef. --Guinnog 14:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable concept, a stub that begins at the beginning. Just because the coinage makes the eyes roll doesn't mean that the concept is not notable. Smerdis of Tlön 14:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As painful as it is, and as lacking in citations, it is a real thing and should have an article. Kaisershatner 15:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A pun that made me laugh once, years ago, when I saw it on a library poster explaining the Dewey Decimal System. It hasn't been funny since, but it's still a notable topic. Google Books and Google Scholar bring back some worthwhile hits. Please note that I've expanded the article to a good, full-bodied paragraph, and I'm sure there's plenty more one could do. Those who voted "merge" should consider re-considering. Anville 16:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Keep. - The word is not a pun it is a neologism and an example of false etymology. I have cleaned up the article, added citations on origins and details on its usage, history etc. I believe the article is now up to standards and I thank Anville and the others for the work they did before my edits. Deleting an article on a word now in common usage and cited in the Oxford English Dictionary is silly. It is true that critics of Feminism often deride the word and other language changes brought on in the wake of Feminism but deleting a wikipedia article will not stop people from using the word. Incidentally, one of my degrees in is Linguisitics. Please give me and others time to expand this article further if others feel it needs that. I'd suggest that those who voted delete go and read the current article and reconsider their votes.Lisapollison 18:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nice job on the rewrite. However, I do disagree with the notion that being in common usage and in OED makes a word inherently encylopedic. ScottW 18:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT: Thanks ScottW! However, much of what I wrote has now been deleted. Even so, I feel the article needs to stay. Inclusion in the OED is significant but this is not the time or place to go into why that is. I merely suggest you google the term to see how common it is. You will find it is regularly used in feminist and/or lesbian literature. When I was a Linguistics Grad student in the early 1980s, I witnessed much of the debate over such terms. Herstory was well-accepted in Academia even then because of it's narrow application. It wasn't a word that was being promoted to displace history but rather one to be used alongside it when appropriate or in place of it when referring specifically to women's history from a female perspective. I believe it has more credability than Wymyn, Wimmin or Wombyn - 3 words often used in place of woman. Thank you SO much for your time in rereading the article. I believe the word has found its niche in terms of usage but I agree with others who state that it will never be a widely known term outside it's current usage applications.Lisapollison 18:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• "A pun (also known as paronomasia) is a figure of speech which consists of a deliberate confusion of similar words or phrases for rhetorical effect, whether humorous or serious." How does this word not qualify? Depending on which person you ask, it can be humorous, serious or somewhere in between (the last position being mine). Any which way, though, it counts. Anville 19:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge to a List of feminist neolisms. There is no reason for this to have it's own article. ---J.S (t|c) 20:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable term. I remember ages ago in primary school us doing a musical of this name - a series of skits telling the history of women throughout the ages :) -- PageantUpdater 22:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• KeepProblem with article is not its notability but the fact that it needs some work doing to it. --Wisden17 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per most excellent rewrite. Fagstein 01:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:NEO's test for articles on neologisms. As per Lisapollison, this is a neologism. It is at least a stable neologism, and it may be moving beyond that status to just be a part of the English vocabulary. (I have zero interest in the field where it is used, but I've known this term for longer than some of our admins have been alive.) I wouldn't use this term in an article myself because I wouldn't expect it to be understood, so I guess it is fair to say it is still a neologism. WP:NEO is most specific guideline to approach it on. Now that the article has been improved, including citations to reliable sources, it clearly meets that guideline. Kudos to those who did the improvement. An improved article is the best possible outcome of an AfD. GRBerry
• Keep. Notable, and not a bad article. Sarge Baldy 23:01, 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 speedy delete just a sentence fragment with no context... speedy deleting under A1. --W.marsh 01:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newton's gravi constant 's getting smaller all the time

Uncited, apparent original research. I can't make sense of what exactly is in this article, but it appears to be original research. Metros232 01:33, 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South American Chinese cuisine

Delete-This article seems rather ridiculous. South America is neither a unified country nor culture, and neither would be expect the same of the immigrant communities in them. South America is a huge landmass, and the history of Chinese immigrants differs drastically among different countries such as Brazil and Peru, and some have no more than an insignificant immigrant population. I wouldn't object to articles on Chinese cuisine in the various individual countries (if they exist), but unless someone does some informed article expansion, it's doomed to always be a one-sentence original research stub. --Yuje 01:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability established. Strong precedent against articles that indiscriminately juxtapose two concepts. Right now there's no info - but if there were, it would have to go into Chinese cuisine or South America - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if expanded or reason for its existence can be substantiated, otherwise Delete. I don't have a problem with the stub, it seems to be a legitimate subject, unlike most of the other things put up for AfD. The only contention would possibly be what Yuje brought up, but it's possible that Chinese cousin in South America (somehow) is a fairly unified style? I do not have much information on this, but as I said, if it can be substantiated/verified or possibly expanded, then we should keep it Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 03:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The only real place in South America where there can really be said to be an established Chinese community in South America would be Peru (and I am taking the guess that the author of the article was referring to the chifas around Lima), thus making this title simply incoherent.--Jersey Devil 04:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  There is also a small but established Chinese community in Suriname. For no clear reason the article specifically mentions Brazil. --Lambiam^Talk 04:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There are several Peruvian-Chinese restaurants in New York City, but I'm not convinced its a unique cuisine of its own (they seem to just divide the menu up into Spanish and Chinese dishes). Anyway, thats just peru, not south america Bwithh 04:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remark. We also have the stubs European Chinese cuisine, Thai Chinese cuisine, Australian Chinese cuisine, and Japanese Chinese cuisine, all of which are... guess... ... right! "a unique style of Chinese cuisine served by Chinese restaurants in X", where X ranges from Europe to Thailand to Australia to Japan. --Lambiam^Talk 04:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow... incredible... did you notice that they're all {{empty}} - a rephrasing of the title - and all created by the same user on the same day? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. Could be a well-written, well-researched and thoroughly sourced article, but isn't. As a stub, it doesn't convince me that the subject can be notable and unified, though a rewrite and expansion could prove me wrong. Vizjim 13:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable. --Terence Ong 14:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Hobbeslover Crazynas 15:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is an notable as American Chinese food, which is what we Americans think is Chinese food. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is a notable subject on Chinese cuisine and a popular Chinese cuisine in Chinatowns in South American countries. --RevolverOcelotX
• Delete - seems to be sort of a random subject. And I've been to South America... Chinese food in Peru is different then in Chile (for example). "South America" is an imaginary social construct. However... the subject of "Latin-Chinese cuisine" might be viable.... But then again, Peru likes there food with heavier spices then people of Chile. The food ends up drasticly different. So how can you lump them together? This seems like a great topic for a high-school essay. ---J.S (t|c) 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article needs quite a lot of work done to it, but it would be better to let that editing take palce than to simply delete it. Strikes me as a reasonable article, but certainly could do with more info on it to help convince people above. --Wisden17 23:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per J.S. ScottW 23:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable unless someone can provide sources. Fagstein 01:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, absurd, no info lost. Pavel Vozenilek 01:43, 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 23:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darius (band), Darius (goth rocker), Live In Hell

Lots of self released albums, no other calism to fame, I think it fails WP:MUSIC, delete.--Peta 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Aside from existing for a long time and self-releasing a lot of albums, it's a vanity article with ABSOLUTELY no assertion of notability. "They're described by critics as..." Oh yeah, really? Which critics? The only external link, a fansite, has nothing but a homepage and a link to their WP article. Also, if (and I'm sure when) this article is deleted, an admin must also delete Darius (goth rocker) and Live In Hell, as they're equally non-notable articles relating to this non-notable band. Darius + "Sylvester Johnson" (the singer's real name) gets 63 total Google hits, but aside from WP and its mirrors, not one relates to this guy. -- Kicking222 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As helpful as it is to know about his criminal record, this fails WP:MUSIC tests. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't usually bother with music AfD's, but as well as being un-notable, he sounds horrible. Vizjim 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per above Crazynas 15:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Anteater - Just another non-notable band. --Cyde↔Weys 17:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No question really, nn band. --Wisden17 23:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan Thomas Andrews

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Maximusveritas 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Obscure children of notable people are not themselves notable. As a musician, he clearly does not meet WP:MUSIC. — TheKMan^talk 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Children of notable people do not automatically inherit notability. Other than his parents, I see no other evidence of notability.OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with Ohnoitsjamie, children of notable people are not automatically notable. JIP | Talk 11:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable on grounds of WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO.--blue520 13:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TheKMan Crazynas 15:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable; his mention in the Stephanie Seymour article is enough for now. Biruitorul 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Biruitoru, TheKMan and Ohnoitsjamie -- PageantUpdater 22:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Laotian Americans

Maybe if this were "The Laotian Experience in America," it could be encyclopedic, but as a simple list of Laotians, it's not. PRODed and contested. Erik the Rude 01:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge right back where this came from: Laotian American - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete. I took the material for this article out of the Laotian American article so that the Laotion American article would match all the other 'F00 American' articles in the Category:Ethnic groups in the United States (no article includes a list of people) and placed it in the list article so the list article would match all the other list articles found in Category:Lists of American people by ethnic or national origin. The Laotion list should be treated in the same way as all the other lists. Thanks Hmains 04:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Why should we treat Laos different? Actually, the smaller the country seems to make the list more interesting/notable. --MarsRover
• Keep notable — RJH (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be precedent Crazynas 15:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Just as a note to all, I have removed outright two entries as inappropriate and of the remaining six I have prod'ded entried 3, 4, and 6. If the prods or AfD's hold up, you'll have a list of three. That's awful short to be maintained on its own. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - added several more people to list --MarsRover 04:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. —Aiden 17:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Category:Laotian Americans. The list doesn't offer much more than the category. Deleteme42 20:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Hmains and MarsRover. If we delete this, we should delete all the other articles of the same nature, which clearly is not an option. -- PageantUpdater 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be a worthwhile article, and one which is expanded upon may well be more so. --Wisden17 23:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question When I was looking through some of the other list of ethinicities in America, I came across an item on the talk page of the List of Bandladeshi Americans article stating that there was recently a discussion of a potential policy dealing with these types of lists. However, so far, I can't find the discussion to see the outcome. Does anyone here know anything about this discussion? ScottW 00:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful list.  Grue  10:28, 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. Sango123 23:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daponte Quartet

No claims to notability, delete.--Peta 01:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• They are listed on AMG. Also per their website they have 3 releases, and as they're a classical group, their performances will tend to be more important than their releases. Carnegie Hall performance was reviewed in depth by the New York Times apparently, and others. Article could use some work but I think we should keep it. --W.marsh 01:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Google says that they do quite a bit of touring, including a gig at Carnegie Hall. Seems notable enough to me, though the nominator is correct in that the article doesn't give much of an impression of notability. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, as per the above. Lukas ^(T.|@) 06:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Preformance in Carnegie is notable Crazynas 15:44, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Kelvinator

Delete as NN album by NN comedy group. Prod tag removed by author without comment, unless blanking my userpage and the notifications I left on his talk page is considered a comment. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn, or redirect to Kelvinator, a notable refrigerator. Fan1967 02:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• I think this could work as a redirect to Kelvinator per Fan1967. The album in question is, of course, completley non-notable. The article on the comedy group which created the album has already been deleted four separate times, including once today. -- Kicking222 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, delete Possum Killer EP and Legalizing The Groin Shot EP, more albums from this spam-tastic group. -- Kicking222 02:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, not notable.--blue520 13:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Does not assert notability Crazynas 15:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Note from Mini Geo 125. It doesn't make any sense to me on why this page and all the other pages I created are always up for deletion. I look on wikipedia and see all these other groups and artists have a page for them. I'm the only band really to come out of Erie, PA and you guys have to shatter my dreams, nice work guys, nice work on making a fool of me....

Don't blame others. You make a fool out of yourself. Why do you think you deserve to be in an encyclopedia ? Vanity ? --64.229.225.229 14:57, 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 23:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pour over

Complete nonsense, appears to be passing as a dicdef. PRODed and contested. Erik the Rude 01:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable neologism BigDT 01:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO Wmahan. 02:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly neologism. — TheKMan^talk 03:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pore over is already in wiktionary. DVD+ R/W 03:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete as total junk Tobyk777 05:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NEO --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 05:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pour-over will, which is what I immediately thought an article with this title would be about. If no redirect, then delete Fluit 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 14:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC et al. Crazynas 15:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Platypus - Non-notable protologism. --Cyde↔Weys 17:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Gibberish. Biruitorul 20:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn neologism with no sources to back it up. --Wisden17 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Molerat 11:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Attention the AfD notice has been removed from Pour over at least twice so far. Please keep an eye on the page to ensure that the AfD notice is restored if removed again. Lbbzman 13:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete either non-notable or just made up. Ace of Sevens 11:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hbackman 23:21, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gotchi

Complete nonsense. I PRODed it, but that was contested. Erik the Rude 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as useless - but considering that Hackergotchi has been around since April 2005, "gotchi" most certainly was not coined in 2006 despite the articles claims BigDT 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete BuckRose 02:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete CSD A7 Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 03:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn Neologism. — TheKMan^talk 03:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn neologism.--Jersey Devil 03:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 14:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Crazynas 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn neologism. Lbbzman 16:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Hackergotchi if possible. Lisapollison 19:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - utterly non-notable. Biruitorul 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Lisapollison above, seems the best course of action. --Wisden17 23:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• This article probably is not notable. See [8] and [9]. --Rory096 07:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This entry is not nonsense at all. Were it nonsense, the neologism 'Wiki' would not exist, and Wikipedia would never have come to light. Wikipedians itself as a word is a neologism. Why should Wikipedia not support kindred useful neologisms?

To merge Gotchi with Hackergotchi would be akin to merging Wikipedia with Wiki. And Wikipedia then would lose its right of autonomy. Hackergotchis are one category of 'Gotchi.' The entry 'Gotchi' makes the case that this unique and entertaining icon style is spreading to the net, hacker and wider art and culture community. The Wikipedia entry 'Hackergotchi,' is mentioned in the entry for 'Gotchi,' as it should be. A link from Hackergotchi to Gotchi if possible would be useful.

The date of entry of the neologism Hackergotchi is irrelevant. Both Gotchi and Hackergotchi stem from Tamagotchi. Tamagotchi itself stems from the Japanese word for 'egg' but it is the first two syllables - and not the 'gotchi' - in Tamagotchi that refers to the Japanese word for 'egg.' As such, Gotchi is extracted from the link which Hackergotchi has initiated with Tamagotchi and it does so in a clever way. It becomes a root for both neologisms Hackegotchi and Tamagotchi, which both grace wiki nodes in Wikipedia. Why not Gotchi?

As the entry Gotchi clearly attributes, the term also stems from the most valuable source on the Internet, the Open Source community of Linux hackers, thinkers and developers. Some are attributed, i.e. Planet Gnome. Others may be freely added in Wikipedia style.

Let Gotchis live. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.163.215.232 (talk • contribs) .

• Delete. --Golbez 04:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have been told I need to include a reason for this vote by User:Rory096. My reason is, this is a shithole of an article, and should be speedied with prejudice. I also don't like the anon's attitude. --Golbez 05:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • IT'S NOT A VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!! --Rory096 05:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A google search shows no evidence of the term as used in the article. Ace of Sevens 11:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Golbez - This is a page for discussion not flaming. As author of the Gotchi page, my interest is in communication, perhaps our last diplomat on planet Earth. Wiki itself was innovated to aid such platforms of communication that are based on respect and consensus. I respect any respectful criticism of my entry Gotchi. Through criticism, consensus is built and knowledge deepened. Please, Golbez, keep your power urges to yourself. If Wikipedia wizards condone such abuses of its members' hierarchy, allow individuals such as Golbez to abuse his powers, it will only lead to diminishing the Wikipedia community's initial intention, and perhaps doom Wikipedia to become a disrespectful and therefore disrespected, source of knowledge. I suggest that Golbez give a good reason now why his bad language, his flaming utterance above, should lead to anything other than his speedy retreat from any decision-making Wikipedia wizard role. What does Golbez mean by attitude anyway? His bad language is a blemish on the reputation of Wikipedia and for this Internet pioneer indicates Golbez ought to explain reasonably why his breech of online etiquette toward an equal, is not an abuse or power that could scorn the Wikipedia community. Abuse of power has no place in Wikipediadom! Why shoud Golbez be acceptedd for his off-the-cuff slanderous remarks while I waste time reasoning? If this outburts does not lead to his resigning his role from his own initiative, I will be disappointed that he does not see that he has done all here a disservice, including language itself. Respect is earned not through bullying bad language. It is a sign of a desire to wield power which is in fact a priveledge based on one's acumen, study and knowledge.

Ace of Sevens - You will find gotchis at Flickr - http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Gotchi - for instance - http://www.flickr.com/photos/jp-o/26973829/ specifically (a good example too.) Or check this major lycos site using and visualizing the English word 'Gotchi' - http://www.lycos.de/startseite/news/bundestagswahl/wahlogotchi/ergebnis.html . There are oodles of Gotchi entries for the patient searcher. And there are many misunderstandings of the term to be found. Most think that the root of Tamagotchi has issued the wor Gotchi, when in fact, Tama stems from Tama (related to the Japanese word for 'egg.')

SpacePlace is one major cultural instance where the term Gotchi is used. It is a site made by Internet pioneers, who have been involved with Net culture since the early 1990s. The term has been published in information concerning the SpacePlace project by the world-reknowned museum ZKM Center for Art and Media Technology. Gotchis adorn currently a link banner on its homepage - www.zkm.de - and the SpacePlace Press Release. Google has I believe already indexed these pages. The term Gotchi does not occur as a title word, but in the body of various texts. the word 'gotchi' also occurs since April 2005 on the entry for Hackergotchi - "The "-gotchi" part seems to be a reference to the term Tamagotchi." where it is misleading as Tamagotchi I mentioned above stems from Tama (related to the word 'egg' in Japanese, and not 'gotchi.) Therefore the term 'gotchi' has been around in Wikipedia space for some time, and has not, until now, been defined as a term. This is done now by the entry 'Gotchi'.

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Gaming Brotherhood

Non-notable gaming group. Isomorphic 01:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Scientizzle 01:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7, no evidence of notability--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- harryliuhao To whom it may concerned, I had reviewed wiki deletion criteria, and do not think the page meet any of the deletion criteria, such as paten nonsense, tested pages, pure vandalism etc.
  A Gaming Brotherhood was created by a group of level-minded gamers since Feb 2003. The group includes 500 members from over 15 countries, ranked in Top 10 of Battlefield gaming clans, and has high notibility among the gaming clans. I am setting up a framework of the page, which will be further developed and enhanced by other members.

Comment The criterion that this article matches is A7 which is unremarkable people/vanity page. You can find it here. Your clan having notability among gaming clans just means that an article like this would be more appropriate for a gaming clan wiki, if there is such a thing. SubSeven 07:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 02:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE ALL CLANS! Non-notable, vanity, spam, completely unencyclopedic. -- Kicking222 02:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under A7. No notability presented in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Some may argue there are notable clans. If there are, this isn't one. Fan1967 03:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The clan's website has no Alexa ranking, and a Google search turns up about 35 hits. — TheKMan^talk 03:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nn group and vanity page.--Jersey Devil 03:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clans should create home pages, not articles --MarsRover 04:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Completely unsourced and original research. JohnM4402 06:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per all the above. I'd quite like to see someone establish a guideline for gaming-related notability (something along the lines that there are probably a handful of famous gamers, and probably no actual clans, that are relevant to the world at large) so that it can be quickly pointed to in these situations. Seb Patrick 08:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy nn clan with no assertion of notabiliy MLA 10:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Couldn't be more vanity if it tried. Does anyone outside the gaming clan actually care about it? JIP | Talk 11:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per all above. Vizjim 13:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn clan. --Terence Ong 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Kicking222 Crazynas 15:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Pwned Delete per nom. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:05, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Initiation of Sarah

A few short sentences of speculation about a TV Movie of the Week that may air in October, crystal-ballism. Erik the Rude 01:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Seems basically verifiable, found some news about it via Google News. Official page, IMDB page... no reason to doubt the article. "Crystal ball" just refers to reporting rumors and outright conjecture as fact, or having an article with nothing but speculation. This movie seems to be have announced and is in production and will air in 10/06... no reason to delete the article. --W.marsh 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- it's a remake of the 1978 TV movie, as mentioned on IMDB and not in this stub of an article. Seems pretty non-notable. BuckRose 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It needs to be expanded, but there is no reason to delete it. Just because it's a TV movie doesn't mean it should be deleted. There are plenty of articles about TV movies, just look at all the articles at List of Television Movies. Yes it needs to be expanded, but it should be kept. MasterGreenLantern 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, looks entirely legit, and has a decently notable cast, too. Crystal ballism is for unverifiable stuff, not this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Even if the 2006 movie by this name ends up not being released (unlikely, as I'm sure it's fairly far along production-wise) there's a late 70s film by the same name which could go under this title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, TV films do assert notability. --Terence Ong 14:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's not crystal ball to report current facts about upcoming events. ScottW 14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per W.marsh Crazynas 15:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete ridiculous to have an article on this nonnotable remake of a TV movie

Bwithh 19:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand, the problem is that it needs more info, but the fact it is a stub is not a reason for deletion. --Wisden17 23:48, 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. Sango123 23:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poker dealer

This article was nominated by Cocopuffberman (talk · contribs), but not completed. I have added this header and listed it on the AfD page. I vote Keep as a notable/verifiable topic. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. This article is very well written, and in my opinion, is a good contribution to Wikipedia. This page should be merged with cropier. I don't see a difference between the two pages except the poker specification. I think in the cropier page there should be sections that describe the role and responsibilities of dealers in different casino games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocopuffberman (talk • contribs) May 23, 2006
• Keep. I don't object to croupier being expanded, but the word croupier is never used for poker dealers, and little of the information in this article is extensible to other dealing positions in a casino. There is room on wikipedia for both articles in my opinion. Kymacpherson 04:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Croupiers are not poker dealers. Poker dealers are not croupiers. You might as well merge an article about automobiles with one about tractors. 2005 05:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per 2005. Essexmutant 18:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Card dealing and Merge the "Professional dealers" and most of the "Responsibilities during a hand" sections to Croupier. Most of the content on this page is general to any card game, not just poker; and croupier is just a french word synonymous with dealer (if you hear croupier and can only think stickman, that's your problem). Ewlyahoocom 21:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above. Thetruthbelow ^{Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk)} 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written article about a specific and notable subject. — TheKMan^talk 03:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, interesting. JohnM4402 06:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (possible speedy keep), very notable concept, well-written article. JIP | Talk 11:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kymacpherson. Aguerriero (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable topic, well written. --Terence Ong 14:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above Crazynas 15:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly a notable phrase. --Wisden17 23:49, 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: Speedy deleted by Xoloz. — TheKMan^talk 06:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edison - Band

Non notable band with very few web hits and obvious vanity statements Thetruthbelow ^{Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk)} 01:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per my nom. Thetruthbelow ^{Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk)} 02:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to Speedy delete as per A7. Thetruthbelow ^{Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk)} 02:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as A7. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete This article is the very definition of "no assertion of notability." -- Kicking222 02:40, 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 speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big bad sex words

Seems to be to be yet-another-list that has no meaning, ambiguous criteria for inclusion and no encyclopedic value. Clearly the wrok of an anti-gay editor ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete article creator copied everything from Talk:List of sexual slurs/unverified and then blanked the page. -- Scientizzle 02:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)'

Grounds for speedy deletion, then? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Talk:List of sexual slurs/unverified has since been speedy deleted (by [[User talk:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11). -- Scientizzle 02:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the very obvious fact that it's crap, but also move the title of the article to BJAODN. But just the title. -- Kicking222 02:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and mention on WP:DAFT. Confusing Manifestation 02:48, 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 Speedy delete by Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC) on grounds of nonsense.

[edit] Hayden kirk

Interesting that there IS a "Sexiest businessman awards, but... sorry. 0zymandias 02:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Fry. Added {{db-bio}} for a speedy delete Equendil 02:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedyrific I'm wondering why this hadn't been tagged for speedy deletion (or why it was ever brought to AfD) before you did the dirty work, Equendil. -- Kicking222 02:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete another "bad joke".--Jersey Devil 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buck Star

Vanity page SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 02:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable comedian (edit:or whatever he is). Equendil 02:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I love (and by love, I mean loathe) Buck Star, but he's as non-notable as any reject on any other reality show- and there are many. While it's irrelevant to this discussion, the article is also quite bad. -- Kicking222 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page of nn "reject" of show.--Jersey Devil 03:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This character is notable as a purely arcane pop culture reference. The article is sparse (and likely written by... Buck Star?) but, as a purely historical reference to "that dim-wit who went to EVERY single audition and then bombed..." he deserves note. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.17.248 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment above user's third edit to Wikipedia. [10]--Jersey Devil 03:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The Number of edits is irrelevant, that takes nothing from his point.24.16.67.94
    • I concur. This is an open discussion. 3,000 plus edits does not elevate your opinion above a new contributor Jersy Devil. The Wikipedia is open to all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.242.113.10 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete not notable on any level. Flunking auditions, no matter how many times, is not notable. The article is orphaned (except for links from deletion articles) for a reason. B.Wind 04:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the article. "Buck Star is an aspiring entertainer..." Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Teke 04:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete extremly nn, has no place on Wikipedia. Thetruthbelow ^{Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk)} 05:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While I watched and thought it was funny that he kept showing up, it is indeed, nn. His 15 minutes should be enough. --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 05:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete Surely we don't need an article for every failed contestant of a reality show. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep he is notable. Just tonight I was watching him on Last Comic Standing and as soon as the show was over I had to come on to Wikipedia to check out his article. JohnM4402 06:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity article by some non-notable aspiring comedian. Come back when you're actually famous. JIP | Talk 11:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable plus crystalballism. -- Docether 13:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and vanity. --Terence Ong 14:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete asserts nn in article Crazynas 15:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Welcome to the Buck Star show ladies and gentlemen! - He's only "notable" because he's been rejected, what, fourteen times on Last Comic Standing now? That is to say, he's not notable and I don't think he's the appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. --Cyde↔Weys 17:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We have deleted via AfD reality "stars" that have been much more successful than Mr. Star on shows that were more notable than LCS. youngamerican (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If and when he does achieve notability (either by actually becoming a star or failing in a truly spectacular fashion, like being rejected 3,000 times), then he can have an article. But keeping this would set a bad precedent–there have been quite a few rejects just in TV history, not to mention film. Biruitorul 20:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He will have a citation somewhere else. There is a section on the L.C.S. main page asserting the Buck Star character is actually a production assistant for NBC! He may be a complete fabrication. Adexzec 22:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment The comment about Buck Star being an NBC production assistand mentioned on the above referenced page is a rumor and incorrect. I mention this here only to point out that this should not reflect on the validity of an entry for Buck Star.

• Delete as unverifiable unless non-IMDB sources can be found. Fagstein 01:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just by looking at how many people have come to this keep/delete page just further proves that this page should be maintained. As long as people will look up Buck Star, there needs to be a page! Weters 04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

CommentThese people came here most likely through the Afd page, not through the article. The reason that there is so much dialogue on this is because most people want it deleted quickly. Thetruthbelow ^{Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk)} 05:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The comment above is insubtantial, unless there is some proof to be offered. In the end, what does it matter how users get here. The fact is, they are here. Buck Star has become somewhat of a facet of the LCS phenomenon and has transcended the role of a typical contestant. This is evinced by the amount of air time he has received as compared to other contestants (even those who made the cut) on the first episodes (both seasons 2 and 4). This is noteworthy in itself. Beyond this, there is a story to tell, and America (or at least those Americans willing to post on the nbc forums) is eager to hear the final punch-line. The main issue, in my mind, is that the content of the entry is sparse and needs to be updated and completed. This can be remedied. unklcid 22:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sarcastic note. I don't believe users should vote twice on their first edit ever : Special:Contributions/Unklcid (second vote was removed by User:Zetawoof) -- Equendil Talk 00:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Sarcastic reply. Yeah, sorry 'bout that. I get a little over zealous sometimes. I still think the page should be kept. -- unklcid 23:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I must concur that the very fact that many users have an opinion on this at all is substantial support of Buck Star's relevance. Also, to those who say that Buck Star being an aspiring comedian who will probably keep performing and auditioning is Crystal Ballism, on the same token saying that he is only a fifteen-minute of fame flash-in-the-pan obscure reference is also crystal-ballism. We can't say that he will ever experience fame and success in a major way, but we also cannot say that his fifteen minutes are up and that he will never succeed beyond this point. The fact that he keeps returning to the show Last Comic Standing, and the fact that they continue to give him a surprising amount of airtime, I think is evidence to support that he will stay consistent in his efforts, and that he is reaching an audience. In fact, this very debate to keep or delete the page is evidence that Buck Star has reached an audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doppleganger09 (talk • contribs)
  • User's first edit. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This cracker jack is going to quickly fade into obscurity. Does Wikipedia have entries from frequent contestants of The Gong Show? Delete the entry.mcleanpcv

Comment What bothers me here is that what little name recognition this person may have will quickly fade as soon as he quit serial-auditionning, or to put it another way, his "notability" is volatile at best. Equendil Talk 00:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Doh, I see the user above made that point already. Equendil Talk 00:44, 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 23:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Villa Park Little League

Notability claim is sorely lacking, unless we want articles on the hundreds of Little League teams in the US. cholmes75 (chit chat) 02:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete We don't. -- Kicking222 02:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This belongs at Copyright Problems, as the text is lifted from the website. Teke 04:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Crazynas 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanicruftisement. Fagstein 01:43, 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:Speedy deleted by CJCurrie. — TheKMan^talk 03:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Cooper (library masturbator)

This is almost a speedy, although apparently there's some semblance of a genuine story here. I doubt this needs to be preserved for all posterity. CJCurrie 02:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete CSD A6 It seems as he is pretty NN, and this page was created for no other reason than what CJCurrie has said -- preserving the unremarkable for posterity. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 03:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's all I needed. Consider it gone. CJCurrie 03:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possum Killer EP

Delete as NN album by NN comedy group. Article was originally {{prod}}ed, but removed by a new user account (whose only edits have been to remove the prod tags from this and the other albums by this group) without comment. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am also bundling Legalizing The Groin Shot EP with this nom. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and per my rationale in an above AfD for the group's other album. -- Kicking222 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I have a feeling, based on the articles, that in addition to being excessively nn they're probably not very funny. Fan1967 03:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom.--blue520 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. --Terence Ong 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Crazynas 16:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Possum - "Fountain of Shit Records" indeed. Non-notable album and comedy group. --Cyde↔Weys 17:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delicous king's tree

To quote the article's creator, this is "a new drinking game." Without any reliable sources or established notability, I think well have to pass on this article for a few years. --Hetar 02:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non notable (is there any wiki to migrate that stuff ?) Equendil02:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT for things made up in school one day. And as far as transwiki-ing... no. Hell no. -- Kicking222 02:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without biting. Game invented by Andres Gomez, article written by Andres Gomez. Decent enough game, but doesn't fit with the way Wikipedia is meant to work. Vizjim 14:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Regretful Delete' per Kicking222, it's funny that he mentions that the game is ment to be played without alcohol Crazynas 16:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Google turned up no references to the game as named. Lisapollison 19:17, 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 speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neurotically Yours

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}}

A Web Flash series that has not been noticed in any popular newspapers. Therefore according to the Wikipedia rules, this page should be deleted.

Post your debates on this issue below:

• Strong Delete - This flash series has not been noted in and major newspapers what so ever. —Coolboyman (talk • contribs) .
• Very Strong Keep very popular series, noted on the web. It is not enough that,"This flash series has not been noted in and major newspapers what so ever." Thetruthbelow ^{Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk)} 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Delete Regarding the comment above, its the rules, and I've never heard of this flash series ever, nobody I know knows about it, and I know a few hundred different kinds of people. It might be popular in its own "fanbase", but outside of it, it is not notiable what so ever. - Travis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.193.231 (talk • contribs) .

Comment Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean no one else has. Have you done a google search? It has a very large amount of hits. It is also on many websites. Thetruthbelow ^{Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk)} 02:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I just did a google search for the title of the series, and it only came up with 416 pages, (103 Specific Web Sites) thats not enough to have a page in wikipedia. - Travis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.193.231 (talk • contribs) .

Comment What google search did you do. Mine turned up 128,000 hits. I think that is quite enough to keep the article. Thetruthbelow ^{Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk)} 03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Lol Sorry I typod. Anyways, it still only has 712 SPECIFIC Websites that mention them. the 128,000 is based on how many web pages mention them (And several web pages can be on the same website saying the same thing so those wouldnt count). - Travis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.193.231 (talk (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Although I'm sure nobody will be surprised, this IP has been blocked three separate times. -- Kicking222 03:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought so, this editor is obviously not qualifyied to determine afd, since he is and was a blockee.Thetruthbelow ^{Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk)} 03:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

CommentStill 712 hits is more than enough to keep this article. That is a decent amount of notability. Thetruthbelow ^{Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk)} 03:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd have to Disagree, but we'll see in the end if this gets deleted or not. - Travis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.193.231 (talk • contribs)

• Keep As far as webcomics go, this one is notable. It gets TONS of Google hits (and the vast majority actually related to the comic), and for something that exists exclusively on the web, that's as good as it gets. -- Kicking222 03:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasonably notable webcomic. — TheKMan^talk 03:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Close as bad faith nomination Guys, AFD isn't the place for childish games. Looking at contribs, I'm not convinced that this AFD is in good faith. Notice that User:24.4.193.231 himself has edited the article before [11], tagged the author of this comic for a speedy [12], and has multiple blatant vandalism edits [13] [14]. Of late, his obsession seems to have been removing references to this comic. BigDT 03:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Oh whah whah whah . Im trying to improve this place now and you people are STILL Complaing, what do you want me to do? Im trying to change.. - Travis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.193.231 (talk •

• Delete this, it has no relevance to history, science, and can barely be classified as entertainment. It offers no useful information, since the only people who would read this page already knows everything about it anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberen (talk • contribs)

• • Creating extra accounts doesn't get you more votes. (This isn't a vote anyway - it's a consensus.) Use of sockpuppet accounts for votestacking is one sure way to earn the ire of those around you. BigDT 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong speedy keep Very notable webcomic, speedy keep per BigDT Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 03:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable. When I walk the halls at college, I have on a regular basis seen random people watching this in the cubicles. As well I agree with this being a bad faith nomination. See user talk page who nominated this. Many notes of vandalism. --Crossmr 03:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep very notable. Being in a paper newspaper has little to do with the notability of mass internet popularity of which wikipedia often has articles for. I challenge the basic nature of the justification for an AfD. Kevin Breitenstein 04:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Self-comment This page could become the target for vandal-like activities if certain online groups who vehimantly oppose it find this page. Kevin Breitenstein 04:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable comic --MarsRover 05:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Reasonably notable, bad faith nomination. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable web comic. -- Zawersh 06:39, 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 no consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clay Buchholz

Delete NN minor league baseball player and petty criminal. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NN --Bill (who is cool!)) 03:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.--Jersey Devil 03:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep... he's a minor leaguer but I've seen a lot of press mentions for him, and with the crime in the news, I think it pushes him over the edge. Mangojuice^talk 06:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, here are some sources KDFM (about the theft), Boston Globe (as a hot prospect, and the theft), Article on him at scout.com (pay site), all excluding coverage of his performances in individual games.
    • Minor leaguers are always NN until they reach the majors. Thieves of 20 computers are also, no matter the coverage. (There are thousands of murderers every year, and each one of them gets multiple newspaper articles.) Put the two together - still NN. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, if we're going to use WP:BIO as a guide, anyone who plays in a "fully professional league" is eligible for an article. Even single-A ball is "fully professional." -- Mwalcoff 00:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crazynas 16:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Drafted in the first round; mid 90s fastball; top prospect. If college football players are deserving of articles, certainly top baseball prospects are, too. -- Mwalcoff 00:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fledgeling 02:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mwalcoff. --JJay 03:38, 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 no consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shay Laren

Article doesn't assert any notability other than being in one issue of one magazine. Dismas|^(talk) 03:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be asserted Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Sandstein 05:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Technically, she does pass one of the criteria at criteria for pornographic actors) in that she was a Penthouse Pet. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Keep for now, especially since Shay is only now coming to prominence, as she is *this* month's Penthouse Pet.Tabercil 03:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn ("Brunette that lives in Georgia with Natural bust" is about the extent of the article) --MarsRover 06:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable based on being Penthouse Pet of the month. --Rob 09:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per OhNoitsJamie Crazynas 16:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MegaDuck/Cougar Boy

Another article that sucks poop! MegaDuck and Cougar Boy don't yield many google hits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kittyslasher (talk • contribs) .

• Delete. Unnotable game console. -- | Page | contact 03:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that this is a sock of Nintendude, as confirmed by Checkuser. --Rory096 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If there were a page for Game Boy Pirate clones, I'd say merge into that...but there isn't. --Bill (who is cool!) 03:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I read about the MegaDuck and Cougar Boy on other websites, and the documentation claims that the 2 systems have different pin setups; therefore making them technically different systems that are not Game Boy pirate clones; but only similar systems. I concure with Bill (Who is cool); so delete. Also concur with my friend Kittyslasher. --Nintendude ^{userpage | message} 03:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Useless article.--Qwertyca 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:27, 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 speedy deleted (author requested deletion). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maury Nunes

Non notable attorney, vanity page. Equendil 03:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn, user also removed speedy tag. [15]--Jersey Devil 03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe it's just me, but that picture SCREAMS vanity. --Bill (who is cool!) 03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't quite know how to use everything just yet but I am figuring it. Maury Nunes is my Uncle, he did not create this page himself. I didn't know what the original deletion tag was and deleted it, sorry. The picture I forgot to mark that I used it from his website, but can't figure out how to mark it as so. He has some notable clients, such as Bob Ross the painter, now Bob Ross' company, but I know he has other notable clients but I wanted to wait to list any before I made sure of it. It would be really helpful if anyone could let me know what else I should include or anything I should take out. jpr20

While the clients of your uncle might be notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, that still doesn't make *your uncle*, the subject of the article, notable. Equendil 04:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn, WP:NOT the Yellow Pages and also in his own interest (that picture would scare me away if I were a client). Sandstein 05:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just go ahead and delete it. You people have way too much time on your hands. I thought adding to this site would be fun but you people apparently don't want it to be. jpr20
• Delete Notability is not that contagious. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page. JohnM4402 06:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bauer bag

Non-notable neologism, or if you will, 24cruft. Crystallina 03:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's really just another prop on the show. This appears to be mostly a joke article. — TheKMan^talk 03:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per neologism and 24cruft.--Jersey Devil 03:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete taking place between the hours of 4:00am and 5:00am. SM247 04:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable fancruft. Sandstein 05:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I love the show but this is a non-notable neologism. JohnM4402 06:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, WP:CRUFT. --Terence Ong 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Terence's comemtns above. --Wisden17 23:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Stack the protocols and pipe them to a window on my desktop. Then delete this non-notable neologism. We're running out of time! ScottW 00:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dammit. Everyone knows it's the Jack Sack anyway. Badgerpatrol 01:46, 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 23:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zhein

• Delete They were an early punk band, and they appear in a lot of list pages, but it doesn't look like they actually DID much of anything other than briefly exist. I can't find any info about members, releases, or much of anything. Richfife 03:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No allmusic entry (and allmusic has a lot of entries). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Wisden17 23:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wipesaddle

WP:NEO WP:WEB Neologism. Non-notable web site. 18 hits in Google, almost all blogs. John Nagle 03:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Tried "prod", but "prod" was deleted by an anon, so we have to do this the hard way. --John Nagle 04:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bill (who is cool!) 04:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sandstein 05:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be a nn-creation. — TheKMan^talk 05:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable JohnM4402
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Trebor 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Wisden17 23:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dark Entity

Local band hasn't recorded any CDs and has already broken up (not notable)MarsRover 04:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NN; they don't even have a dedicated DNS for their website. --Bill (who is cool!) 04:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable per WP:BAND. Sandstein 05:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable JohnM4402 06:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn per WP:BAND Mr Stephen 11:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC).
• Delete, nn band. --Terence Ong 14:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC Trebor 16:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC --Wisden17 23:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German fetish

admitted neologism, original research, or near-nonsense - take your pick Opabinia regalis 04:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Cholmes75 prodded on the 26th, prod contested by Anonymous25 - subsequent request for cleanup got one minor grammar change. Ostensible footnotes are missing. This is a bad thing to stumble across when hitting the random article button. Opabinia regalis 04:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with everything Opabinia regalis said about that article. --Bill (who is cool!) 04:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Deletenon-notable nonsense --MarsRover 04:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sandstein 05:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks references, seems to be OR and nonsense. — TheKMan^talk 05:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, admitted neologism, non-verifiable sexual fetish. JIP | Talk 11:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any references to this usage. Mr Stephen 11:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (no surprise I imagine). --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, original research. --Terence Ong 14:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Terence's comments above.
• Delete per nom. The article is clearly a spoof of Asian fetish. Шизомби 12:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neo-whatnot RicDod 19:51, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7, only actual contributor has requested its deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viper vision

Original research and advertisement for someone's brilliant invention; possibly also copyvio. Deleted via WP:PROD once already and now recreated, which means we get to shoot it down via WP:AFD again. Sandstein 04:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - original research/advertising --MarsRover 04:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Viper vision" + stapleton only gets about 21 G hits. According to this article, it's just a patent and theory at this point. If the article survives afd, it needs a massive cleanup. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. advertisement JohnM4402 06:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Ohnoitsjamie. — TheKMan^talk 07:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete. True, there maybe copyright for Viper Vision Inc. or vipervision.com and other uses of the term clearly different from this biomimicry of real pit vipers IR vision. The referenced article by newscientist.com was false and clearly in contradiction to the patent application it links to and published by the USPTO, not by the inventor. Obviously other deletes are intended to link to advertisement for deleter. Constructive criticism and collaboration is welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StapleVision (talk • contribs)
• Delete, advertisement. Docether 13:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, advertisement. --Terence Ong 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Contributors to this discussion may find the arguments made by the author of the article at User talk:StapleVision of (very mild) interest. Sandstein 18:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, advertisement.MichaelMaggs 21:31, 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 redirect to homemaker, content not very useful for a merge but is available in the history. It is not necessary to take an article that would make a good redirect to AfD. -- Kjkolb 05:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] housewife

Exactly how factual is this article. It doesn't seem that factual to me. In any case, it's totally wrong in that it say that "around 20% of housewives are men", and the truth is, it's impossible for a man to be a housewife, as the word "housewife" refers to wives. Hoof38 04:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Homemaker and merge any verifiable content there. --Metropolitan90 04:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Metropolitan90; this was a redirect once already. No real need for AfD involvement here. Sandstein 05:21, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. George Hotel

This article is of a NN hostel, probably WP:CORP vio. Moreover it reads more like a travel guide (move to Wikitravel?). P199 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Withdraw proposed deletion - recent serious rewrite made it a (somewhat) informative article. -- P199 13:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - actually seems more like a university dorm than hostel. The building might be slightly interesting (Beatles stayed there) but and an article about drunk students, very not notable. --MarsRover 05:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN dorm. Writer might request a userfy, to which I would not object. Note to closing admin: do not forget to delete the redirect created by the page move. youngamerican (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per recent cleanup showing notability. youngamerican (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Needs to be tidied considerably, of course, but should not be deleted. It is notable as the second-largest hostel for Victoria University. Drunken activity isn't important, but the basic facts should be presented for reference. 130.195.86.36 22:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't sound notable to me. Press coverage? Otherwise delete. Fagstein 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep One of Wellington's most prominent buildings (I'd put it in the top 10, or at the very least the top 20). Long history as the hotel of choice for visiting dignitaries. I've expanded and edited the article to underline the notability a bit more. Should possibly be moved to Hotel St. George, Wellington, though. (I'm also adding this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand). Grutness...wha? 07:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep. It was significant in its heyday, not so much now however. --Midnighttonight 08:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Grutness.-gadfium 09:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Once New Zealand's largest hotel. Choalbaton 12:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move as per grutness r2b2 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per grutness

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scarborough Highlands Expressway

Pure conjecture; concept has no status with the province or city and is only a proposal the CAA tried to promote in 2003 (with no mention of Highway 448 designation). Bjhtn 04:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; WP:NOT a crystal ball, also lacks WP:RS for many statements. Sandstein 05:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think the real roads are that notable. The theatrical ones are definitely non notable. --MarsRover 05:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; WP:NOT a crystal ball. JohnM4402 06:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, needs sources to verify article. --Terence Ong 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Highway planning and construction in Canada tends to provoke a lot of debate, particularly when it involves a lot of damage to nature or demolishing homes. Occupation of the affected land by protestors is also commonplace. And there is also likely to be debate over whether the highway should be publicly owned. In short, it's not a highway yet, but it will be a topic for debate. TruthbringerToronto 20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Has anyone debated it yet? Media coverage? If not, delete. Fagstein 01:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Scarborough Expressway, which was definitely a real proposal that resulted in some ramp stubs on the Gardiner Expressway. --SPUI (T - C) 18:52, 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 speedy keep, per Chan-Ho. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Mathematics Competition

This competition is nn. I competed in it and for me, is less notable than my local footy team, and that isn't notable enough for WP.Mathguru 05:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I competed in this too, it may very well be noable, but delete anyway as it isn't anything useful to an encyclopædia MichaelBillington 05:09, 31 May 2006
• Moderately strong keep Changed my mind, seems like a widespread competition, and page has content too. MichaelBillington 06:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment if it is notable then it is supposed to stay. It is a lot more serious stuff than most of the contents of Wikipedia. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs to be sourced better, but an international competition with 600,000 participants is probably notable enough. Sandstein 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep (author bias) 600,000+ participants, 25+ year history, sponsored by large corporations, is an international competition. About 1/3 of all Australian students take this competition.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Hey, I even took part as a kid. - Longhair 05:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 05:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Blnguyen and Longhair. — TheKMan^talk 05:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep very notable. THE KING 06:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is both verifiable and notable. A search of an Australia New Zealand news database comes up with 43 results. There are two books about this competition in the ACT public library system. According to an AAP story from Macquarie Net from 30 July 2002 "Students from across the globe are participating in the world-renowned Australian Mathematics Competition (AMC). The entrants include 376,000 Year 7 to 12 students from 2,480 Australian schools along with more than 98,000 students from 941 schools in 36 overseas countries." International competitions with half a million participants in a particular year are notable in my book. Capitalistroadster 06:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - see [16] and have a look around.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Raise your hands who was forced to sit this competition as a kid! - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 07:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Hand raised Spindocbob 07:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--cj | talk 07:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• User:Mathguru has a history of making what can only be called bad-faith nominations (check user contribs). Also s/he seems to have a vendetta against User:Blnguyen. I recommend just speedy keeping this and all future nominations by Mathguru. --C S (Talk) 08:09, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Amaurazan

This page has absolutely no notability assigned to it and only a single person keeps making edits to it. The page is also part of a long sequence of edits to other wrestling pages linking to this and other related stories that none of which are notable and have to be constantly reverted. Lid 05:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless it is established that he, his league and/or his sport are notable in Thailand (or wherever he works). Sandstein 05:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced, nonsense, not notable JohnM4402 06:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 14:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete totally non-notable.JB196 14:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Provisional keep. Thai wrestlers are no less notable than the numerous American wrestlers we have articles about. However, unless some proof that this wrestler or his team exists can be found, this should be deleted. Zocky | picture popups 17:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I've also listed for delete this page which is related to this one: RCW Tuesday Night where the only mention of the fed even existing are wikipedia itself, pretty dubious for a television show. Lid 08:57, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kolim

The article is about a London teenager who claims fame first for being a team leader in summer school, and then for being a recording artist with #1 hits in India and Bangladesh. Since I couldn't verify those claims myself, and a request [17] for verification went unanswered, I consulted the notice board for India-related topics. Editors there were skeptical of his claims. Also, the external link to his official site appears to discuss an unrelated recording artist and provides no evidence supporting this article. Delete. --Metropolitan90 05:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unsourced and spurious claims to notability, probable vanity or hoax page. Sandstein 05:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced, not notable JohnM4402 06:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced, nn. --Terence Ong 14:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not verifiable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs) 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy & delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TJBenoit

While the subject (also the author) have done numerous things in their life, none seem notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. This should most likely be userfied. Dismas|^(talk) 05:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy. No sources. Not Notable. JohnM4402 05:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, userfy, whatever. Just delete this pure vanity. Themindset 06:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with TAB Computer Systems Inc. Since he is the owner, you can post his background on perhaps his most important achievement. (Changed by sens08, May 31 2006
• Delete, there is no TAB Computer Systems Inc article in Wikipedia. This person has no place on Wikipedia if even his greatest accomplishment is not worthy of Wikipedia. Sens08 16:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete Completely nn person doing vanity edits to his own article. Just userfy it and destroy the article ASAP. -- Kicking222 21:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and move to For the Love of Money. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For_The_Love_Of_Money

This is such a simple article and the song is already listed on the O'Jays page. JohnM4402 05:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to O'Jays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.166.150 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Room for expansion here, it is a stub. Seems notable through connection to Apprentice. -- cmh 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I've expanded it a little; this was a top-ten U.S. pop and R&B hit in 1974. If it is kept, it should be moved to For the Love of Money. Extraordinary Machine 14:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Extraordinary Machine (who seems to me to seek a new disaster every day). As the article currently stands (that is, at 5:49 Eastern time), there is enough information on this notable song that the article should remain on WP. -- Kicking222 21:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Extraordinary Machine. In addition to its success at release, this song has become a cliche in bad American movies, advertisements, and TV shows. ScottW 00:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Extraordinary M. The song has multiple claims to fame. --Metropolitan90 03:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and move to For the Love of Money. Million-seller for the O'Jays, top 10 on the Billboard Hot 100, theme song for The Apprentice... and that just scratches the surface. At least as notable as Gwen Stefani's singles, more likely more so. B.Wind 06:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and move per Extraordinary Machine. This is one of the most important recordings of the 20th century. Why would we even consider deleting this article, when we have articles on damn near Beatles song, single, album track, or otherwise? --FuriousFreddy 16:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 16:04, 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 uhhhhh...no consensus. Mailer Diablo 12:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion)." We do not have a disambig on the word The that have The Age, The Bulletin, etc. This seems to apply here. The only true meaning of the word Apartheid is the article Apartheid. There is no way that somebody would refer to Israely apartheid or Sexual apartheid by the simple word apartheid. As such the disambig is useless and only fuels edit wars. Delete abakharev 05:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual apartheid

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global apartheid

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase)

• Strong keep if the guideline were followed in the manner suggested half the disambig pages on wikipedia would have to be deleted. Given the controversy at the original Apartheid page over listing other uses of the word (see Talk:Apartheid) having a seperate disambiguation page is the only solution to adequately deal with non-South African uses of the term apartheid. The problem with abakharev's examples is that "the" is not the operative word in his examples, apartheid is the operative word in the articles listed on Apartheid (disambiguation) Homey 06:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  Similarly, we do not have Fascism (disambiguation) with links to Islamofascism, Fascist regime of Bush, etc. We do not have entries in Terrorist (disambiguation) for Terrorist Bin Laden or Terrorist Yassir Arafat, we have only links to a book and a film with the same name. If there exist an article on Apartheid (book) or Apartheid (painting) etc. then the disambig should be created. Just collecting articles on catchphrases there apartheid is used as a slur term is useless abakharev 06:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain for the moment - it's a tricky one. For one, the main Apartheid article is the main article on the topic, and it is the topic that most would want to know about when looking up apartheid. However citing ground for deletion as being that apartied appears in the latter portion of a number of the articles' titles is clearly ridiculous. THE KING 06:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There actually is *no* apartheid article at the moment. Because of the conflict last year over other uses of the term the article was moved to History of South Africa in the apartheid era. Hopefully, with the creation of Apartheid (disambiguation) the main South Africa article can move back to Apartheid.Homey 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should moving History of South Africa in the apartheid era to Apartheid depend on Apartheid (disambiguation)? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Homey. Even if slightly non-canonical in its status as a dab page, it's eminently useful in separating the primary from the secondary uses in a clean way without burdening the separate articles with unncessary controversy. Lukas ^(T.|@) 06:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Further comment: I haven't looked into the troubled past of the main Apartheid article, but looking at the various "Foo apartheid" articles, I think there needs to be some list- or dab-like place that links to them all. I don't mind if it's in this form, or possibly as an appendix to the main Apartheid page, as long as the presentation clearly distinguishes between the primary, authentic meaning of the term and its various secondary polemical uses. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. We have a disambiguation page, for example, for "Georgia" becuase you might be talking about the Russian state, the US State, or the US University. Nobody is going to type in "apartheid" expecting an article on Israel. Further, I note that all of the new apartheid articles were created by the same user - User:HOTR. There is a danger here of POV pushing ... BigDT 06:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; clearly disambiguation guidelines and actual practice seem to have diverged, and probably should be reassessed, but bringing up individual articles piecemeal on AfD is not the way to go about that. Especially considering that the page in question has just gone through an unpleasant edit war regarding inclusion of various entries whose titles form part of the disambiguated term, and there was a strong consensus for retaining the entries. -- MCB 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, one do have to start somewhere? This should set a presedent for other disambig articles that shouldn't be. -- Heptor _talk 13:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete; An obvious attempt to introduce pov into a disambiguation page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Del - Unencyclopedic. As some of us know, the Soviet propaganda generously used such epithets to besmirch their enemies. Since the collapse of the USSR, some pundits try to keep using the same terminology against their enemies. WP is not in the business to push POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There is nothing to disambiguate here, and this disambiguation page is used solely for POV-pushing, giving undue prominence to murky phrases. Pecher ^Talk 07:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As the nom notes, this is not really a disambiguation page, but rather an aggregation of uses of "apartheid", which as such is non-encyclopedic. Deletion will resolve the edit wars on whether or not to include articles of the type "Foo apartheid", which deal with usages of the term "apartheid" as applied to the situation in other countries. Whether or not these articles are encyclopedic is not at issue here, but at any rate there is no chance of confusion between these articles and Apartheid, and thus no dab page is needed. If necessary, they can be appropriately linked to from Apartheid. Sandstein 07:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I agree that if this page is kept as a disambiguation page, these "Foo apartheid" entries do belong on it, as long as they have an article of their own. Sandstein 07:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is not really a disambiguation page, but rather an aggregation of uses of "apartheid" -- actually, that's pretty much the definition of a disambiguation page. Oh, the contention is mainly over Israel. Pro- and anti-Israeli editors: kindly keep your pathetic edit warring off AfD. -- GWO

• Comment. The page also features "Sexual Apartheid", which, IMHO, is far more ridiculous than "Israeli Apartheid". In any case, if this pathetic page belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, AfD is the place. -- Heptor _talk 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Well, no, it is not "pretty much the definition of a disambiguation page". This definition is, per WP:DAB: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia and Wikimedia is the process of resolving ambiguity." There is no ambiguity to resolve here. The reader is unlikely to confuse South African apartheid with the supposed apartheid somewhere else. Sandstein 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As per Homey. --Qwertyca 07:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:DAB. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A relevant term used in different contexts, should not be censored. Bertilvidet 09:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:DAB. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as I mentioned on the talk page, there is no real ambiguity - phrases like "Basque Apartheid", "Israeli Apartheid" or "Global Apartheid" the word "Apartheid" unambiguously refers to the South African regime. The word "Apartheid" is simply a derogative here - imagine the disambiguation page for "Stupidiy", starting with "Bush's stupidity", and ending with my uncle. -- Heptor _talk 13:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Bingo - User:Heptor hits the nail on the head. BigDT 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Since the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, the word is frequently used figuratively. But don't take my word for it: the Oxford English Dictionary says: "applied also to any similar movement elsewhere" -- GWO
      • Comment but that's the whole point - using the word figuratively doesn't mean that you have an article about every figurative use of the word. Everyone knows that apartheid means South Africa. Just because someone uses it as an analogy or metaphor to describe a current situation doesn't mean that you make an article about it. BigDT 14:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Everyone knows that apartheid means South Africa. -- Err, no. In fact. the OED disagrees with this assertion. They say it means South Africa, or policies similar to South Africa (i.e. laws that differentiate by race, skin colour or ethnicity). -- GWO
          • That's exactly my point. "The word "Apartheid" may be applied to any [in the opinion of the speaker] similar movement elsewhere", just as the word "stupidity" may be applied to anyone the speaker considers to think bad or wrong. In both cases, the word is used as a derogative. -- Heptor _talk 15:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
            • There's nothing subjective about "laws that differentiate by race, skin colour or ethnicity". Apartheid does not mean racism/bigotry. It's the codification of ethnic difference as law. One is highly subjective, the other isn't. That's why no-one refers to Harlem as apartheid, Law of Return, for example, is, since it applies only to those of the Jewish faith. -- GWO
              • I am not sure what you mean by this. Law of return does not differentiate citizens of Israel based on race. It does differentiate people who are not citizens of Israel, but most of the Western countries do that - a Russian who can show German ancestry, is allowed to "return" to Germany at a stroke of a pen. In Norway, I know of at least one Russian family who were allowed to "return" to Norway because they had a Norwegian grand mother. But this of course has little to do with the debate at hand. -- Heptor _talk 13:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for support, BigDT. Also, in case anyone wondered - yes, my uncle's stupidity is quite notable. -- Heptor _talk 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment please compare and contrast disambiguation pages like VT, Georgia, or Aaron's rod (disambiguation) with this one. Just as a joke isn't funny if you have to explain it, a disambiguation page isn't useful if you have to explain the link between the term being disambiguated and the things on the page. BigDT 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:DAB. --Terence Ong 14:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless at best, tendencious at worst. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 14:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep // Liftarn
• Keep I don't think we need disambiguation page guidelines carved in stone and I think it's quite possible a person could confuse all these different apartheids and benefit from a disambiguation page. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 15:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  There's only one apartheid on the disambiguation page, and, as far as I know, only one event referred to as apartheid ever. —Cuiviénen^T|C|@ on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 16:35 UTC

  What I obviously meant was, if one were to confuse gender apartheid and sexual apartheid, or get them confused to the extent that all they remember is the word "apartheid", they can come here. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 20:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Bidabadi 15:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete; An obvious attempt to disrupt wikipedia. Whoever created the page or voting to keep it is engagaing in WP:Point this page only creates disruption to the editing process and confuse the reader Zeq 16:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Commnet: Pay close attention to Heptor. He explain very elquantly why there is no real ambiguity here to resolve. Zeq 08:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per abakharev Tewfik^Talk 16:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a useless disambiguation page. —Cuiviénen^T|C|@ on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 16:35 UTC

• Delete per Heptor and I can't wait to read the page about the notability of his uncle's stupidity. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If it stays, based on the OED dicdef quoted above, we should add articles about Indian reservations, Ghettos, Holocaust, and all else that fits the definition. Just because of a catchy word. Carlossuarez46 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It is a PoV push. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep while I think the Israeli apartheid and apartheid wall articles should be deleted the other articles are fine and the disambiguation page is therefore needed. Not so sure, disambig page being used to push a pov Abstain Fullsome prison 19:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. In addition, all the articles except the main one are on AfD, and (hopefully) will be deleted or renamed without redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• It seems you misunderstood a little - not all of the other articles are on AfD, but they should be. -- Heptor _talk 19:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree they should all be on AfD. The articles aren't on AfD were all created in the past 3 days, so I'd guess we just haven't gotten around to AfDing them yet. They were all created by the same user, and that same user created the page we're talking about deleting now. Su-laine.yeo 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Heptor.Aguerriero (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Heptor. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I take all the points raised above, however I think the fact is that people may use the term apartheid to descrbie something other than that of the South African Apartheid, and so seems necessary to keep the page. --Wisden17 23:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Apartheid" means South Africa. Any other use of the term is simply a metaphor that refers to South African apartheid. -- Mwalcoff 00:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Rename Even if it is used as a metaphor to the South African situation (which it must be since the word Aparthied is derived from Afrikaner language word for apartness) if it is widely enough used, even in a derogatory sense, it is still notable and worth of being documented. From my standpoint it is POV to delete this page and it seems more than coincidentally connected to the recent AfD on contentious articles related to Israel. (I did a bit more research and I see how this came about -- I see now.) --Ben Houston 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Instead of an apartheid dab it may be more worthwhile to create an Apartheid (metaphor) page that talks about how the term is used as a metaphor -- that the SA system was iconic and thus the term entered into the lexicon on its own, which seems to be the case. This Apartheid (metaphor) article can, besides noting its use as a metaphor, point to a few of the areas in which it is widely used and thus link to those articles if they exist. The main Aparthied article should still link directly to the SA Apartheid article but at the top should be a see macro to the Aparthied metaphor page. To me this would be a decent compromise that continues to build up wikipedia. --Ben Houston 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Ben Houston. Also, wikipedia is not censored, even if it contains information about ugly things, opinions, or political terms. :) Dlohcierekim 01:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's no reason why this can't be a useful disamb page, covering terms in common usage. CJCurrie 01:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per multiple arguments above. Also, I did not know there were other uses until i stumbled across this in recent changes. Is that not the purpose of an encyclopedia, to expand ones knowledge? --Knife Knut 01:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Apartheid appears to be South African (instead of the "general" term), so a disambiguation page is in order. If these other articles exist, they must be pointed to from somewhere. Fagstein 01:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've reworked the page as more DAB, less POV. Fagstein 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously useful, even if slightly in violation of a little-used guideline. LotLE×talk 03:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I find it prepostorous that some editors are voting to keep while acknowledging that it is in violation of WP guidelines, and that other editors acknowledge they did not even know th eother terms excitsed, yet still find it proper to call it "disambiguation". Isarig 04:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Apartheid has entered the English language in uses beyond the South African context. See for instance http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apartheid Bwithh 04:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - note that the reference does not mention Israel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is to some extend correct, the word has been used as a synonym for "racism" by some. But even in case "Apartheid" may be considered a general depreciative - imagine the disambiguation page "racism"? Many people have accused for example France of being a racist society. Should there be a page Racism (Diambiguation), poining to French Racism, and perhaps also to Sexual Racism (whatever the latter would mean)? -- Heptor _talk 12:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A textbook disambiguation page, targetted by some not-very-subtle POV warriors hoping to expunge an entry they find distasteful. The nominator's argument is certainly a nonsensical fig-leaf, and I'm surprised anyone is taking it the least bit seriously. --Calton | Talk 04:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you are trying to suggest that this AfD is about expunging an entry concerning Israeli Apartheid, you should know that the nominator originally wanted a link to Israeli Apartheid on this diambiguation page, but then found it wiser to delete the page alltogether. See the talk page. -- Heptor _talk 13:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if it's not a perfect example of dab page, it's still useful. Obhaso 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have posted a proposal on the article's talk page which I think might gain a consensus; please see my comments there. MCB 06:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The effect, if not the intention, of this page is to imply that the items listed on the page are in parallel. That is a POV. I like MCB's suggestion that perhaps a general article on apartheid would be appropriate. Anyone can create that article next week if they want; I don't think we have to do it for them. The articles that this page currently points to probably should not be on Wikipedia. Only one country in history has ever considered it inoffensive to be labelled as apartheid. Any article whose title is "____ apartheid" is pretty much by definition a POV page that should be merged with a broader article. Do we want to keep a page that encourages the proliferation of "_______ apartheid" pages, by giving them publicity during their brief, pre-AfD life? Su-laine.yeo 07:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• I certainly think this is a valid disambiguation page. It distinguishes between several different types of apartheid. Yes, it doesn't distinguish between homonyms, but I don't think that is necessary. --Rory096 08:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Apartheid has acquired figurative meaning. Then, move History of South Africa in the apartheid era back to Apartheid as per Homey. Spacepotato 08:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move as per Spacepotato. --Guinnog 12:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete confusing and misleading. RenyD 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's first edit was today.[18]
• Delete per abakharev, Sandstein, Su-laine and others. 6SJ7 18:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. There is no Israeli apartheid? The United Nations do not seem to believe so: In January 2006, a UN report by John Dugard of the Human Right Commission in Geneva, stated that "the three major settlement blocs - Gush Etzion, Ma’aleh Adumim and Ariel - will effectively divide Palestinian territory into cantons or Bantustans." "Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine - Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 Satyagit 19:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment that link is bad, but I'm sure you may find a whole bunch of good links at UNCHR condemning Israel. That institution disgraced itself so much that it had to be reorganized quite recently. BTW, I wonder why no one paid attention to "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied" before 1967? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - this page is made necessary only by the wilful misuse of the very specific term Apartheid. It'd be as if we had a "Fascism" dismbiguation, with links to "American Fascism under George Bush", "Wikipedia Fascism" and the like.Timothy Usher 19:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If there was ever such a thing as a POV dab page, this would be it. -- Kicking222 20:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment with respect to the "POV" arguments, as long as the Israeli apartheid, Gender apartheid etc. articles exist, there should be a disambig. page, no? I'm not disputing the POV arguments, but they apply to those articles, not to this disambiguation page. Fagstein 20:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No. We don't include in the dismabiguation pages all the articles that have the word in question, see WP:DAB. For example, we don't disambig physics to quantum physics, nuclear physics etc. It's highly unlikely that someone searching for "apartheid" will in fact be searching for "gender apartheid". Pecher ^Talk 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Pecher's statement is verified by the rule/guideline quote that appears at the very top of this page. (As I said in the response I was writing, but Pecher "won" the edit conflict, so I'm just referring to the source.) 6SJ7 21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. We don't have disambiguation pages for physics or fascism, but there is ample navigational material (templates etc.) to let the searcher for a half-remembered term move from Physics to Particle physics, or from Fascism to Clerical fascism. Apartheid (disambiguation) serves the same function. Spacepotato 01:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Maybe we could solve this by mentioning in the Apartheid article that the word "Apartheid" has been used as a political epithet, notably on following subjects: "X Apartheid", "Y Apartheid" etc, and that it is generally considered offensive. This should be better than having a disambiguation page without having an ambiguity. This presumes that those other aticles remain - they have all been created by one user, Homeonetherange (who for some reason signes as "Homey"), and now they all are up for deletion. -- Heptor _talk 11:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, POV agenda on this one. Gadig 02:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the bottom line on this one is that unless the articles listed in it should have their names changed, then the page should remain to list them. As controversial as the terms may be, they fall under the dictionary definition quoted above under: "applied also to any similar movement elsewhere." As with all things in Wikipedia, only notable terms are listed here, which keeps some random individual from attaching "apartheid" to some random movement and having it listed here, unless it comes into common usage. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please don't attempt to move History of South Africa in the apartheid era back to Apartheid. The reason it's at its current location is to define clearly what the page is about, and thus to avoid precisely the controversy in this discussion. These endless energy-sapping debates have nothing to do with the use of the term in South Africa, and typically don't even involve the editors of the South African article. Moving the page back to Apartheid would reignite the old edit wars and detract enormously from the History of South Africa in the apartheid era article. Zaian 08:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Having a disambiguation page would prevent the problem you're talking about and allow History of South Africa in the apartheid era to have a more common-sense title.Homey 15:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete silly POV disambig page, and delete, delete, delete POV pushers. Stop trying to open unnecessary new fronts on the ideological war du jour, and start writing the encyclopedia. flowersofnight (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since use of 'apartheid' in other titles is to draw a deliberate contrast with SA, and thus to require a qualifier ('Israeli' or whatever), I don't see the need to disambiguate, although I'm somewhat swayed by homey's arguments on the Apartheid talk page, I don't think the editors over there are going to go for it --Coroebus 15:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Apartheid was a specific system in place during a specific time period (1948-1990). Any other uses of the word, such as Gender Apartheid or Economic Apartheid are perjorative metaphors and are thus not equal to the word's primary meaning. At most, other uses of the word apartheid should be in an article named something like 'Apartheid (Metaphor)' [as per the above], linked to by a small comment at the top of the main Apartheid article. — Impi 16:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Apartheid should definitely continue to redirect to History of South Africa in the apartheid era, but this page is useful. -- TheMightyQuill 17:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Such a disambiguation is no different than having a comparison note in an article (e.g. cp. Gender apartheid), which is completely fine. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 18:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — Who the heck would rename Apartheid to "History of South Africa in the apartheid era"? That's bogus. Apartheid is more than just a history; it's a socio-cultural phenomenon. :-) — RJH (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was wondering the same thing RJH, but then I read Zaian's comment above which explains the history of the situation. 6SJ7 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Which is an excellent reason why the disambig article is necessary 1) to allow references to "modern" uses of the term apartheid to go somewhere other than the main apartheid article 2) thus allowing the article to actually be called Apartheid rather than the cumbersome History of South Africa in the apartheid eraHomey 21:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That doesn't make any sense. Your reason number 2 cannot be justified based on what Zaian says, because he is asking, nay pleading, for the exact opposite. (For other people not following all this, Zaian says that whatever else happens, please don't rename the current History fo South Africa in the apartheid era to Apartheid; Homey says that if we have this disambiguation page, we can rename History etc. etc. to just Apartheid. So those are two opposite ideas.) On your reason number 1, these "other apartheid" articles were all created by you (except for apartheid wall, I believe), so claiming that the disambiguation page you created is necessary so there can be a distinction drawn among the other articles you created is a little like the teenager who murders his parents and asks the judge for mercy because he is an orphan. (Which of course, is the proverbial definition of "chutzpah.") 6SJ7 05:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - there are many uses of the word apartheid, not all of them South Africa. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per PZFUN. Ted 02:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious delete. Metaphorical uses of a term should not be on a disambiguation page.--Denis Diderot 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Denis above, per User:Heptor, per WP:DAB. This disambiguation page and some of the articles seem to have been created in violation of WP:Point. Armon 15:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until the issues with the disambiguated artices are resolved in the respective AfDs. --Ezeu 19:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • But that's exactly what AfDs are intended for - conclusively resolving issues with those articles :) -- Heptor _talk 20:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What if it is decided that the other "Apartheid" articles be kept, wouldn't that in effect render this AfD useless, as a disambiguation page would then be warranted? --Ezeu 21:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • No, as if they are truly relevant they will be linked from articles on their respective nations or other relevant issues, not grouped artificially. Fearwig 04:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The last time I heard the phrase "apartheid" it was in reference to Israel. This probably says more about the speaker than anything, but Wikipedia policies do not judge the validity of opinions. If there is a significant number of people who use "apartheid" to mean something beyond the historical South African apartheid, then that needs to be reflected on the wiki even if you think they are being tendentious. The current situation in which apartheid redirects to the South Africa page on the original term, which links to the dab, seems moderately intuitive and I don't find the argument of the nominator convincing. - BT 04:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: BTW, why are several of the links piped (or pointed to redirects aimed at subsections?!) and bolded? According to standard formatting, The apartheid wall is a similarly controversial epithet to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier. should be more like The "apartheid wall" is a similarly controversial epithet to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier. This is just confusing, but doesn't affect my vote. - BT 13:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  Good point. Page is currently blocked for editing because of some edit warring (I think it actually was over the POV tag itself), but we should change it when the page is unblocked - if it is not deleted. This of course doesn't change my vote delete the page :) -- Heptor _talk 13:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete esp. as per Denis Diderot and Heptor. The word is innately referential to South African apartheid, and is not in itself a generic term for apartheid-like occurrences, save when it is used metaphorically. This is not about judging opinions (BanyanTree), but about keeping opinionation out of the disambiguation pages, as well as remembering that they are there for the reader, not for the editor. People should see an article on South African apartheid when they enter apartheid into the search field. DABs can and should be objective and useful, and there is nothing immediately useful (and debatably something POV) about listing every segregatory social system that happens to have been classified as apartheid by its original author. There are systems that have not been classified as such (such as that upon which apartheid was supposedly based in part, the American system or systems), and this makes the article ineffectual at disambiguation, even if disambiguation were necessary in the first place. If someone wants to research "apartheid" in Israel, they can do a search for apartheid on wiki, and perhaps a section of Apartheid can note that the term is sometimes used to describe social systems outside of the South African issue. This should be a very clear matter and is, in my opinion, being politicized when it is not so to begin with. Fearwig 04:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, we have Holocaust (disambiguation), which lists things that are not The Holocaust, but things that some people have described as a Holocaust. No one typing in Holocaust would be looking for Holocaust (band), but it still makes it onto the dab page--Rayc 03:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, what are those who are searching for the band named "Holocaust" are supposed to type? -- Heptor _talk 13:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Holocaust" does not in itself refer to the death of Jews in WWII, but "great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire" (first definition listed from most sources). That it has become almost synonymous in recent times with that event has nothing to do with the word itself, which predates the twentieth century. This is a major distinction. "Holocaust" has ancient Greek etymology, while "apartheid" is from Dutch, indicating its specific South African origins. Note that the first definition of "apartheid" listed uniformly refers to the South African event. Fearwig 04:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The meaning of words changes, I don't see how you can say that somehow Greek words can have general use, but Afrikaans words can't. A better comparison than holocaust would be ghetto (no I'm not picking another Jewish comparison on purpose), where a specific reference has become general. Just as the OED states in the definition of apartheid "Name given in South Africa to the segregation of the inhabitants of European descent from the non-European...applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.). Also fig. and attrib" so at least Israeli apartheid (phrase) would be a valid literal use of the word while the others (except maybe global apartheid) would be figurative. --Coroebus 08:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Coroebus, though words can change meaning, the word "Apartheid" as yet did not. You have to read a little between the lines - what OED states is "applied also to any similar [ie, to the original Apartheid] movement elsewhere". This merely states that the word has been used metaphorically. For comparison, definition of the word "Ghetto" [19] provides an alternative definition that is more commonly used than the original definition, and not only by some groups with clearly political objectives. -- Heptor _talk 13:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I am intensely uncomfortable about reading between the lines to establish that something is metaphorical. At what point are we just engaging in our own speculation? Re: ghetto I don't understand what you're saying (the definition is "1. The quarter in a city, chiefly in Italy, to which the Jews were restricted" - the first ghetto was in Venice (hence the OED: "[Of uncertain etym., perh. f. It. getto foundry, as the first ghetto founded in Venice in 1516 was on the site of a foundry.]") but the word came to be generalised to any Jewish enclave, and then to a densely populated slum area (this latter use is designated figurative). So by your reasoning the ghetto article must be stripped of any reference to non-Jewish ghettos as these are simply metaphorical uses? --Coroebus 13:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Note also that Merriam-Webster has apartheid as "2 : SEPARATION, SEGREGATION <sexual apartheid>" so I think the shift in meaning really has already taken place, despite your protestations to the contrary. --Coroebus 13:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it not so much reading between the lines than it is to understand what the text actually says. It says "similar", which has to be similar to something;from the context it must be that it is "similar to the Apartheid regime in South Africa". Don't you agree?

Merriam Webstster seems to provide an alternative definition, synonymous to separation or segregation. Pardon me if I am wikilawyering, but in this case, ie if "apartheid" is merely a synonym for "segregation", Gender Apartheid is nothing more than a POV fork of Sex segregation. Clearly, this is a very inconventional definition. Britannica, is far less ambigous - apartheid is defined as: "(Afrikaans: “apartness”), policy that governed relations between South Africa's white minority and nonwhite majority and sanctioned racial segregation and political and economic discrimination against nonwhites."[20]

You must have missed the second definition of the word Ghetto on OED. It is clearly the most used one. -- Heptor _talk 14:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Gender apartheid is a synonym for gender segregation, yes. But that just proves that the M-W second definition of apartheid is a valid usage. You will notice that your preferred OED definition 2 for ghetto is labelled as being figurative. I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it here. You reject the use of apartheid for anything other than the SA Apartheid, because anything else is metaphorical in your eyes, and thus invalid, even when there is pretty good evidence that the word has come to mean something like 'separation' or 'discrimination' (interestingly the OED details it as going back as far as 1955). But for another word, ghetto, you reject the literal meaning and insist that the figurative (that means the same thing as metaphorical by the way) usage is the correct and 'most used' one. What I have tried to show, and I think you have rather nicely demonstrated, is that some objections to the use of 'apartheid' here are not driven by linguistic concerns, but rather something else, perhaps political --Coroebus 14:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be more clear. I reject that the word Apartheid is used for anything else then SA regime, other then for political purposes (very much like for example fascism). "Ghetto" is generally used about racially segregated neighbourhoods. A ghetto is easier to define (bunch of "ethnical" people living together -> ghetto), and its use is not limited to those with some particular political agenda. -- Heptor _talk 15:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that your Britannica definition of apartheid is from the encyclopaedia entry on apartheid, so is not the definition of the word. OED defines it as "Name given in South Africa to the segregation...applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.)", M-W says "2. SEPARATION, SEGREGATION", American Heritage says "2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups. 3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation.", as far as I can see you're working from an idiosyncratic personal definition of apartheid. --Coroebus 15:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think I may have been misleading when I brought etymology into the discussion, though the fact that "holocaust" was simply an already common word used to describe "the Holocaust" that happened to "stick" in popular language is not entirely negligible. What's really important is that every single one of these articles can be distinguished from existing, generally better and more NPOV articles only by the presence of the word "apartheid", which in itself indicates flagrant POV. I don't agree or disagree with this POV, but it is pov. If I made an article called "Iraqi holocaust", I would be framing all information on that page in the POV of something that is not historically established as holocaust, and I would damn well hope someone would delete it. Sexual apartheid is sex discrimination, save that the name of the article itself throws NPOV to the wind by using a metaphorical reference to a historically-recognized despicable act to color the inferrences that will be drawn from the article. It's the Wiki equivalent of flashing pictures of Stalin in a smear ad. This has nothing to do with feelings about apartheid, sexual discrimination, the Israel/Palestine conflict or what kind of cheese the moon is made of. It's about impartiality, which these articles go out of their way to dismiss. I really can't believe this has sparked so much debate, as these things seem very plain to me. Coroebus, I am additionally saddened that you continue to frame opposition to this article as politically motivated when there have been many clear cases for its removal on an NPOV basis alone, whether or not you agree with the argument. I take this moment to assure you that this is not an pro-Semitic conspiracy, a misogynist conspiracy, or an (insert favorite conspiracy) conspiracy. We're editing Wikipedia, not waging ideological war. I voted strong delete because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Fearwig 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You will note that I have already voted delete on this article, and redirect for many of the other articles! My objection is to what appear to be attempts to delete articles based on bogus linguistic assertions. You don't see me going around deleting the Islamofascism page because fascism can only apply to Italian nationalists either. If the usage is notable we talk about it, we don't reject it out of hand as POV because we don't like the implication --Coroebus 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, now you are just insulting my intelligence :(

My main point is that when somebody calls something "X Apartheid", s/he is trying to suggest a similarity between the unfortunate X and the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Of course, even if you disagree, I am glad we reached the same conclusion. -- Heptor _talk 15:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The same. Apologies for my haste, since we seem to be in (confusing) agreement. I think the etymology argument is valid, just not as valid as the POV problem, and much harder to argue with precision. Fearwig 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And of course that is exactly what is happening in the etymology of ghetto. Therefore, just because a word has a partially figurative nature does not make it somehow an invalid word. In a similarly Venetian theme, how about Arsenal? --Coroebus 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I worry this is going to turn into a semantic waste of talk space, as much as I'd love to continue! I'll say really quickly that I think it takes time for those words to translate into generic use rather than metaphorical use, and that time has not passed for "apartheid". Fearwig 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I think the evidence from actual dictionaries, rather than linguistic intuition is a better guide, but I'll leave it there too. --Coroebus 15:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• keep The articles linked to do seem to follow the UN definition of the Crime of Apartheid. POV is an issue, but removing this page for that reason is a POV in itself. POV should be dealt with on the page itself not on pages that link to it. HighInBC 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That's just not true. Read the article--none of these have to do with race. Thus they are metaphorical. At the very, very best they should be redirects. Denying a biased (or superfluous and biased article, in this case) title (e.g. Gender Holocaust to describe a mass-murder of women, a despicable event but not "gender holocaust") is not acceptable. Believing we should be rid of such articles has nothing to do with POV and everything to do with the integrity of WP. If someone provides ample proof that all of these terms have been used in prominent, peer-reviewed discussion, then I say a redirect is warranted. Only if someone can provide proof that all these terms have been used and are distinct from their counterparts (e.g. "sexual apartheid" v. "sexual discrimination"), then they deserve their own articles. Only then. Removing POV is not "POV in itself" unless you propose it because the ideas in the POV offend you, which we have established we are not (or I hope this has been established, anyway). The maintenance of neutrality is NPOV... by definition. POV (and NPOV) is more than "an issue", it's a policy. Fearwig 15:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm sure we could argue the racial question re: Israel and Palestine all day, but we do have individual deletion pages for each of these categories. I think the peer reviewed requirement is a little harsh, these aren't science articles --Coroebus 16:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment They're political science articles, so yes. I don't think the references should have to include professional advocacy/use of the terminology, but I think that scientific mention of their use should be a minimum requirement. Otherwise I fail to see how the terms could be considered valid and encyclopedic. If they are not used in a citable way, they do not exist (that's WP:NOR at work). There are a million articles on these topics in political science journals, not to mention those of other disciplines, and if one cannot find even one such example of their use, then I fail to see how the terms may be defended. And I was not trying to open the Israel/Palestine racial can of worms, I accidentally neglected that exception.Fearwig 16:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (some edits were made for clarity after next post--sorry for the confusion)

I'll probably betray my background in objecting to political science being referred to as a science, I don't think subjects like politics should rely on academic discourse to the same extent as (proper) scientific articles - in particular the academic and practical worlds of politics overlap and inter-relate, I think it would be very unwise to declare all non-academic political discourse out of bounds as a source, and also politics (as with other semi-sciences and humanities) as an academic discipline does not rely on the academic paper to the same extent as science - certainly almost the entirety of our political output on wikipedia would go up in flames. A very quick google scholar search (for what it's worth) reveals all these terms used somewhere --Coroebus 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Political science is intangible, in that it's not about making polymers and identifying starlings by their coloration or somesuch, but whatever your own definition of science there are guidelines on WP about what is and is not acceptable. These titles are analysis, that is, "original research" by the WP definition. Even pop poli-sci publications are peer reviewed, so this is not as major a limitation as you make it out to be. In fact, it's a very reasonable one. If google scholar brings these terms up in real journals, let's pop the results in as sources (after a glance to make sure it's relevant) and give these redirects, as I said. If there is some distinction in their use, let the author cite them. If proper citations were used, this entire debate would be null. Fearwig 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that these titles can realistically be defined as analysis, you may not consider them notable phrases or ideas, but I think you're going to have to stretch your definition of original research rather far. Otherwise Islamofascism or Arab anti-semitism become original research too. I strongly disagree with you on peer reviewed requirements for political articles, but perhaps you should consider trying it at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Advice_specific_to_subject_area? But by your insistence on academic study of a concept, movement or whatever, Wikipedia would very rapidly have to stop, lacking many contributors with access to academic journals, and limited entirely to that which political scientists have deigned to write about, things like the Lib Dem orange book, New_Labour or the Euston_manifesto covered many years after the event, and limited to a handful of sources if any. Wikipedia would be cutting itself off from mainstream political discourse. --Coroebus 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If one has access to neither academic or semi-academic (being that most such citable debate is carried on by those who are professionals in the matter) resources or even texts, I do not understand it to be wise to make substantive edits on any potentially POV subject. I and many others have made the mistake of doing so in one way or another without providing citations, and the material has been (rightly) reverted, when the article gets the attention of experienced editors. I think this is no exception. If the concept of Israeli apartheid "exists" (by WP standards), it will have been discussed professionally. This is my interpretation, and I think it is a common one. Sourcing potentially POV statements is not a hindrance to good editing--it is part of the definition of good editing. Islamofascism and Arab anti-semitism are concepts that have been noted by major sources (probably a million times over, by now), and as such they definitely "exist" by encyclopedic standards. It is more important that WP have these standards than that every indefinite, casual or novel concept is legitimized by its place here. Those would be more like Everything2 standards--acceptable in their own right, perhaps. Fearwig 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you'll no doubt be disappointed to see this "israeli apartheid" and this islamofascism ("arab anti-semitism" does better). --Coroebus 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That does not disappoint me at all, but makes me very happy. Now add it to the article, since you did all the work. :) Now find "gender apartheid" and "sexual apartheid", etc. if you're so eager. It's the sourcing (or rather, the ability to be sourced) that matters. Fearwig 18:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

To make it clear to anyone that hasn't followed the links, google scholar has 15 hits for Islamofascism, and 40 odd for "Israeli apartheid". --Coroebus 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment The word "apartheid" is often used in a metaphorical sense to denote any kind of segregation or separation (normally in a negative sense). In the same way words like terror, fascism, tyranny, nazism, and so on (including derivatives) are often used metaphorically. An encyclopaedia doesn't have separate articles for all different kinds of separation. Particular forms of separation should be discussed in the articles that deal with the corresponding subject (where that particular form of separation occurs). This ought to be obvious.--Denis Diderot 12:26, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angela Lanza (singer)

Cute, but rather lacking in notability, verifiability, or importance. All of the search results I'm seeing are either (a) from Wikipedia or mirror sites, or (b) referring to the (more notable) actress by the same name, an article for whom does not exist. — May. 31, '06 [06:17] <freak|talk>

• Keep easily based on WP:MUSIC "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.". Also, to a lessor extent, per WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." and --Rob 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there a consensus that being rejected by American Idol makes one notable? Of your three sources, one is a 404 link, one is a newsletter at Michigan State University, which she attended, and one is a CBS network affiliate in Bay City where she lives. I'm sure she's a hometown heroine, but it appears she is an unknown figure outside of central Michigan. Do we have any verifiable information about her, a date of birth even? — May. 31, '06 [06:35] <freak|talk>
    • I'm not basing the keep on her trying out for American Idol. It's mainly for her international touring, and the fact its covered. WP:MUSIC was *intentionally* changed to allow for notable people without huge commercial success to be included. If we got adequate independent reliable sources, covering the tour, then that's adequate. Also, hopefully we don't go and delete articles because newstory links go dead. That's pretty typical, as free access is normally only given to recent stories. (I'll take a look at it, I didn't know till you told me). -Rob 06:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Added: I beleive AP is more than just a local news outlet, and they wrote about her. --Rob 07:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rob and WP:MUSIC JohnM4402 06:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Rob. In the past, people on these tours have been reasonably notable. Capitalistroadster 06:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rob. --Terence Ong 14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I was thinking I'd lean toward keeping this one based on the USO tour, but after a little searching, I'm not sure about that now. Take a look at this article (Google cached) about her participation in the USO tour. After reading the circumstances of the tour, do you feel that she's notable enough? And further, can there be a good article here? I know that participating in the USO is technically touring internationally, but is this really the same as being individually booked (and in most cases, paid) to play in another country? I'd be interested in hearing the reasoning one way or the other. ScottW 00:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It'd work for me. Moreso, in fact, that it's the USO and not some random club tour. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the USO part is why I was originally inclined to say keep. That's certainly a notable enough organization. The way she was sent though was almost club-like though. And I guess what troubles me the most about this one is that there's little coverage of her beyond 'local girl makes good' type articles. ScottW 01:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • But, also consider, that in this case we have more verification that she was actually independently selected for the tour, than in other cases. Sometimes, we have articles on singers/bands that "tour" nationally, but the "tour" is really them renting various small venues at their own expense, and getting write-ups in music sites, that basically cover every gig around. In this case she was selected by an organization independent of herself. While she just got her expenses covered, those expenses are probably more than what many performers get paid for smaller venues. Often, booking a singer/band as the non-headline member of a tour is no big deal, because if it doesn't work out, you cant punt them pretty easy. Going to Iraq, probably takes more thought and committment, though. But, I'm going to make the obvious concession, that I'm not seeing this becoming Featured Article. --Rob 01:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
        • From the articles on her tour, it seems as if she was chosen for the tour based upon a minor beauty pagent. I agree, though, that this isn't some group who paid their way to Canda one weekend to perform at an open-mic night. She definitely participated in a substantial tour, but is it a tour she took because she was in demand, or one she took because she won it from being a runner up in a Hooters contest? If it's the former (or even if it's just somehow shown not to be the latter), then I'd feel much better keeping this one. For tonight, I think I'll refrain from commiting one way or the other. ScottW 02:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. All news articles appear to be about the same event (and so count as one). I don't agree with her passing WP:MUSIC. Does being part of a large tour qualify as going on one? Does every Riverdance dancer qualify under WP:MUSIC? Fagstein 02:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • But, WP:BIO refers to a "single day's news event only", and this is much more than one days event. Also, Riverdance involves a large number of people on a stage at once, doing similiar things. Hence, they warrant an article, but only a combined article for the whole production. Lanza was a solo act. The only other musical act mentioned (or in the photos) is UC3. So, for a made-up analogy, if a solo act toured with Riverdance to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Qatar and Iraq; then they would likely warrant an article. --Rob 05:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm referring to the news stories which all seem centred around May 19-20, 2004, about the USO tour. The rest seem to be either about trivial events or from local media. Nevertheless, I'm suspending my delete vote for now. Fagstein 06:58, 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 12:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gameplanet

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}}

This article is nothing but an advertisement for a bunch of non-notable individuals and a lot of it is just nonsense to boot (I'm curious to know what sort of "regular event" "meat" is, for one thing). I'm tempted to nominate this page for speedy deletion but I've decided to go through with just a standard deletion nomination for now.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 06:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Articles former crap quality was due to defacement, not unworthy subject matter. Vote: Do not delete. - Lemonus
• No need to jump the gun, all it needs is a little polish. The main problem is everyone who thinks they're someone wants to be mentioned in the article. - Okelix

• "regular event" such as a "meat" also known as a "meet", you know, where humans meet other humans, and trade humourous anecdotes about horses and other victorian era gems.--Subwaynz 08:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Conrad, if it would help put your mind at rest, regarding the advertising issue the gameplanet forums have absolutely nothing to do with the GP store. I presume GP store is mentioned in the article as it was the same persons that begun both of them (That's my understanding anyway). -massive —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Discosteve (talk • contribs) 21:56, 31 May 2006.

• Eesh, certainly not an advertisement. Agreed that it was crap for a while though. - Zealot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.55.230.121 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 31 May 2006.

• Keep, cleanup and remove non-notable trivia; the site is notable within the New Zealand online community. This is an extremely high traffic website (the forum has over 40k members and is ranked 166 on Big Boards) and it has received minor national coverage in NZ media both in the wake of a celeb drugs scandal and as an award-winning site ([21]). --Muchness 10:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is there any other verifiable claim to notability except that one web award? Low Alexa rank. The drug scandal claims are whoppingly unimpressive — some people speculated about celebrity names and guessed some right??? If the site is notable the article should concentrate on that instead of listing some guys' screen names and random mentions about a radio chat show host once reading a line from a web forum. Chatty unverifiable trivia makes the site appear less notable. Weregerbil 10:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the page. Gameplanet forums is undeniably the biggest online community in New zealand, and thus deserves a Wikipedia article. All it needs is a little work. Wedge 203.97.255.197 11:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article just needs some pruning, which it was in the process of when Mr Conrad here decided that a forty thousand some member community is not deserving of an article. Maybe a little more fencing will fix your boredom, EN GARDE -Lemonus

• Comment Alexa isnt everything mate, its spyware which increasing numbers of people have removed. but if you must, this is a report from ac neilson netratings [22], and of course it isnt going to rank highly worldwide, its a New Zealand Based Forum and out of a population of over 4 million, a 40k member base makes it the largest forum in the country. The media in question did not specifically refer to Gameplanet forums, but in the video items gp was clearly visible. This was to prevent any legal repercusions. But If you think this is bad, wait till you see the something awful wiki. Btw, do you like trolling and annoying people cause you have no life?. --Subwaynz 11:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks. Weregerbil 11:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Oh and, by the way, the drugs scandal case was a very very important case in nz. it capitivated the media in nz for about a week, and the primary focus was on the information leak on the internet THROUGH GPFORUMS which identified the celebrities involved. And it is in the process of being written, you may or may not notice, but it is nigh on 24 hours old, and hasnt been completed yet. --Subwaynz 11:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment To those who disagree with this nomination, I apologise if you feel my deletion proposal was hasty and that this subject is notable. I'm not very knowledgable about online gaming communities nor am I from New Zealand, but I assumed that if this article was about a notable subject it would have been in just a little better shape than it was. Here is the diff just before I nominated it for deletion: [23]. Take a look at it and hopefully you'll understand my motivation for deleting it. Oh and by the way, I was contemplating nominating it for a speedy deletion but thought that it might have some redeeming value so instead nominated it for a standard deletion so that attention might be brought to its problems and those who opposed deletion could voice their opinions.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 16:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:WEB sorry. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Gpforums won an award in the netguide web awards for best entertainment site, that meets your criteria for web based content on wiki mate. --Subwaynz 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have removed the rest of that nonsense about "notable members", so that is no longer an issue. If this nomination continues, notability of the site should be the only concern.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 19:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think not Conrad. The content concerning those notable members is there for a reason sgt molloy was actually convicted. we consider him a notable individual. I will continue to edit this back too, considering the content that is allowed in such pages as [something awful]--Subwaynz 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't think it's valid to compare Gameplanet (Alexa=95,068) to SomethingAwful (Alexa=1,870). Be aware of the WP:3RR rule if you plan on getting into an edit war regarding those sections. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment There is nothing of that nature in the Something Awful article. SubSeven 00:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep WP:WEB passage is borderline; while it may be large in New Zealand, I'm not sure I understand why NZ would have a distinct gaming culture? Most other forums of this nature are international. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:WEB. No media sources, non-notable. Only thing going for it is that it's a Google News source. Can someone find a mention of this site in some media? Fagstein 02:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Shaun Olsen's source below. Fagstein 07:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Does not fail WP:WEB. http://campbelllive.tv3.co.nz/ Google does not define all of human knowledge. 203.97.144.44 03:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. But what does New Zealand's largest newspaper know anyway?[24] -Shaun Olsen 06:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Note Something Awful's Personalities subsection. If you delete our notable members section, then i will delete theirs, simple. and im sure you dont want the sa members on your back now do you. --Subwaynz 07:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment No. Those are not forum members; those are the contributors to the Something Awful web site. If you look at the Something Awful Forums article, you will see that there is no notable members section. SubSeven 18:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Cease and desist Subway, You manage to find the absolutely wrong way to try and go about things at every opportunity. Lemonus

• Comment Lemon, when hypocrisy from an admin even, i feel that its the last option. Wikipedia is full or so many one eyed editors, i not only feel that our notable members section is justified, all you need to look at is the admin response that the two sections differ. i think not. pull your head in jamie. --Subwaynz 07:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Damn it Subway, you aren't helping ANYONE now, not even yourself. -Shaun Olsen

• Comment I cant believe you guys, here it is, an admin with blatant hypocrisy, trying to tell us that the members noted on something awful's wiki are any more notable than our notable members. like hell!!!. i have pointed this out, yet jamie continues to disagree with the reasoning and facets of the concensus. once the day rolls around again i will revert it back, because i know im right, and the wiki policies prove this. but im not risking a 3rr ban. --Subwaynz 10:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on now, why does it matter to you if people know about such-and-such a member wanting to join the French Foreign Legion or not?--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Do you not take a hint conrad? If you agree that the notable members section in the Something Awful Wiki is legitimate, then there is no reason the gpforums notable members wiki shouldnt be allowed too. Care to delete theirs at the same time? Or is it only cause your biased towards SA and wont delete theirs, when it is quite clearly the same. --Subwaynz 04:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- r2b2 03:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? I don't know anything about the "Something Awful Wiki".--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 05:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'll fill you in then. The Something Awful is populated by a very similar section, called Personalities. It contains the psuedonym of the Member and Why the Member is there. I see a great similarity between the two, and cannot differentiate a difference between the two, other than the context, that the Personalities as mentioned also maintain editing the Main Page for Something Awful. --Subwaynz 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep without notable members section r2b2 04:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Subway you enormous god damn tard. Those people arent that notable, honestly, and his point about something awful member section being only writes and important front page people, he is correct. GET A CLUE. - Lemonus
• Comment Knowing nothing of the Something Awful entries, I took a look to see how they compare with regards to the "personalites" sections. Personally I see the Something Awful entry itself as more of an entry about a type of publication (as it appears to have articles rather than freeform chat which would be the Something Awful Forum). If you take Something Awful itself and compare it to, say, The Times or Washington Post (taking two other publications at random), you'll note that the two paper entries have a notable contributors section. The Something Awful Forum entry doesn't. (I'm from NZ btw) r2b2 06:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I'm from NZ, never heard of it, but it seems to have some notablity within NZ, and please keep it civil. Insulting people does NOT help your argument. --Midnighttonight 02:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Subway, cool it. You've got too much personal stake in this it seems. Hey Conrad, come back and respark the relative vs. absolute debate your thread turned into. ;)

--Cynos

• keep notable, even I have heard of it :) Brian | (Talk) 12:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment My god this is frustrating, everyone seems to think just because they dont know of something that they feel it is not relevant, while this is a broad comment, it is what the users of wikipedia feel. the whole idea of an encyclopadia is to provide a medium to collate information from the world around us. why do i go to wikipedia? to learn about something i have no idea about/havent heard of. If i was a prospective forum member and i wanted to learn about gpforums, and i went to wikipedia, i then learnt all about gpforums, and i saw the notable members aspect, and when i DID join gpforums i would know why people post replies of why they hate wushu, or brock. It is not about why a United States wikipedia user doesnt know about someone or a topic (from nz). I just think that people should stick their noses where its actually wanted. The notable members part complied with wiki policies, sgt molloy was featured in the mainstream media. So, however much you think your the expert on everything world wide, your not. The notable members are an integral part of gpforums and is what makes gpforums what it is today. If you dont like it, or havent heard of it, but it complies with wiki policies, then dont be a knob and delete it, wikipedia is diverse, so is the world. Thats what an encyclopedia is designed to do.--Subwaynz 06:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from "Sgt. Molloy" who was mentioned in the news, none of those members are notable anywhere outside of Gameplanet itself, so they shouldn't be here. I have left Sgt. Molloy here for now, but I should also mention that his real name needs to be mentioned in the article if he is to stay.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• keep Well known throughout NZ, I personally am not a member but have heard it mensioned in the media in NZ several times. Stevee2 07:26, 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 per WP:CSD#A7. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Berretta

Non-notable persons. 0zymandias 07:26, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flagstaff Hill Football Club

Non-notable youth football club, deprodded by author JChap 07:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think there is any thing wrong with it and it isnt doing any harm. Paulbowen 05:06, 31 May 2006 (AST)

Also some of Australia's finest footballers have come from this club and the club is quite famous in the area. Paulbowen 05:10, 31 May 2006 (AST)

Comment: I suggest you add these points to the article. --JChap 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Very Weak Keep. At the very least this needs copyediting, it is written in the 1st person. To my mind it doesn't really seem notable enough. michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 11:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge. While the club is not a "youth" club as claimed in the nom, it is an amateur club in a league that doesn't even have it's own article yet. A small amount of info on the club could be included in an article on the league. JPD (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn football club. --Terence Ong 14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Absolutely nothing notable about this team, which competes in a league that itself isn't remotely notable. It's also a hugely POV article, and almost certainly. Also, assuming this article gets deleted, the deleting admin should make sure all redirects to the article are also deleted. -- Kicking222 21:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It might be worth having an article on the league. I further note that this is a word for word copyvio of the club history here see [25]. Capitalistroadster 00:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Peta 02:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay I will create an article on the league. --Paulbowen 06:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete a suburban local league. Not even at the SANFL level.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• This article asserts little to no notability, it's just an amateur football club. --Rory096 08:02, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish innovation system

This doesn't really exist, it's just lots of hype. There's no specific 'Finnish innovation system', this article just seems to be about some sort of 'innovation system' that's used in Finland and is exactly the same as in any other country. (The article doesn't even describe it in any way.) The previous AFD almost a year ago was pretty much in favour of merging, but nothing's happened to the article since then. It's also had a cleanup tag since July.

I don't think there's anything worth merging anywhere in the article. It's pretty much advertising that doesn't really say anything. ulayiti (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Qwertyca 08:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable and doesn't really contain any information michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 10:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, we don't have a centralized system so the main problem with the article is that it describes something that doesn't exist. Weregerbil 11:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. There's no such thing as a "Finnish innovation system", and I'm even Finnish, at that. JIP | Talk 11:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, thing doesn't exist. --Terence Ong 14:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic and as others say above. Pavel Vozenilek 01:45, 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: Speedy deleted by Brookie. — TheKMan^talk 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Hunter Cohen

not notable, deprodded by author, jhc23 JChap 07:51, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clifford Antone

• Weak Delete : I fail to see the notability of this individual. His only claim to fame is perhaps that he was "mentor to Stevie Ray Vaughan, Jimmie Vaughan and numerous other musicians." Since the article does not expand on his mentoring of these fine musicians, I don't see the point of having the article. --Asbl 14:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have changed my vote to a Weak Delete, as the LA Times does not run an obituary about just anybody. We'll have to wait to see how the article develops. --Asbl 15:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Disclosure -- I am the first author of the article. The Wiki article on biograpnic notability gives different standards for living and (long) deceased persons. As Clifford Antone has only been deceased one week, the living standard should apply. He clearly meets several tests for notability: the Google Test yields more than 250,000 references, the Verifiability test is passed because his obituaries can be easily found in the NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times. Antone was largely responsible for Austin's international fame as a music venue. He started a record label, and a blues club that was a featured nearly every major blues performer. Through his mentoring of musicians, his legacy will be felt nationally for many years. Antone's effect on Austin is very similar to that of Bill Graham to San Francisco. If the article does not yet fully express this signicance, a great deal more information is becoming available as many major newspapers are publishing his obituary. SteveHopson 15:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep : This is a keep article for me as Antone's has always been 'light on the hill' for blues players. Here in Australia we in the Blues Society talk about the roots of blues that came from Austin and Cliffords zeal. regards Terry carlan

• Keep. I first heard of Antone's death in an Australian online music magazine Undercover News. Since then, he has had obituaries in a number of significant newspapers indicating widespread acceptance of his notability. He was a significant player in blues and in the Austin music scene which is one of the most significant in the US if not the world. For mine, he is both notable and verifiable. Capitalistroadster 19:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Antone was a big part of the development of modern blues through his work in the industry. Definitely notable. Sorry to hear about his passing, too. Tony Fox 17:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• By looking down the obituary list on this site, one gathers this is not a who's who list. As a whole, Wikipedia contains hundreds, if not thousands, of articles of little or no concern. Clifford Antone was a cog in what put Austin's music scene on the radar. He's not Don Arden or David Geffen, but a bit more relevant to Americana than Six Fat Dutchmen or Slingshot (band) or countless others that are about as relevant.

Vote to keep chaz171 {Note: Chaz171's comment was moved from the Clifford Antone discussion page without editing by SteveHopson.}

• Keep. A simple LexisNexis search yielded hundreds of newspaper articles about Antone, and his role in bringing future blues stars in front of audiences. I rate his importance with someone like Sam Phillips. Aguerriero (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the others. Choalbaton 12:39, 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 17:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sylvain Removille

An executive at a wine company. No evidence of notability supplied. - Motor (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete bordering on speedy, no individual notability asserted or evident. Sandstein 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 21:59, 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. Although a close decision, I am concerned about potential sock/meatpuppets affecting the comments, and I find more credible arguments from the side claiming this is a vanity page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manascrewed

Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB, no other claim to notability suggested. Vanity, created by web-comic's author. User42 08:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment FYI, this isn't actually the second AfD for the comic. The first one was for the actual term used by Magic: The Gathering players. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with User42's reasons. -- Dragonfiend 13:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have placed a copy of this article on Comixpedia. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Absolutely no assertion of notability, Alexa rank is around 3 million. Maybe we should have articles on separate drops of the ocean? - Hahnchen 17:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I have moved this page to "Manascrewed (webcomic)" to differentiate it from the prior unrelated nomination. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Small cult following" tells it all. Fagstein 02:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Vanity is a serious accusation. Can the Nom prove it? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was created by User:Anthson. Anthson is the author's screen-name, see a forum post here. He also notes it in the blog. User42 00:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Soft Keep: Though only because I'm opposed to the wanton killing off of articles for "obscure" webcomics in general. This one is niche but seems to be updating on a reliable schedule, which is (IMHO) an indication of a positive future for a webcomic. On the other hand it seems to be attracting vandals, presumably these londes.com people that Jansky thinks are so against him. Vanity confirmed, author cops to it on his blog. Is that hugely important when there are other editors?--Khaighle 03:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I'm voting keep for several reasons. Yes, the author of the wiki is the guy who originally created the comic, and yes, that's a potential issue. However, the comic is notable enough, relevant to Magic- Wizards of the Coast has several people say they read his comic, including Aaron Forsythe, who linked to Manascrewed in an article on the official site. I think this is reason enough to keep despite the fact that it's a niche comic and that the author created the wiki. The vandalism alone shows that it is notable enough to be targeted. ChocoCid 17:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the above user's very first edit. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Or you could cross-check with IP addresses and see that I've probably made a dozen edits, I just never bothered to log in to make most of my edits. Plus, my account's been around longer than this AFD has been up, which is what Wikipedia policy states is important. If you're going to accuse me of being a sock puppet, you really should do a bit of checking. ChocoCid 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I never accused you of being a sockpuppet, I simply pointed out a fact. I apologise if I have offended you. I'm not aware of any policy that says what is important. According to the deletion policy it's down to the closing admin to decide where community consensus lies. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Actually one of my favorite online comics. However, it isn't notable enough to merit inclusion per WP:WEB. Being linked to by Wizards of the Coast may make it notable within the world of magic players or the magic internet community but not in general. The fact the the author created the article also counts in favour of deletion. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with ChocoCid. The entry was indeed created by the author of the webcomic, but the webcomic is also relevant in the Magic: The Gathering community. 1,000 readers a day seems like it seems pretty "notable" to me. Plenty of other articles on wikipedia are only relevant to a niche, and they are permitted to exist.--Tahngarth
• Weak keep The link from Wizards caught my attention. Perhaps more ideal than keeping it now may be to give it a delete without prejudice. The Magic audience is sizable, so it's a pretty big niche. It's likely that the comic will grow in significance, but it seems a little early at this point. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:47, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 12:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Che’Nelle

fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, deprodded by anon JChap 08:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: After the AFD, if there's a delete, an admin should take care of Chenelle, a duplicate (made by same creator) which I converted to a redirect, and tagged. --Rob 10:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Keep per WP:MUSIC "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" such as VIBE and others. --Rob 10:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep at the properly spelled location. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 14:36, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 12:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-09 in English football, 2009-10 in English football

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is no meaningful information in either of these articles at the moment, nor will there be until at least late 2007 when the World Cup 2010 European qualifying groups will be drawn. Erath 08:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. Unlike something like the Olympics, there just isn't enough to say about these two upcoming seasons to justify articles. 23skidoo 13:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 14:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Although there is not much information shown on these pages at present, more information is likely to be added in the near future (certainly before the end of 2007). Besides these pages do not contain any offensive or overly speculative statements and are therefore not causing any harm. Dan1980 20:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dan1980. Mark272 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- cds^(talk) 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. --Ezeu 01:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. Fagstein 02:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is no need to wipe this useful work. Choalbaton 12:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The seasons will happen anyway and will need to be recreated. Also, as others have said, there is little speculation in either entry and keeping them will do no harm. The potential for expansion is there as more becomes clear about these seasons so there is no real need for deletion. Keresaspa 17:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful information if sparse; why delete it if we're just going to put it back up there later? Minfo 04:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The proposal is to delete 2008-09 in English football as well as 2009-10 in English football (although this AfD is entitled for the former only). The article contains some useful information which will inevitably grow as time passes and is not too far in the future to become stagnant in the meantime. I can appreciate the reason for this nomination but I think that we would be deleting something that would need to be created again all too soon. -- Alias Flood 22:03, 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Lucas

Not mentioned on Manchester City's website. Google doesn't pick up "Nick Lucas" and "Manchester City" in same article. Seems either vanity page or non notable person. Pally01 11:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Considering the person in question just turned 18, and the article's creator has never edited another article, and taking into account the failure of the Google test, I'll say that this is a complete hoax. -- Kicking222 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable at best, hoax at worst. --Ezeu 01:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. The MCFC.co.uk team roster for next season does not open until the end of the june-august transfer window. Hence Joe Hart and Paul Dickov not yet appearing. I am a Man City fan and I must admit I have never seen 'Lucas' play but I spoke to a journalist mate who knows a lot about City and says that the guy is on a youth contract in the academy and is relatively unkown because he is a physical player rather than a technical one (making him a ecent defender). Tezphillips
• Delete not citing sources, not wikified, notability unclear; if he becomes notable, I have no problem with someone creating a proper article Deleteme42 00:36, 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 redirect. -- Kjkolb 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automated lighting

The material from this page has been transfered to Intelligent lighting and merged with content from moving light. This page is now duplicated material and should become a redirect. Happy-melon 09:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• So do it. You don't need to bring it to AfD. Be bold.
  • Done. It's now a redirect to intelligent lighting. Deli nk 15:00, 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 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Besserwisser

Dictionary definition that's been transwikied. The prod was contested with the reasoning "This page should NOT be deleted. Besserwisser is a very good word for a know-it-all-person, and having it described in English would be beneficial. I added some refs and removed the deletion message". And since it's described in English in wiktionary, there's no reason to keep it here. - Bobet 09:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above. michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 10:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Deli nk 14:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sandstein 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Having transwikied this, I feel quite confident about this prod. TheProject 03:21, 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 no consensus to delete, and redirects are cheap. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opal(CERN)

With space is better: Opal (CERN). (Nothing links here) Harp 09:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the redirect does no harm. Mr Stephen 11:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Null. Should be in WP:RFD, where it would be voted down. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move to RFD please. Fagstein 02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a "redirects as a result of an implausible typo" — RJH (talk) 19:43, 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 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Band UK

Non-notable music promotion company (started May 2006); Prod tag removed by author without explaination. Matt Eason 10:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn company fails to meet WP:CORP.  RasputinAXP  c 11:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Deli nk 14:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Ezeu 01:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Molerat 11:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - DavidWBrooks 17:41, 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 no consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aleph(CERN)

With space is better: Aleph (CERN). (Nothing links here) Harp 09:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, the redirect does no harm, and anyway redirects for deletion should go to WP:RFD. JIP | Talk 11:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep as previous. Mr Stephen 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Null. Would need to be at WP:RFD, where it also would get a speedy keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a "redirects as a result of an implausible typo" — RJH (talk) 19:43, 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 all articles. Mailer Diablo 12:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Louis Cardinals/Players of note

These are nothing but lists of names, duplicating already existing categories. Ezeu 09:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Arizona Diamondbacks/Players of note
• Atlanta Braves players of note
• Baltimore Orioles/Players of note
• Chicago Cubs/Players of note
• Cincinnati Reds/Players of note
• Cleveland Indians/Players of note
• Colorado Rockies players of note
• Detroit Tigers players of note
• Florida Marlins players of note
• Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim/Players of note
• Los Angeles Dodgers/Players of note
• Milwaukee Brewers/Players of note
• Minnesota Twins players of note
• New York Yankees players of note
• Notable players for the Philadelphia Phillies
• Oakland Athletics/Players of note
• Pittsburgh Pirates/Players of note
• San Diego Padres: Players of Note
• San Francisco Giants/Players of note
• St. Louis Cardinals/Players of note
• Tampa Bay Devil Rays/Players of note
• Texas Rangers/Players of note
• Toronto Blue Jays/Players of note

• Delete: per nom. Far too arbitrary. These should be highlighted in the team articles - and that's all. -- Wknight94 (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Arbitrary, original research. Category suffices. I don't like articles with / in them. MLA 10:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Neither do most other editors. That's why there's a policy stating that subpages are a bad thing. That's what that naming convention reads like. —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all of them for reasons stated above. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Same logic as earlier AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Mariners/Players of note -- GWO
• Delete - Serve no encyclopaedic purpose that categories don't already cover. The Disco King 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Last year, a user went around and split up the team pages for every MLB team, creating multiple subpages. These are decidedly not the same as the categories, as the categories are much, much larger than the notable players lists. The lists should be merged back into their parent articles so that the MLB team articles match the format of teams in other major sports. - EurekaLott 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Inherently POV with no definable standards. If these lists were designed to be more selective than the categories, they're not doing very well. (As a Cardinals fan, I doubt you'd find anyone in St. Louis who would describe Marlon Anderson or Kiko Calero deserving of being listed next to Scott Rolen, Jim Edmonds or the best player in baseball.) - Fan1967 14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per GWO. ScottW 15:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete THree strikes... Dominick ^(TALK) 18:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - POV, no criteria for inclusion, arbitrary. SM247 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete for reasons cited above. --Disavian 21:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: What grounds are there for speedy delete as opposed to delete? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Right now, only for Houston Astros/Players of note is there, where you can argue it A3 (empty). None of the populated lists qualify. —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the respective main articles and then delete the resulting emptied pages. This was already done for the Houston Astros, although Houston Astros/Players of note exists as a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• With some basic standards (All-Stars and other players of 10 or more years, for instance), these could be useful. The categories include everone with at least one appearance, which isn't particularly helpful. MisfitToys 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think there are already All-Star-related categories. And I'd support categories like "St. Louis Cardinals with ten years experience" - or something to that effect. Just to say "Players of note" is too general. I'm sure someone could think of something more definitive. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I think there are already too many categories like that; most of the All-Star categories could be replaced by articles on the individual games. Some of the bio articles are going to end up with 50 to 60 categories, which IMO is overdoing it. MisfitToys 21:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I won't comment on category count. I've never seen consensus on how many are too many. If, instead of categories, you want lists of people with 5+ years experience on a team, I'm happy with that too. Just not something as generic as "Players of note". It seems like some people run into Joe Shmoe at the grocery store and get an autograph - and that means they qualify as a player of note. That I don't like. Just my opinion... —Wknight94 (talk) 21:47, 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 12:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Norman

both csd and prod tags have been removed with no explanation. User:64.229.179.116 10:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business Trip

• Delete, his book is published by Lulu Press, who appear to be a vanity press. Doesn't appear otherwise notable in the slightest. Seb Patrick 10:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect. Has already been deleted twice, and he is still not notable. His book Business Trip is also on AfD. --Ezeu 01:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Note that User:192.197.71.189 deleted the AfD text from this article, I've reverted it. Paddles ^T_C 07:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. ccwaters 01:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• I don't see why this author should be treated any different from any other published author. His book was published, has sold many copies, and is sold over various vendors including Amazon. Just because he is not yet well known doesn't mean he shouldn't have an article. I googled the guy and there's piles of articles and whatnot about him. I say the article should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.197.71.189 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 June 2006.
• Leave it! I agree with the guy above. This is an author who has put work into his writing. I'm a fan of his writing and he deseverves an article here just as much as any other writer. You guys are jerks for saying he's not "notable" just because you haven't heard of him before. YOU are the vain ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsmith1987 (talk • contribs) 3 June 2006.
  • Suggesting that the subject of an article might not be notable enough for an article in WP is not bad ettiquette, but insulting other editors definitely is. Stay cool. Paddles ^T_C 06:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN & vanity: Amazon.com Sales Rank: None, Yesterday: None ~ trialsanderrors 11:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• I appologize for insulting you. But seriously, there is no real reason to delete this article. You keep saying vanity, but it would only be vanity if the guy made the article himself, which he didn't. I bought a copy of his book and loved it, so I researched the guy and wrote this. You can google him if you like. There IS info out there. I say it's a valid article! Since when is Wikipedia running out of space?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmith1987 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge, as there is consensus this article shouldn't exist but no consensus to remove the content. Johnleemk | Talk 11:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hard to Concentrate

I put a prod tag on it but that was removed with no reasoning left on the talk page or in the edit summary. The song is not going to be released as a single as far as I can tell and the article doesn't include any claim of cultural significance. It's just a song and could be summed up on the album's page. Dismas|^(talk) 10:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Stadium Arcadium. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's a completely non-notable song, and there's nothing worth merging. -- Kicking222 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against It could be merged, but is anyone going to actually merge it, and would it really fit in with the article? The fact that it was written as a wedding song for Flea seems to be important to be fans, so perhaps we should just let it be.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SandwichHat (talk • contribs)

• User's 4th edit.--Chaser T 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Against It is definitely an important song off of Stadium Arcadium because it symbolizes the love lives of some of the band members - Bagel7 08:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I say it should be deleted, but ONLY if information related to that it was the "wedding proposal" be included in the original article. OR I say instead of having an entry for each song, each disc gets an entry and all of these types of notes are combined into that article. Less RE-Re-Redirects. (as some of the songs already have a redirect several times.) ZyphBear 02:43, 9 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 17:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beastly Adventure

• Delete: Non-notable charity or expedition or whatever this is. Nothing on Google except self-added mentions on free sites. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, delusions of grandeur. Vizjim 10:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion, no evidence of notability. JPD (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotion. -- Docether 13:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep

Admittedly there is an element of self promotion here but I hope you will all agree that we are trying to further the interests of our selected charities - any forum is a good one where that is concerned, particularly as Wikipedia is often highly listed in Google (although below our own site). We are also of course, interested in creating awareness about our expedition and for a global rally that we are in the process of trying to establish.

I am a little confused as to what 'Non-notable' means. Does it mean that the expedition is not yet famous enough? Or does it mean that it is pointless? These might both well be the case but one could argue in that sense, that any expedition is "Non-notable". Who chooses what is 'Notable'?

The comment about us being self-mentioning on free sites is only true in as much as our website is hosted on a free provider. If you look at the 'newspaper' tab on our site you will see there has been, and continues to be, considerable interest in our expedition.

I am sure the page will be removed as it looks like the general consensus is for deletion and for the most part I take no issue with the points made above. Vizjiz, however, your comments are a little strange. I am assuming you are some kind of moderator for the site and as such it would seem inappropriate of you to attempt to insult contributors. I can't work out why you have said we have 'delusions of grandeur'. Perhaps driving around the world in rusty old tractor seems 'Grand' to you but I can assure it is not. As for 'delusional', I can only imagine that you either, don't know what it means, or simply like the expression. In any case you are not being particularly constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copropraxia (talk • contribs)

Comment -- I'll address a couple of salient points here.

• "Notability" is a general guideline that determines what topics are "encyclopedic" enough to be included in Wikipedia. A good place to start reading about notability is here. Lack of notability is one of the primary criteria for articles being listed for deletion (and thus ending up here).
• Closely tied to notability is the issue of "self-promotion." A guideline about self-promoting articles (aka "vanity articles") can be found here, which should explain why they're not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
• Actually, there aren't any "moderators" per se on this page. Anyone can suggest that an article should be deleted, and list it for deletion. Similarly, anyone can take a look at an article that's been listed for deletion and add their opinion to the discussion. Vizjim is a simple contributor to this site just like the rest of us, and his / her comments have no "cloud of authority."
• You may want to check out WP:NOT and WP:DEL for some insight into why people are concerned about this article's inclusion in Wikipedia. You can always rewrite this article to provide verifiable evidence of notability, and to satisfy other objections.

Best, Docether 14:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Like Docether said. Having this deleted definitely would not say your expedition is pointless. It sounds like a very good cause and is probably even quite fun - but those aren't the criteria for what is included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is designed to report on things that other people have reported on. Your best bet for saving this would be to elaborate on where your expedition has been written about. The http://www.lrm.co.uk/ link is for a magazine - it doesn't say where your expedition is mentioned. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 14:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Apologies for my previous comment, which broke the WP:BITE guidelines. In compensation, I have done a major re-write of the article, removing the POV, advertising and first-person content, and adding in the newspaper coverage this trek has received. I think this still breaks the notability guidelines, but it's more of a balanced case than it was before. And, by the way, I have no more authority than you do. Vizjim 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Vizjim. In any case it is probably true to say that it is still perhaps too personal for Wikipedia for the moment. When we eventually get on with something more concrete we can come back on and add it. Until then delete away. Cheers.
• Delete. Too bad about Vizjim's cleanup work, but still non-notable. (Unless they get themselves kidnapped or otherwise wind up in dire circumstances on CNN, sadly. Best of luck, at any rate.) Sandstein 19:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but don't get discouraged. I think it would be easy to establish notability in the future. If you finish and you have raised a ton of money, or set a notable record, or someone else starts doing it, etc. Aguerriero (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Simply a non-notable event. -- Kicking222 22:06, 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 12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Zahn

Unreferenced biography with potentially libellous statements. Possibly intended as an attack page. Delete, or... add verifiable references for his notability, and for the heinous deeds attributed to this person. — May. 31, '06 [10:51] <freak|talk>

• Keep. Did you check the links? —Jonathan D. Parshall _{11:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)}

With all due respect, did you? PJM 11:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No serious references for content of page, let alone notability. JPD (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom. I checked both links and do not consider them to be reliable sources. PJM 11:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, and the links are rubbish. J Milburn 12:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 12:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• True or no, it's clearly NN. Delete. Seb Patrick 13:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 14:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; links are indeed rubbish. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as attack page. Molerat 11:11, 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 12:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jelly Bean Dream Machine

Non-notable... thing from nn comic book (1 irrelevant Ghit for ["All Things Awesome" Luke Mitchell]). Prod removed by anon IP. Matt Eason 10:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Also unsourced. PJM 11:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as above Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 12:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, unsourced. --Terence Ong 14:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Deli nk 14:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. - Motor (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Scientizzle 22:58, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 08:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexis Eudy

Non notable bio. Crystallina 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Nothing in the article is an assertion of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Her shows became famous in the North West is a vague claim. Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 11:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Beware possible slander/attack in "high class escort". -- GWO
• Speedy delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 12:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sounds like the author has a vendetta against the personWildthing61476 14:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Yeah... What they said. --Dakart 21:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under WP:CSD A6, as attack page against real person and probably libelous. This should have been gone hours ago. --Metropolitan90 03:45, 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: Speedily deleted - a completely empty article. - Mike Rosoft 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nissan pennzoil

Three lines of bizarre non-encyclopedic information without context that might better go in an article, although I have no idea what the created content refers to. ElizabethFong 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a couple of mistakes in doing the deletion nomination, apologies. I also now believe that the appropriation action is Speedy Delete because it is Nonsense. --ElizabethFong 13:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nominator is right, clear case of speedy delete. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - I have added {{db-nocontext}} BigDT 13:44, 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 all. Johnleemk | Talk 11:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You Can't Miss The Bear (Weeds episode)

AFD overlaps with List of Weeds episodes which does not qualify for expension into articles according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The following articles were added as they were under separate requests for deletion, but had the exact same rationale. joturner 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Free Goat (Weeds episode)
• Good Shit Lollipop (Weeds episode)
• Fashion of the Christ (Weeds episode)
• Lude Awakening (Weeds episode)
• Dead in the Nethers (Weeds episode)
• Higher Education (Weeds episode)
• The Punishment Light (Weeds episode)
• The Punishment Lighter (Weeds episode)
• The Godmother (Weeds episode)

• Comment. Where in the above cited WikiProject is any criteria given? I see none. 23skidoo 13:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Good point, my error. The information is part of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes to quote:
  • First, create an article on the television show.
  • Once there's enough independently verifiable information to do so, create articles on each season, or some other logical division, of the show.
  • Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes, spin the information from episodes out into their own articles.

All the episode articles contain the same information as List of Weeds episodes, which already is quite minimal. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand each. Nothing wrong with the list AND the individual articles of a notable TV show. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You are volunteering to find sufficient citable material to write something about the relation of these episodes in a fictional universe to the real world we live in? (information that won't be just as easily listed in a proper List of episodes or season summary. Weeds hardly is in the same order of notability as StarTrek, Star Gate, The Simpsons or even Lost ) We have TV IV for episode guides. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Not that my volunteering is required in order to justify my position, but if I had seen the show and was a fan, I would. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator; each episode needs to be notable and have at least some information related to it in order for it to have an individual article. joturner 02:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was going to say merge, but the individual pages have no information to merge. --TorriTorri 02:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Maybe I would have voted merge or keep had their been any content whatsoever in the articles. There is absolutely no content whatsoever which isn't covered by the List article. - Hahnchen 05:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if and until there is something worth writing about. --Calton | Talk 05:44, 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 keep. moink 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Moonies

Non-notable per WP:BAND. Was originally tagged as a {{db-band}}, but I removed the tag as it did not seem to meet A7. Was prodded by me and then deprodded by an anon. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete this article. It is still in progress. Tom Breen

Delete. Probable vanity or fancruft. No indication of the band being notable despite substantial detail of the band's career. mgekelly 12:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete this article. It is still in progress. I have made considerable improvements to the original article. Tom Breen

• Comment - Just as a friendly point, the article hasn't been nominated for deletion because of its quality, but because the nominator feels the band aren't notable enough for WP, so improving it probably won't hold much sway. I have, however, outlined below why I feel the band meet WP's notability requirements (it's for others to agree or disagree, now!) Seb Patrick 13:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. They may not have charted, but the article references (though does not link to) reviews in both NME and The Independent, in addition to a link to a review on BBC Manchester online, which I believe meets :

Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). (WP:MUSIC)

In addition, they have been on :

a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country

...as a Google search (22,800 hits for "the moonies" band, by the way) will attest. I personally saw them play once at Oxford's Zodiac (a notable venue a significant distance from their home city) supporting the well-known band Easyworld. In addition, the article has been edited by a number of users over a long period of time, so I don't think it's vanity, either. Seb Patrick 12:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 15:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No offence (this is a debate, after all), but seeing as I've pointed out two ways in which they meet the criteria listed in WP:MUSIC (and that document suggests that only one criterion should need to be filled in order to meet notability requirements), could you explain why you feel they don't? Seb Patrick 15:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctant keep per Seb Patrick. mgekelly 16:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, reluctantly, as per Seb. Those press clippings need to be integrated with the article rather than hanging on the end like an album cover, though. Ziggurat 21:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Seb Patrick. Sure, I haven't heard of them, and probably never will again, but they easily pass WP:MUSIC. -- Kicking222 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup - media coverage and national tours cover WP:MUSIC, but this reads more like a tribute page than a encyclopedia article. B.Wind 06:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this meets the music page Yuckfoo 06:35, 8 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 that the article was speedy deleted by User:Cyde (CSD A7 - utterly non-notable MSN group) Garion96 ^(talk) 14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Smash Brothers League

Was on {{prod}} , but template was removed. It seems to be a non notable msn group, with only a few google search results. Among them two from wikipedia. Garion96 ^(talk) 11:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Seems a shame to do it to an article with so much work in it - but it's written in the first person and appears to be completely NN. As I've said elsewhere on AfD today, it'd be nice to see some "gaming" notability guidelines to point clans and leagues towards. Anyway, Delete, if not Speedy, even. Seb Patrick 12:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed a shame. A lot of work has obviouly been put into it. Garion96 ^(talk) 12:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed put a lot of work into it and deleting it just means I have wasted my time. I am a Canadian in the North and wasting time is not tolerated. By the way, the links aren't Google search and just to let you know, when the Super Smash Bros. Brawl game comes out for the Wii with the Nintendo Wi-Fi connection, this whole thing will be brought online with a new league and human controlled players online. It will be just like the site with the titles, tournaments and monthly events except the characters shall be controlled by YOU!! You can sign up NOW for the new league. Just follow the guidelines listed on the MSN Group News and Updates page. Thank you for your time! NEPats17^(talk) 9:09, 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 speedy delete. — FireFox ^user_talk 13:30, 31 May '06

[edit] Nikki Grahame

Non notable Big Brother UK series 7 contenstant. — FireFox ^user_talk 12:13, 31 May '06 12:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, only known for being a BB housemate. Sweetie Petie 12:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Big Brother UK series 7. --Merovingian {T C @} 12:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as no Big Brother contestant should have their own page, and every other housemate AfD have been deleted. -- cds^(talk) 12:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't necessarily agree that no BB contestant is worthy of a page, as a handful have gone on to notable fame since leaving the house (whether as TV presenters, such as Brian Dowling and Craig Phillips, or simply through being Jade Goody); but certainly agree that the fame of current contestants isn't sufficient to justify their own page, and subsequent fame of course can't be judged at this stage. Delete, then, until she becomes adequately famous post-series. Which she won't. Seb Patrick 12:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 12:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep C'mon!! She is the most annoying thing ever and i need an outlet to vent my severe anger. Please? --MobberleyKirsty 12:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• But Wikipedia is not a place to do that. --Merovingian {T C @} 12:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Aww! But please!! PLEASE!!!--MobberleyKirsty 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• No, the rest of the Internet should suffice. --Merovingian {T C @} 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• www.blogger.com. I'm sure ireallyhatenikkioffbigbrother.blogspot.com must be available, right? ;-) Seb Patrick 12:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep . Er, yeah... Mikki rules!—Preceding unsigned comment added by MobberleyKirsty (talk • contribs)