Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 2 May 4 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] May 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 based on nom's withdraw, no delete vote, and the recommendation that articles be nominated individually.. --Hetar 03:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circle of Death (drinking game)

An unsourced article describing a drinking game. It doesn't assert any notability. Prod was removed without comment.

I am also nominating the following articles because they have similar problems:

Nomination withdrawn. I can see I'm not going to get a consensus on all of these, so I guess we'll have to relist them all separately. I hope someone else can do it because it took me forever to list it this way, and I simply don't have the time to relist them separately. Aplomado - UTC 00:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. I agree that some of the above might not merit an article, but by lumping them all together you lost me. There are some games on this list that simply do not belong here. I haven't taken a survey, but most kids know Old Maid. Most places I've lived know the games President (game) and Quarters. Fluit 00:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well then where is the notability??? We can remove Old Maid from this list if it need be, but tell me how the rest of these do not violate WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information item #8. Aplomado - UTC 01:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I fail to see what's indiscriminate about the article on Old Maid (for example). By that criterion, you may as well add Hearts, Bridge, and Cribbage to your list (or even Monopoly), and I'll say Keep on all of them. I agree that this isn't supposed to be a "how to" manual, but it's pretty hard to talk about a game without discussing the rules. Where WP:NOT would apply in an article on a game would be inclusion of an in-depth strategy guide. If you honestly think Old Maid (or other games, that's just my example) isn't notable, put a "{notable}" tag on the entry. Fluit 01:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Alright, Old Maid is no longer on the list. Aplomado - UTC 01:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. The point wasn't Old Maid per se. A lot of the games on the list don't belong. badlydrawnjeff sums it all up. Fluit 01:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
None of these belong, drinking games or not. If drinking games have 250 books, imagin ewhat sober games have. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
You're not getting the point. These pages are not sourced nor do they assert any notability. See: WP:VFD. It is perfectly easy to source that a popular card game is indeed popular. Providing an instruction manual is not an acceptable substitute. You people seem to be suggesting that every card game and every drinking game is ipso facto notable. I don't see how that jives with Wikipedia rules. Aplomado - UTC 01:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
They can be sourced, they're notable, and can be verified by reliable, published sources. They easily jive. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep to all. Not only is it impossible to figure out one from the other this way, but we know full well that drinking games are notable, and we can easily find at least 200 published references to them if we wanted to. Unnecessary AfD. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep all as violation of WP:POINT [1]. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 01:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • How, pray-tell? And by the way, are any of you actually reading any of the articles nominated, or are you simply reacting to seeing more than one article listed? (BTW, as a note to administrators, Naconkantari originally removed the prods without comment) Aplomado - UTC 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I did leave a comment on the AfD where I got your comment from [2]. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 01:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again, you fail to indicate what about this is in violation of WP:POINT. It is listed properly in accordance to normal AfD standards. Aplomado - UTC 01:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist separately. There are 38 different articles listed here. It would make editors' tasks easier if we don't have to offer complex votes like keeping 17, deleting 15 and merging 6 of them, or whatever. --Metropolitan90 01:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • They are listed properly as according to official policy for multiple entries. See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. They all have the exact same problem. (i.e., no notability asserted and no sources) Therefore, either all of them go or none of them go. Aplomado - UTC 01:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • So since we can find over 200 published sources that can act as references and easily demonstrate notability, will you be retracting this? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Existence does not equal notability. You people are crazy if you think that FizzBuzz is notable enough to warrant its own article. That's all I have to say. If you all want to keep these articles depite their blatant violations of numerous Wikipedia rules, namely notability, verifiability, indsicriminate collection, etc. etc., be my guest. Aplomado - UTC 01:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I guess I'm crazy, then. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist separately. Some are speedy keeps; some are almost certainly NN. -Sean Curtin 01:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is ridiculous. --Yath 02:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, although I really do see the nom's argument holding for some of these. These have to be prod'ed or relisted separately. Recommend withdrawal of nomination. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 02:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Nomination withdrawn per Samir. Aplomado - UTC 02:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep just because of the group listing. There is absolutely no good reason to list 40 articles as bulk on AfD. Relist separately, and maybe some will go, but no way can anyone vote to kill 40 articles sight unseen. --Deville (Talk) 02:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So out of genuine curiousity, what is the point of the "multiple entries" section of "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion?" Should there be a limit of entries listed in such a method? I did it this way because I thought it was the proper method. Aplomado - UTC 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parapoliticology

Neologism. Gadren 00:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. "...is a word coined in 2006" 'nuff said. Fan1967 00:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur Delete for reasons noted above SailorfromNH Talk - Contrib 01:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 02:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Arbusto 02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 03:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 08:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete term coined in 2006 by Loren Coleman, posted by lcoleman@foo. So no signs of WP:VAIN there, then. Just zis Guy you know? 09:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with above JBEvans 11:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. It seems the author has blanked it anyway, so can it be speedied? --Tango 12:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism. Possibly a vanity article; it has also been blanked by the author, except for the AFD notice. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above ^demon[yell at me] /12:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jaiekah

Zero Google hits (nn)/more suited to Wiktionary. Gadren 00:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CityTherapy.com

Advertisement. Oh, and while I'm on the subject -- what's the best way to deal with srticles that are blatant ads? Should they come here, or is there a speedy deletion criterion that applies? Gadren 00:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Nope, unfortunately. So, Delete Ashibaka tock 01:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam --Deville (Talk) 02:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if not expanded for notability. Arbusto 02:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, spam. · rodii · 02:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete current article fails WP:WEB. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 03:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. See this if you're interested in possibly making advertising a speedy deletion category. Grandmasterka 05:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisement. Metamagician3000 06:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam. I have removed the advertorial leaving a verifiable one-liner. Just zis Guy you know? 09:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB, spam, ad. --Terence Ong 10:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with above. JBEvans 12:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. --Tango 12:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable advertisement. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. SorryGuy 05:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. ProhibitOnions 12:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 06:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Unit Zanzibar

Non-notable machinima production. No Google hits, apparently only two episodes, and no entry on machinima.com. Prod previously removed. — TKD::Talk 01:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dancecraft

  • del. Much as I like the term, it is a neologism, with wikipedia:verifiability problems. `'mikka (t) 01:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete appears neologistic.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Deizio 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment google finds nearly 10000 hits, but I'm not sure how many, if any, actually refer to this meaning. --Tango 12:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism, dancecruft, ;) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per neologism. SorryGuy 05:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. ProhibitOnions 12:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] *.gay

Probably a hoax. No references provided. Google turns up no search results. Could be genuine but total lack of references could be an indication towards non notability. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Provisional Delete As nominator. Willing to change if references & notability proof is provided. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, may very well not be notable, but seems like it's not a hoax --Deville (Talk) 02:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    The link you provide refers to a 1999 show called Gay. I'm not sure that's the same thing.
  • Delete, fails to assert notability. --Terence Ong 10:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax or not it is advertising in my view. JBEvans 12:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find any mention of it on google. The spanish link refers to "*gay" not "*.gay", but I can't find that on google either. Even if it is real, if it can't be found, it can't be very notable. --Tango 12:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a possible hoax. Milagros Ceballos has an IMDB profile, but her only film credit was from 1968. Martin Aiello has nothing, no google hits. The name itself is impossible to google... IMDB has nothing on it, either. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete posible hoax, definetive non-notable (I set the Hoax tag). Mariano(t/c) 06:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, Keep. Petros471 11:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional theocracy

This page should be deleted; it is nothing more than an attempt to define a buzzword used to discredit political groups/parties based on abject speculation of their aims. michael talk 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, first I can see the nom's point as to where this might be going POV-wise, but aside from that, it seems to me that if the author cannot come up with even one example of this putative political setup then it is a neologism. --Deville (Talk) 02:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand it is more than just a buzzword. It seems to have the same relationship to a theocracy that a constitutional monarchy has to a monarchy. See this list of political parties that advocate a constitutional theocracy.[3]. (Prior sentence struck as it appears to be an out of date Wikipedia "mirror".) It is a key word for this journal published academic paper.[4]. This appears to be a newspaper article using the term.[5]. TIME magazine had an article in its Nov. 24, 2003 issue that used the term. GRBerry 02:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The analogy above doesn't seem to be true. A constitutional monarchy is de jure a monarchy, but de facto a democracy (generally). The current article describes a de jure theocracy in which the officers of government are not part of the theocratic hierarchy. If it were truly analogous to a constitutional monarchy, it might be used to define the later Prince-Bishops, or the status of Andorra, where the Bishop of Urgell is co-head of state. Choess 22:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Borderline transwiki candidate, but a search on Google Scholar turns-up six hits on "Constitutional theocracy", mostly referring to historical examples (Massachusetts Puritan colony, Iran circa 1988, etc). -- MarcoTolo 03:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the excellent research done by the keepers above. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Deville. This looks like an article that has little use but to mislable political opponents. The research above seems to indicate a term that is largely unknown and unused. --Ajdz 06:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or send to Wiktionary. This turns up 8 times at Google Books If it's a sloppily-used buzz-phrase, an intelligent explanation of it on Wikipedia could be valuable.--HJMG 07:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per HJMG. Reyk YO! 07:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete at this stage if only 8 books refer to it, because it isn't even a rock solid definition. If 8 books referred to a rock-solidly defined concept or theory then it might make it.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, 8 books only? That means we have very few sources to rely on and its non-notable. --Terence Ong 10:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the above. It seems to define precisely what is happening in Iraq today and is likely to become a widespread term. Wouldn't object to seeing it in the wikitionary thingy. JBEvans 12:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Might I note that there is a real danger of 'Constitutional Theocracy' eventually being absurdly defined in the article as religious political parties operating in a non-religious political system. If used appropriately 'Constitutional Theocracy' would be used to describe a country like Iran or to a lesser extent, Israel. It is of my opinion that if this article is kept it will simply be used for Original Research to discredit certain political parties and lobby groups through the pages of wikipedia. michael talk 12:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning transwiki. It can be applied as a theory, and may have been applied to some regimes, but is it a notable, defined system? The links above (from an academic paper with less than 1000 views, and a baptist news agency) don't really move me too much. Might be a good one to WP:CHILL on until it is actually an accepted term in the mainstream media for a system of government. Deizio 12:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The concept appears to be notable enough, wheras the article is somewhat lacking... Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article could use some sprucing up, though. Checkerpaw 19:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It has potential. Kirbytime 20:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The term doesn't appear to be well-defined as yet. It can be re-created if scholarly use develops. Choess 22:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Most references in google are just copies of this page or other worthless stuff. Looking at the history page, the author listed the Constitution Party as one advocating a Constutional theocracy, a blatantly false statement. To me, that says that there is little of value here - this article is just going to be glorified name-calling and wishful thinking. BigDT 02:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article does nothing but define the meanings of constitutional and theocracy, then smush them togther into one phrase. Adds about as much to the article on theocracy as an article entitled Red Pen would add to the article about Pens. Tomb Ride My Talk 04:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've added material to the article which I hope illustrates some of my reasons for voting "keep".--HJMG 07:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - If the article were only going to be about Iran's system of government, that would be a no-brainer to keep ... but judging from the history of the article, it's begging to be an edit war article where anyone to the right of any particular editor will be branded as a Constutional Theocrat. BigDT 22:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'll have to agree there. While HJMG's edits solve the present problem with the article, it could be too easily open for misuse.
Comment - If you are concerned about it becoming a problem, keep it on your watch list. That appears to be the spirit of sofixit. GRBerry 16:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. The two words have been used together by various people over the years (although not necessarily in English), but this hardly means there is a clearly defined term. ProhibitOnions 12:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep JeffBurdges 15:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge I would merge it into Theocracy. Midnightcomm 03:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's a weak article (it doesn't explain the constitutional part), but the topic is perfectly valid. Peter Grey 07:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep The title isn't POV. Nor would I call it origonal research. Roodog2k 02:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep It's a valid and rather interesting concept in political science. Actually, it would be a core term, and I'm changing my "weak keep" to "keep", as we should have an article by that name. Not much done with it in this article but certainly encyclopedic in nature, and I don't see any POV problems difficult to overcome. Apollo 10:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yogos

Does not meet WP:CORP regarding products (i.e. the product has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works). Deprodded on the grounds that it "Is a Kellogg's product", which does not seem to automatically make something notable or worthy of its own article, imho. Kuzaar 01:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 02:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 02:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Add to the list already in Kellogg Company, then delete. (On a related note, at first glance there might be quite a few entries in that list that don't need their own article) -- Hirudo 08:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn product. --Terence Ong 10:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete after adding to Kellogg's page, agree with Hirudo. JBEvans 12:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Move content to Kellogg Company. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nately

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 02:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweet Alice

This article was nominated for deletion by an anon user (User:68.5.246.25). As anons can't create pages, they were unable to create a discussion page for the deletion. Their reason for deletion was posted on the talkpage, and is reproduced below.

I do not believe that this album should be included on this website. Sweet Alice is not a real album and is not even considered part of Alice in Chains's discography. Allmusicguide does not account for this album, nor does amazon, and when I type "sweet alice" in google the only page it links to is this wikipedia article. Not only that, but on both Alice in Chains DVDs, Their unplugged performance and their video compilation, on their "Discography" section, it does not even list "Sweet Alice" as a release from the band. This page should be removed because people believe that this is the debut release from that band when in fact it was not.

Saying again, this is a proceedual nomination. I have no view on the outcome. -- Saberwyn 05:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alice in Chains bootleg info list over 40 bootleg albums by this band. I don't see how this one is notable. None of the others had an article here that I could find. Kevin 07:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bootlegcruft? :-) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unofficial releases should not have articles unless they have a very specific significance. 99.9% of bands do a demo tape sometime or another. Ac@osr 15:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it could be moved mentioned in Alice in Chains article, but apparently in the Talk page they don't want to mention it. -- ReyBrujo 17:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Metal-Archives.com says it's a demo release. 64.142.89.105 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Metal-archives is wrong. The cover they offer matches the cover of the bootleg release, and the tracklists match. Any legit 1989 demo would have been released on cassette anyway, as pressing CDs was far too expensive for a demo release. The demos contained on the release are actual AiC demos, but Sweet Alice is not an official release. more info -- ChrisB 03:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ViPNet

Delete — This non-notable software fails the WP:SOFTWARE criteria and is associated with articles promoting the INFOTECS company. It failed the "prod" process when the creator removed the tag without explanation. Smells like spam to me. JonHarder 02:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Spam-vert, no statement of notability. -- MarcoTolo 02:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam advertisement, appear to have one notable google hit on the first page... Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 16:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 17:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 05:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanation - I am sorry for not paying my attention enough to Wikipedia's policies, this is my mistake and that why deleted tag without notice.sorry. I have re-written this article. I hope it is better now. the idea of this article is to share a little about another vpn technology like IPSec or SSL. --AlexeyN 10:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedied. Joyous | Talk 02:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Petri

Delete - non-notable, vanity article Fabricationary 02:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, nn-bio --Deville (Talk) 02:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate wasSpeedy deleted as A7 band. Capitalistroadster 10:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Angel RIZ

Delete Vanity, no claim to notability: Librarianofages 02:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)}}

  • Delete. "When you here the word DJ Angel RIZ, you maybe think who is that." Sums it all up. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 03:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per A7: No assertion of notability. Also, according to the article, it is "Copyright DJ Angel RIZ". Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought/research. Kuzaar 03:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Or, for that matter, A8 (as copyrighted material). -- MarcoTolo 04:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisement/nn. Metamagician3000 09:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nonsense and non-notable. --Nlu (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linda christas

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

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

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Non-notable person/educational theory. No coverage in mainstream media that I could find. The {{prod}} tag was removed, so I'm listing here. Kevin 03:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article does not address the subject of its title, instead preferring to talk about a theory which doesn't appear to occur in a phrase anywhere on google. Kuzaar 03:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as edu-cruft, lack of notability. And this part "For verification of copyright permissions, appropriate contact information is available at hcirillo@lindachristas.org" suggests Speedy Delete A8 might apply as a restriction of the GFDL requirements. -- MarcoTolo 04:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Linda Christas' educational theory is an avant garde blending of several doctoral works. It is true that linda christas theory is not as yet in the popular culture, but I would hope that one doesn't have to be a known item like Chubby Checker for the public to accept the theory as a valid addition to the evoltion of educational thought.
After all, if we were simply to look at what we've got out there in terms of established theory, we end up with a top-down disaster. The reason that the United States is in such trouble educationally is that anything that doesn't smack of central control doesn't get a hearing. Surely, that is the very reason for Wikipedia, to give the world up-to-the-minute insights in terms of something that might save kids from the trauma of being in a system patterned after the Prussian military of the 19th century. Both John Dewey and William Harris loved Prussian military manuals. Therefore, most of the educational systems in the world depend on klaxons, bells and whistles, and, of course, punishment to force children to bow their heads. That may have been great for the 19th century, but Linda Christas and its current theories need to be established by definition. I mean why go out of our way to keep only the status quo. If we follow the advice of the previous writers, we will be capping the availability of information necessary for educational progress. I mean linda christas theory has been championed by many well know professionals. For example, a Pulitzer Prize winner, Efrem Zimbalist, endorses linda christas theory wholeheartedly. That is the system that is used at the Curtis institute. Come on fellas, give this theory a break. Sounds like you guys wouldn't have liked Copernicus either, until the gentleman was listed by google of course.
Linda Christas Parent Volunteer (Help Desk - Not an impartial source. My kids are subject to this theory which was explained to me before I enrolled them. Hook line and sinker, I BELIEVE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.9.144 (talk • contribs)
  • Personally, my vote for deletion has nothing to do with my belief (pro or con) in a subject, only in whether keeping an article improves Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. By all means, if you can craft Linda christas into an encyclopedic article with a neutral point-of-view, please do - I would enjoy reading it. As it stands, however, the entry is confusing, un-sourced, and makes little or no verifiable claims of notability. -- MarcoTolo 04:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm really not sure what you mean. When I go to an encyclopedia I want a general reference, a definition for general discussion purposes. For me, the kind of thing I'm hearing that is "best" for Wikipedia I wouldn't understand, and, therefore such an encycolpedia I wouldn't use, and voila, therefore whatever "wisdom" was to be found within the machinations of higher level thought would be lost on me. I say that simple and direct is good. I certainly understand the entry as it has been presented. But, I have no idea what you mean by "un-sourced." Stated differently, I can understand the encyclopedic entry for "boron" without having to have an explanation of quark spin theory. I suppose that would be more complete, but it wouldn't be neutral. Just ask Hawking. His best seller is a best seller because he doesn't confuse the issues with "sourcing." He just gives us the simple definition of the terms like "singularity" and everyone loves his material....for the layman you know. Isn't that really what Widipedia is for. If we are going to make this encyclopedia unreachable to the masses, me included in that bunch, I cry foul........I say foul! and for shame gentlemen. Lily (Parent Volunteer. Linda Christas)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.9.144 (talk • contribs)
  • 'Keep' Being somewhat familiar with the well-known authors of which the Linda Christas theory is a blend, I find this to be a worthy addition. Several thousand people worldwide appear to be very familiar with this theory, therefore it is important to include in order to have an 'unabridged' encyclopedia. Google is not the final authority, imo.... it often comes up very short for me when doing research (admittedly specialized).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech27 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Just dropped into the Help Desk. What in the world is "notability?" If we consider children notable, then linda christas theory is notable. In other words, as another parent of a child subject to linda christas theory, I understand and like what I've read here. I was an early Waldorff school convert. But, there were some additions that I would have liked to see in Steiner's thinking. And, linda christas theory is my answer. Please keep this entry. I will volunteer to improve it over time, but we need to have a seed around which to work, and this article works for me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.9.144 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. per nominator. Also a note, the IP address comments will surely be disregarded. (Notorious4life 05:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete It may very well be a decent tutoring service/child advocacy, although I really can't say through all the hype on the various websites. However, it is not notable. The so-called Linda christas theory is simply what tutoring services have done in most communities for years -- and have helped many students, although it is not normally packaged so well. Ted 05:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete on the merits of the article. As for "Linda Christas' educational theory is an avant garde blending of several doctoral works. It is true that linda christas theory is not as yet in the popular culture, but I would hope that one doesn't have to be a known item like Chubby Checker for the public to accept the theory as a valid addition to the evoltion of educational thought." well that falls under both not a crystal ball and bad rhetoric. Teke 06:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and other delete commentary. Fluit 06:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, although I'm almost tempted to keep as an article on controversy surrounding the "educational" method. Apparently there's a Rip Off Report discussion about her [6]. --Alan Au 07:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poems about Los Angeles

My prod removed. This is just a dump of a bunch of people's poems, thoroughly unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Delete. Grandmasterka 03:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Most heartily agreed. If the user wants free all-purpose web hosting, they can find it elsewhere, where it is being offered. Delete.Jazzcello 03:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a blog. Kuzaar 03:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Kuzaar -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 03:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOT in many, many ways. -- MarcoTolo 04:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a blog.--Jersey Devil 04:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep it around. The first 3 entries for 'Los Angeles Poems' include random song lyrics and L. Ron Hubbard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.29.104 (talk • contribs) .
Comment. Okay, I swear I don't mean this sarcastically: So what? Teke


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transmission of Feminism

It is not clear to me what this article is about. The text that is there contains many POV statements, and despite the numerous links, the way that the text is put together seems all too much like original research. There is some good stuff, but pretty much all of it already exists in feminism and related articles. Most of all, the topic is so unclear that it's not encyclopedic NatusRoma | Talk 03:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Seems written more as a bad high school feminism paper and asserts no notability or clarity as an encyclopedic article. (Notorious4life 05:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete. Most of the article doesn't seem to be directly about the subject. I don't see any evidence of this being a field of study of itself. Kevin 06:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- a rambling and longwinded duplication of other articles. Reyk YO! 07:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong 11:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original "research". Just zis Guy you know? 12:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, OR, adds nothing to existing feminism coverage. Deizio 13:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 16:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete random opinions, OR,ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. SorryGuy 05:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: Original research for a very narrow meaning of feminism, US-centric, NPOV nightmare. Peter Grey 07:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persquareyard and Persquareyard.com

This article is nothing more than spam. The website has an Alexa ranking of 240,652 and nothing else to indicate an attempt at meeting WP:WEB. As such, delete. --Hetar 04:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BitTorrent performance

original research kenasuta 04:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: definately OR. --Hetar 04:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nice, but yes, its OR. -- MarcoTolo 04:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. And above that. Kevin 07:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete proclaimed OR.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR. Shame. Once published in a reliable source it looks like it would make a good section in the main torrent article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 12:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Blnguyen. JIP | Talk 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Boehmer

Appears to be a biography of a non-notable musician in a non-notable high school orchestra with a comical reference to also founding a nation. Possible vanity article with possible hoax. Yahoo! search for "Daniel Boehmer" and "Volti Subito Trio" finds 8 hits, including Wikipedia and the high school newspaper. [7] Ataricodfish 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volti Subito Trio

NN high school orchestrial group which brings up 24 hits on Yahoo!, including Wikipedia as well as their high school. I also nominated one of the group's members, Daniel Boehmer, above. Ataricodfish 04:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WHA Super Junior League

Delete. The league itself is not notable, and this article contains uncertain information about future events and little information aside from external links. (Notorious4life 04:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC))

  • Delete. I'm not generally opposed to articles of this sort, but this one doesn't make any claim of notability. --Alan Au 07:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is a shaky enterprise at best in the hockey world and not recognized by USCHO. All the information here can be found on World Hockey Association (proposed). RGTraynor 13:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge First, I really think the fact that Notorious finding the league not notable is not a valid point for deletion. I, as well, believe the league is important enough to be documented, the struggles of the WHA should are important enough in the hockey community to be covered on Wikipedia. My issue is that it has already been covered, as stated by Traynor, making the article unnecessary. DMighton 07:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ang Mo

Fujian/Taiwanese word that doesn't have nearly as much common usage nor as neutral a context as the article suggests, and in any case is a foreign word rarely seen in English works. Delete or, if one might insist on keeping, transwiki. --Nlu (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • No vote. Might be a salvageable disambiguation page, but the current article focuses too much on a dic-def of unknown notability. --Alan Au 07:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No Vote. As per above --Leidiot 12:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, this is a term commonly use in Singapore and the Hokkien as well as Teochew speaking community in Malaysia. Its as common as the Cantonese word Gweilo which means the same meaning. Definitely not a dicdef, but the article can be improved. --Terence Ong 14:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable epithet. Very widespread among the Singaporean community. It is rarely seen in Western works yes, but it is widespread among Singaporean culture. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As above. Needs expansion on the definition. Sandstorm6299 18:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunted Fish

Orphaned page of a NN college band where the article admits to having no recordings, failed WP:Music. Yahoo! search of "Hunted Fish" and band member "Julian Ho" finds two pages including the Wiki article. [8] Ataricodfish 05:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. Dismas|(talk) 05:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, bedroom musicians, several miles south of WP:MUSIC. Deizio talk 14:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Gwernol 18:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 22:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Guys (The Show)

Completing nomination by User:Kennansoft. No vote. TimBentley (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • This is a local production by several teenagers. The shows creators have all had their own individual articles userfied and one of the shows creators is the same user who originated the incomplete nomination. There is no IMDb page for this creation, and no distributors have picked up the production. The show's website has no Alexa ranking. I had a tough time filtering out irrelevant hits from the Google search (due to a name so common as The Show) but [9] yields only 33 results. Delete per WP:N and the above reasons. --Hetar 05:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn group of guys with video cameras who know how to have a good time. Deizio talk 14:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting, the original author (it's been edited since then) is one of the actors, and is the one who added the afd tag. Delete: non-notable per above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimBentley (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete and then re-create when TV.com and IMDb have it. --Slgrandson 16:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Hetar. JIP | Talk 16:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was The result of the discussion was no consensus, hence keep by default. Metamagician3000 15:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audra Williams

Her most notable achievements are writing an article for This Magazine and moderating an internet forum. This falls far short of what a reasonable person would find to be notable or encyclopedic. Homey 05:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete on the grounds that it appears as a vanity article, completely unencyclopedic, and uses Livejournal as a reference and external link. (Notorious4life 05:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete, forthright yet nn individual per WP:BIO. Doesn't qualify as an actor or author, and when being an internet forum mod and blogger becomes grounds for notability the battle against systemic bias will have been lost forever. Deizio talk 15:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup to make more encyclopedic. Barely notable for the "babble" controversy (for which I've seen coverage outside of the rabble community). —GrantNeufeld 17:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'd be very interested to see mainstream media reports, which would be required to turn a forum mod into a notable figure. Even if the event was borderline notable (not convinced), it certainly doesn't automatically confer notability on those involved, and entitle them to write their own life story in a serious encyclopedia. Do you honestly believe this individual satifies the criteria at WP:BIO? Deizio talk 21:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm shifting my position to Weak Keep, based on further review of the discussion here. —GrantNeufeld 22:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 17:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Keep per GrantNeufeld. Ardenn 17:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A very Weak Keep per User:GrantNeufeld; User:Deiz has a point. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Being fired as a forum moderator seems awfully thin gruel for mainstream notability. Choess 22:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For starters, this isn't a vanity article; I know the person who wrote it and can vouch for the fact that they aren't Audra and don't know her personally. But the bottom line for me is that I genuinely don't see how she can be deemed any less notable than Connie Wilkins, who's had an article for months whose notability nobody has ever challenged. The justification given on Audra's talk page so far is that Connie has been a candidate for the Conservative Party nomination in Kingston (except that AFD consensus has already made clear that unsuccessfully contesting a party nomination isn't a valid criterion of WP notability) and that she's organized political campaigns (which, as Audra's article makes clear, Audra has too, so it doesn't constitute a difference between them.) I think they're both keepable, personally, but my bottom line is that whatever happens, Connie and Audra need to be treated equivalently; there's absolutely no valid claim to be made that Connie is more notable than Audra is. Bearcat 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment AfD debates are considered on their own merits. It's better to resist the "If A is OK, why not B?" argument because no two people are the same, unless we're talking 5 year old twins who play the same character on a soap opera. If you believe another individual to be non-notable, that's a separate matter. WP:Relative notability to Connie Wilkins isn't a widely accepted guideline, hence Audra Williams notability would be better considered with respect to WP:BIO. Deizio talk 22:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is a WP guideline regarding bias, and it does constitute bias by inclusion to deem Audra somehow less notable than a person whose only real claim to notability is performing an identical role on the other side of the political spectrum. Bearcat
Comment: Wilkins role is not identical to Williams, however. Wilkins is the owner of Free Dominion whilst Williams was a staffer at rabble; one of several moderators of its forum "babble". As I said on the Williams talk page, if you are looking for an equivalent figure to Wilkins it would be Judy Rebick, not Audra Williams. Also, as I said on that page, by your argument if Williams merits an article so do the other babble moderators.Homey 02:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Back to the point, delete non-notable bio. AndyJones 16:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and WP:BIO. Friday (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. She is a known mover and shaker in Nova Scotia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobolink (talk • contribs) and is this user's only Wikipedia edit. Deizio talk 23:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Guy

Google results look very suspicious.[10] Non-notable, vanity. Mad Jack O'Lantern 05:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nod Mad Jack O'Lantern 05:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. complete vanity crap (Notorious4life 05:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Speedy delete as article with no assertion of notability. We learn about her favourite video and her opinion of George W. Bush but we don't see any indication of notability under our guidelines such as albums, hit records or tours. A Google search foe "Jessica Guy" "Friar's Lanthorn" comes up with one hit - this article see [11]. Capitalistroadster 06:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blood Dragonns

Self-admitted (see Blood Dragonns#Please Note) Warhammer 40,000 fanfiction. This article deals with a non-canonical Space Marines Space Marine Legion, which receives absolutely no mentions in any Warhammer 40,000 rulessets or fictional works, and breaches established canon. -- Saberwyn 05:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Dont delete it! While it is fanfare i believe this is a good peice of work AND it can be used in a professional form says the rules of warhammer yes it is custom but if everything custom is deleted then nothing will ever be new it breachs some minor rules but the good outweighs the bad! sorry couldnt figure out how to do it like you guys did it so i just clicked edit sorry! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grogyboy (talk • contribs) .

Comment Grogyboy, just so you know, Wikipedia's policies on orignal research and verifiability is not "some minor rules" but two of the three central pillars of Wikipedia. Gwernol 01:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

okay so reading the rules on original research he techniocally didnt break them because of the way that the warhammer rules work they state that he can create his own and theirfore they sponser. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grogyboy (talk • contribs) .

Comment: The original research policy states that "original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source." Unless you can point to the reputable source that has already published this information, this article is original research and must be deleted. Technicalities based on what the 40k rules do or do not allow is irrelevant. Cheers --Pak21 13:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests. Petros471 20:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesian rainforests

The article is POV, the title is not suited to the srticle content and the article title is not an encyclopeadic. Alan Liefting 07:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. It's been almost a year since I first saw this (and added {{NPOV}} to it) and the body of the text hasn't changed significantly. I doubt it ever will. Better to get rid of it and let someone start from scratch on the subject if they wish. --TheParanoidOne 10:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect into Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests. Kevin 07:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect into Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests. Alan Liefting 08:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The tone of the article is definitely unencyclopedic, but its main problem is that it is totally undocumented. However, basing myself on various news reports I've read about this, what is written here is not an exaggeration of the situation. I'm convinced this can be documented with reputable sources – if anyone cares enough to look into it – which should yield enough material to wikify this in a proper way. We can then ascribe the statements presented and add some obligatory neutralizing statements like that the Indonesian authorities deny the allegations or whatever. (Don't look my direction; I'm not gonna do it.) LambiamTalk 19:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The tone of the article would suggest a article title of Logging of Indonesian rainforests or Deforestation of Indonesian rainforests or such like. The article name as it currently stands should be redirected to Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests. Alan Liefting 03:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, I agree with Alan. -- MaNeMeBasat 10:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogtipping

A meme, created on April 26, 2006. Fails WP:MEME. Delete. --Hetar 06:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - less than 30 unique google hits, with each more irrelevant than the last. Wickethewok 06:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - 15 posts tagged "blogtipping" in Technorati and counting. If you delete this now, I understand. But maybe by this time next month, if it is clear that many people are interested in my meme, it would be more feasible to keep it. --easton_ellsworth 06:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - if you can list all of the people who have heard of your little meme, it is certainly non-notable and should be deleted with extreme prejudice towards future recreation. Wickethewok 07:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity neologism. --Eivindt@c 11:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Yet another person trying to use wikipedia to spread his meme. A Wiki entry should be created only after something is notable, not a vehicle to gain notoriety. --Bachrach44 14:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry. I thought it was already notable, and I didn't want to create this article primarily for notoriety - I simply wanted to clarify the rules of blogtipping for future blogtippers' sakes. Your comments have taught me better. I'll take this as an initiating lesson on the Wikipedia article creation process and won't try to create this article again. If someone else comes along after the meme becomes notable as per Wikipedia's criteria and creates the article - say, after a year and thousands of participants - I hope it stays. I apologize for my naivete and thank you all for upholding the standards of this awesome resource. --easton_ellsworth 16:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bachrach44. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Puya

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

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

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Originally speedied as non-notable. Recreated (restored) after protests by original author.-- pgk(talk) 07:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless verifiable information added to corroborate claims of notability. Current sources don't mention Puya at all. --Alan Au 07:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable, non-notable Dlyons493 Talk 12:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentI am one of the original members of the UCLA branch of The Puya. I have attended all Puyapalooza celebrations since their inception. I have contributed funds to The Puya's UCLA UNICAMP fund raising efforts. I have also made many contributions to The Puya's website.
  • Comment The Puya is a welcoming club that draws people in with open arms and discriminates against none. Local events promote networking, unity, and everything else that The Puya embodies. The history of The Puya should be documented for future clubs and for people wondering what The Puya is. Mtnsurfer 17:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As a member of The Puya, I object strongly to this deletion. I have attended Puyapalooza celebrations, and received from fellow The Puya members my original inspiration for the student group I founded at UCLA, [the Bruin Nerds]. The Puya is an inspiration to all of us, and should remain on Wikipedia.
  • Comment As a member of UCLA's The Puya and a counselor as a student and alumnus at UCLA Unicamp, I started The Puya club at Tulane University as a graduate student. During Spring Break 2006, I hosted USC law and Loyola Law The Puya students at my apartment who came to New Orleans for their Legal Aid Projects.[12] additionally, I organized the New Orleans version of Puyapalooza, whose proceeds were of course donated to UCLA Unicamp.
  • CommentI am the founder and president of the Computer Recycling Club at Diamond Bar High School. I have worked with the The Puya on several occasions, and the club has helped our club with finding and restoring dozens of computers. All of the members of The Puya have been very generous and helpful, and all of us at the Computer Recycling Club would like to thank The Puya members for their hard work and dedication. I would object strongly to the deletion of The Puya from Wikipedia because it is a great club which inspires many to help others. --Rishi Kumar
  • Delete non-notable club. Google search "The Puya" ucla yields a whopping three hits. Also, the "controversy" section has me scratching my head. ergot 00:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dlyons493 Hobbeslover 02:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Commentas an original member of The Puya(UCLA), I enjoyed every meeting, and every puyapalloza. I have helped raise money for Unicamp. I was also vice-chairman for the original puyapalooza, assuring the safety and security of the chairman, as well as the event. There are many things to add and talk about that i would like to save for the wiki site. please add The Puya!! myspace.com/wilkesey
  • Delete: as a non-notable local college club with an extreme lack of reliable sources. --Hetar 17:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am appealing to the good will of the Wikipedians. Yes, it is true that 7 years ago, this whole The Puya thing started off as a joke. It was complete nonsense, two guys getting together to hang out, became three guys, four members, eight, and so on. But pretty soon, we had enough people where we formed a club. It was something like fight club, or a fraternity. Our goal was not to just hang out and drink, but we planned events like block parties, tailgates, etc.. it was what you would expect from undergrads.

As our members graduated and went on to either the working class or grad school, they started the group on their own campuses or workplaces.

As we grew and matured, we found ourselves involved in many activities. For example, people at Cal helped join a protest against the Armenian genocide, some at UCLA volunteered for UniCamp, while others were inspired to start their own groups. Nevertheless, the whole project and spirit of the group has been marred by never having any legitimacy. Sure we had t-shirts, but that's not enough. Our goal is to legitimize the group so that when we have an activity or event, we will be recognized. Because up until now, whenever we mentioned our group, everyone thought it was a joke. But it isnt. For example, during the Armenian genocide protest at Cal, when asked what group the members where from, and they said "The Puya," the writer laughed and refused to name our group. It has been an uphill battle to gain our legitimacy. Just because we are not mentioned in an article, does not meen our members did not participate.

Yes it is true that if you google "The Puya" you might find articles about the founder, puya. But that does not mean the group does not exist. We have set up a myspace group, and will be setting up groups on friendster and facebook to show our membership.

We are not a local college club, unless your definition of local includes Los Angeles, San Fransico, Santa Barbara, and New Orleans.--65.88.178.10 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC) --Thepuya 19:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a primary source for establishing notability, which appears to the be the intent of the argument above. --Alan Au 04:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dlyons. I'm sure these are fine people, but they're not notable... and their website crashed. · rodii · 00:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiab. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per many of the editors above. Non-notable, POV, unverifiable, etc. -- Kicking222 17:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  Grue  17:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circle of Death (drinking game)

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 07:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:V says, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." --Hetar 16:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
agreed, especially since I provided an Amazon search last time around. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 250 drinking game books? Wow. I would have been impressed if there were even one (exluding self-published), but 250? And those are just the ones that mention this game? Wow. ergot 01:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know if they all mention this game, but only two on Amazon show any sort of contents that I was able to find, and, between the two that I picked, cover all but 3 of these AfDs. My rationale is that, based on the sample and amount of books, there's little chance that these don't exist. This game, in particular, appears to be listed in both that I noted above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:JzG, especially the reason to care. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's no Beer pong. Brian G. Crawford 21:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Collegecruft/drinkingcruft. This should not have its own article; WP:NOT a rulebook for drinking games. I will admit that, while I hate most drinking games, this one is pretty fun. But that's completely irrelevant. Delete. Paul 21:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless all 101 card games nobody has ever heard of in 101 Best Family Card Games are also going to get their own pages. This is my opinion about the other games, too. BigDT 02:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Why not? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Again another widely noted drinking game — it would be disappointing to lose such games from Wikipedia. [13] Cedars 06:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If wikipedia was paper, we'd merge & reduce the drinking game rules articles, but its not paper, and this appears to be the standard format for these games. Whatever. In fact, I suspect having such articles serves the valid meta-purpose of making wikipedia more welcoming to collage students. OTOH, I'm not sure we need quite sooo many pokemon adicts.  :) JeffBurdges 15:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Trim and merge with Kings (drinking game). -- GWO
  • It's a different, if similar, game than Kings. Similar concept, but different rules. Why delete it? For what it's worth, this game *is* popular with college kids, and is well known, at least in Texas.
  • strong keep and cleanup, this article needs to sourced, that's it. If Beer Pong can have an article, probably due to notablity on College Campuses, then so should this. Dspserpico 03:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The article was of use to my friends and I. I think you should keep it. -Audrey

  • weak delete An automobile repair manual is also useful, but it doesn't belong here. Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pearl Drummers Forum

Non notable organization. Self-promotion. POV. Unsuitable for wikipedia. soUmyaSch 07:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Made by a member of the forum, to provide information about the forum. Asking other memeber to help contribute. At this moment. It has over 25 thousand members, cant be not noteable. --StrayedFromThePath 07:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit: ^^agrees. The forum is in itself an endless source of valuable information concerning drums, percussion and music in general. It is an important crossroad in the drum forum community. This forum is no means of publicity for Pearl, they've opened the forum so we can discuss the drumming community as a whole. -- Philee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.209.241.138 (talk • contribs)

Edit: The PDF is a huge entity in the online music world, I don't see anything wrong with having something about it on a site like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.77.206.10 (talk • contribs)

Yeah I agree with the merge. --StrayedFromThePath 11:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge per Eivind - and specifically, merge without the absurd list of sections, I think we can rely on the forum webmasters to maintain that one on the site. Just zis Guy you know? 12:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Eivind and JzG, but without the section list or the POV comments about the members of the forum. (Oh, and how do you know there's a drummer at the door? The knocking speeds up.) --Elkman - (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - difficult to justify separate article. - Runcorn 19:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  Grue  17:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Up the river, down the river

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 07:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a slippery slope.... Delete as nn drinking game. Eusebeus 02:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Notable game, listed in such publications as The Best Drinking Game Book Ever. With over 250 Amazon search results... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Crzrussian. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "Who respects an encyclopedia that contains articles about drinking games?" is not part of the deletion criteria. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Again WP:NOT is; qualifies under Not an indiscriminate collection, number 8 (instruction manual). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on "Up the river, down the river" has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 10:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as how-to. Brian G. Crawford 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper; this is a sub page of the drinking game article. JeffBurdges 15:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please like jeff said wikipedia is not paper and this is notable Yuckfoo 01:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of dubious usefulness, but it's verifiable per bdj. Maybe a merge a summary of all these to a central article? Ziggurat 03:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per vizjim. Dspserpico 17:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sociables

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 07:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable drinking games, this game is listed in a number of purchasable "drinking game tins," with cards describing the games. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Blnguyen. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "Drunkcruft" is not part of the deletion policy. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Alas, but WP:NOT is; qualifies under Not an indiscriminate collection, number 8 (instruction manual). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on "Sociables" has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 10:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        • So delete the instructions. Problem solved. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as how-to. Brian G. Crawford 21:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Not just because I'm the creater of the article, but because I just added some sources. The 'Play' section, yes I'll admit is a 'how-to'. But that can easily be changed. NetStormer 06:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Update. I just cut down about 80-90% of the 'play' section. Might be enough to get this page kept.
      • Another update. Revised the card assignments section and removed any POV statements I could find. (In case you're wondering, I'm kind of hell bent on keping this article.) NetStormer 07:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper; this is a sub page of the drinking game article. JeffBurdges 15:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn drinking game. Eusebeus 02:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per indiscriminate information & non-notability. Kuzaar 19:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please this is not indiscriminate information Yuckfoo 01:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep I have a feeling that this is WP:POINT we have alot of "serious articles" that aren't sourced either, why not delete those, too? Dspserpico 17:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no reliable sources appear to exist for this game; only sources in the article are three web sites. As it currently stands, that people actually play this game is unverifiable. - Liberatore(T) 18:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ride the Bus

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 07:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, probable mention in the BarMeister's Guide, coverage in the college newspaper The Daily Orange --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because instruction manuals (like this) are one of the WP:NOTs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as how-to. Brian G. Crawford 21:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper; this is a sub page of the drinking game article. JeffBurdges 15:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please wikipedia is not paper and this is notable Yuckfoo 01:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep this just needs to be sourced and a clean up. Dspserpico 17:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] President (game)

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 07:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, although it needs sourcing. I've played this game (with others who knew how to play it) on three continents (for what that's worth). Here's the many many Ghits [14] -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete drunkcruft.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep On four other Wikipedias, appears to have commercial releases. -- Saberwyn 10:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Saberwyn, appears to be notable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've found lots of references to this game on the web. Not fantastically reputable sources, but then this is a drinking game, not rocket science. Kevin 11:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever as "Dictator," possibly the most known drinking game out there. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Much of the article borders on original research, but the same claim could be made of 85% of the articles on WP. We should, instead, work on getting the article sourced rather than indiscriminately deleting it. —  MusicMaker 17:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is a very widely-known card game in my generation. I've never heard of it used as a drinking game... But that's an editorial matter. Grandmasterka 18:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Samir, Vizjim, andbadlydrawnjeff, among others. Fluit 18:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT ... an indiscriminate collection of stuff, number 8 (instruction manual). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. On any entry on a game, it'll be nearly impossible to write about it without reference to the rules. A cleanup might be necessary, but immediately leaping to deletion is unnecessary. Fluit 22:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • {{sofixit}}. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm just responding to the "share your thoughts on the matter" portion of the AfD template. But I'll add a cleanup tag, for what it's worth. Fluit 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on "President" has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 10:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Samir --Phenz 01:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Very popular and common game, I just played it yesterday with friends, keep please; its real, I swear. - Patman2648 03:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Very common well-known card game. Just check Google. [15] [16] I should also add it is not necessarily a drinking game. Cedars 10:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper; this is a sub page of the drinking game article. JeffBurdges 15:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Cedars. Cohen the Bavarian 14:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep this and all other notable games Yuckfoo 01:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kings (drinking game)

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 07:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am a college student (of age, no less!), but I do not drink. With that said, all of my friends at my school play Kings. When I visit friends at other schools, their friends play Kings. When I went to parties in high school (which was quite rare), everyone played Kings. For those without the coordination for Beer Pong, Kings is the game of choice; based on popularity alone, if any drinking game deserves an article on WP, it's this one. (Note: I know this isn't the greatest rationale for voting on an AfD, but that's just how I roll.) -- Kicking222 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Vizjim, andbadlydrawnjeff, among others. Fluit 18:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:NOT among things, a collection of instruction manuals. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Talking about a game without talking about the rules is pointless. If the article delves too much into the rules, then a cleanup tag is appropriate. Fluit 22:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So fix it? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm just responding to the "share your thoughts on the matter" portion of the AfD template. But I'll add a cleanup tag, for what it's worth. Fluit 05:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on this drinking game has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 10:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP Excellent reference, would be shame if deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.23.32 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep There probably are non-notable drinking games on Wikipedia but you seem to be picking or the notable ones. Again Google confirms the noteworthiness of this drinking game. [17] Cedars 10:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper; this is a sub page of the drinking game article. Amen, Cedars! JeffBurdges 15:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please really you must be kidding here Yuckfoo 01:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep plus cleanup and a slight wikify just read my vote comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game) (relist nomination). Dspserpico 03:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi-Lo

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 07:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete drunkcruft.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Consider this my delete vote for all of the articles nominated together. There was no reason to split them up, as voting 40 times is considerably more hassle than verifying 40 links, most of which are visibly identifiable as "drunkcruft". — GT 09:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Damned if you do it one way, damned if you do it the other... Who knows, there may be some salvegeable games in this list. -- Saberwyn 10:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Rumble looks to me like the only one that didn't belong as it's not really even a drinking game. So amend my last statement to exclude that. — GT 10:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • This is why its being relisted individually, because people would start voting "Delete all, but keep x, y, and z, no vote on a or b, and redirect..." -- Saberwyn 10:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
        • with group nominations, it would be better to list one, then wait till the decision is over, before nominating the others. But never mind its too late for that --Astrokey44 13:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Vizjim and badlydrawnjeff. I have to disagree with you, GT. Quite a few games certainly belong in AfD, but quite a few have no business being here. Hence no global delete from me. Fluit 18:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, we'll see I guess. I still think it would have been easier to list them all then identify those that don't belong. — GT 02:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, will never have WP:V content beyond how to play, and WP:NOT a list of instructions (which this is). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nobody has cited a good reason to keep it. Brian G. Crawford 21:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Except, you know, verifiability with sources and notability. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • What is the significance of that book, that being mentioned in it earns you a Wikipedia article? — GT 02:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        • It's a book published by a noted publisher about drinking games. It doesn't seem to violate anything listed here, so I believe it's fair game. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on "Hi-Lo" has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 10:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper; this is a sub page of the drinking game article. JeffBurdges 15:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please it is verifiable and notable too Yuckfoo 01:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per Viz. Dspserpico 17:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Friju Island

Seems to be a hoax. I can find no mention of "Friju Island" except on Wikipedia and its mirrors, and the claim that New Guinea was held by the Germans in WWI is not true. Reyk YO! 08:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment- I can't take credit for catching this hoax. User:Ze miguel originally called for {{verify}}; I only verified that it was wrong. Reyk YO! 20:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as proposed. -- Ze miguel 14:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as violation of WP:CSD A6. GarrettTalk 12:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jew through the Chimney jokes

Unreferenced article describing repulsive jokes that apparently are told by Germans. It must fall somewhere in WP:NOT. Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete on general principles. Reyk YO! 09:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete I'm part German and I've heard one of those jokes told somewhat differently but without a source or citation, it's just someone's fascist leanings. Dismas|(talk) 10:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • CSD A6 Attack article directed against German people. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jolina Magdangal

Reads like fancruft and/or press release material. Unless massively rewritten and notability shown more appropriately, delete. --Nlu (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep AFD is not cleanup, google search shows notability. --Eivindt@c 11:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notability can quickly be established with a google search. The article is badly written fancruft and needs a "cleanup" notice, but that's another story. Rossrs 13:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. -- MaNeMeBasat 10:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy A7. Tawker 01:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joze Abram

Tagged for speedy but notability is asserted. Appears to be a translation of a one-line bio on this page: [18] and no sources are presented, but that might just be systemic bias. Not straightforward, so bringing here. Just zis Guy you know? 09:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete, A7, no assertion of notability. Asserted where? RGTraynor 20:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. DS 00:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dilute to five percent before skin application

NN band, cannot find any web references, article doesn't cite any trade paper reviews or the like. Dismas|(talk) 09:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete no clains of meeting WP:BAND --Bachrach44 14:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete The band's name gets zero Google hits. The article makes no attempt to even assert notability, and can thus be speedied. The only possible attempt is claiming that an album received "critical acclaim in the international media," which is obvious rubbish, considering that whole zero Google hits thing. As a matter of fact, the entire article is both a hoax and nonsense, giving it another reason to be speedily deleted. -- Kicking222 20:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 20:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Count of BMX

Tagged as nn-bio but notability asserted so bringing here. I don't believe a word of it, but perhaps it is true. Just zis Guy you know? 09:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete notability was not asserted, as a matter of fact the "assertion of notability" is this "THIS PAGE WAS CREATED IN ORDER TO GIVE OUR LOCAL FANS A TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE AND TO PROMOTE OUR UPCOMING EVENTS SCHEDULED THIS SUMMER...THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO DISPLAY THE BIOGRAPHY OF A LOCAL CELEBRITY AND WRESTLING SUPERSTAR SO HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE AWF WON'T GO UNRECOGNIZED...WE DEDICATE THIS SMALL BIO TO OUR FANS WHO HAVE SUPPORTED US SINCE DAY ONE" pretty much backing up that this is a vanity, nn, advertisment.--Jersey Devil 14:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-admitted vanity page, per User:Jersey Devil. JIP | Talk 16:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. Hell, the league this wrestler was in (one of the jillions of start-up wrestling organizations that nobody could care less about) had its article deleted for lack of notability, so I doubt a single unimportant wrestler from said unimportant federation needs his own page. -- Kicking222 16:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as {{nn-bio}} per Kicking222. Grandmasterka 17:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 22:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dotcrunk

Tagged as repost but previous version appears to have been speedied, so technically a disputed speedy not a repost. As it stands this looks like a vanity article about a non-notable website. Just zis Guy you know? 09:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable web site. jmd
  • Delete as per nom, fails to meet WP:WEB guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I think that this article has more content than the site that it's about. ergot 14:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Conrad Devonshire 20:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Madhappies

Tagged as nn-band, contested. Have released one album, but article looks like a copy & paste job from a sleeve or promo, and the band does not appear to meet WP:NMG. Just zis Guy you know? 10:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Their album is due to be released in the middle of the year and they don't appear to have charted or performed on a national tour as per WP:MUSIC. They may meet the criteria in a years time but at the moment they don't. Capitalistroadster 11:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 11:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Actual sincere apologies to the article's author (who should read the rule that one should not create articles about oneself), as I wish his band success. However, the band has one unreleased album and one terribly written article. There's no assertion of notability, so the page simply can't stick around. In addition, the page for their album, Bad Motivator, should also be deleted. -- Kicking222 16:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. When they become notable, then they can have an article. They're not there. RGTraynor 20:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Joe Jklin 05:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. --Arnzy (Talk) 13:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SSGChat

Tagged for speedy but sadly spam is not a speedy criterion. Blatant vanispamcruftisement for a product by Silicon Spark from user:SiliconSpark. Just zis Guy you know? 10:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 19:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiqint1

Tagged as spam, contested, so bringing here. Read the article, I think it says more than any nomination ever could. Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete not necessarily spam but definitely not an article. Someone using Wikipedia as scratch paper for their business presentation? Dismas|(talk) 10:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per above. Metamagician3000 10:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Dismas Dlyons493 Talk 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not (strictly) spam, but not encyclopedic either. -- MarcoTolo 16:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: whatever it is, WP isn't that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - the creator probably never saw the first speedy tag - just forced a save of their version after an "edit conflict" message. -- RHaworth 19:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck the Dealer

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 10:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete who respects an encyclopedia that contains articles about drinking games? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Encyclopedia, Noun: "Book (supposedly) containing all knowledge". Vizjim 13:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever under Hi-Lo, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Crzrussian; verifiable but unencyclopedic cruft. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see an assertion of notability, and there's been no good reason suggested to keep this. Brian G. Crawford 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Except, you know, a published book noting it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep' If there are other drinking gaes listed then list this
  • Keep -- GWO
  • keep this just needs to be sourced. Dspserpico 18:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horserace (drinking game)

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 10:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete who respects an encyclopedia that contains articles about drinking games? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I do. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, likely mentioned in the BarMeister Book of Drinking Games, notable and verifiable. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "likely mentioned" - is it or is it not? "likely" is a weasel word that makes it sound like notability has been shown without actually showing it. GRBerry 16:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability is rather clear, even if people want to act otherwise. No effort was made by the nom to improve the articles or check for notability. Seeing as the BarMeister website - the same site run by the guy who wrote the book - lists the drinking game, it's likely the game is in the book of drinking games as well. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT ... an indiscriminate collection, number 8 (instruction manual) [why can't these have numbers like CSDs ?]; zero encyclopedic content. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on "Horserace" has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 10:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a difference. Chess and Soccer give instructions about game play but also give wider discussion on origins, history, development, social/cultural impact etc. These drinking game articles are exclusively "how to". Rossrs 13:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • But they don't have to be. If editors feel that missing content like this is important, they should do the research (or use the Talk page to request that others do so), not just reach for the Delete button.Vizjim 14:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 21:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper; this is a sub page of the drinking game article. JeffBurdges 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- GWO
  • keep article just needs to be sourced. Dspserpico 17:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross the River

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 10:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT, but this is, a collection of instruction/howtos. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on "Cross the River" has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 10:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 21:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- GWO
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  17:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azriel (Band)

Non Notable Band Dunstan talk 10:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --Arnzy (Talk) 13:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Difficult to wade through the chaff, but so far I count only five unique G-hits on UK Google. RGTraynor 20:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer Die

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 10:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever, as this appears to be a generic dice game for drinking, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT as with previous noms; will never have WP:V content beyond the rules. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on this drinking game has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 10:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another how-to. Brian G. Crawford 21:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • {{sofixit}}. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable. -- GWO
  • Keep per Vizjim's reasoning. --Rocketgoat 00:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a verifiable board game played by a vast number of people. Similar to Vizjim's argument, if you are contemplating deleting it because it is a HOW-TO, or that it cannot be further verified, then you must also consider deleting the Wikipedia pages for the following: Chess, Poker, and Backgammon. You'll find that these pages also contain instruction and a lack of references.
  • Keep I'm tired of writing vote comments. Dspserpico 18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If you remove beer die, you have to remove pretty much all drinking games ColbyCollege 16:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liar's dice

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 10:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete for two reasons: There is a commercially published game with the same title and similar rules (biggest difference being the lack of reference to drinking), so describing this as a public domain game may present copyright problems; and, really, the contents of one book about drinking games are not encyclopedic content for one article, let alone a hundred. Barno 15:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • With over 250+ drinking game books, noting that one book lists it and it ISN'T the msost complete guide suggests wider acceptance. Besides, the nom claimed it was unsourced - we now have a source. He claimed it was unverifiable - that is false. Thus... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Instead of "suggesting wider acceptance", why not tell us how many of those hundreds of books actually lists this game? Thousands of topics, maybe hundreds of thousands, are mentioned in a few non-authoritative books but are not important enough for encyclopedia entries. What makes this book worth citing as a reference, and not just a case for WP:NFT or Wikipedia is not for things made up in a prison cell? So far you've only verified that this game (and all these other nominated ones) appear in one book whose importance I don't see. You also haven't addressed the Milton Bradley copyrighted game. Barno 18:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I know nothing about the Milton Bradley game, but if the game exists, more strength behind keeping this article. The nomination said unsourced and unverifiiable. Published third-party sources easily solve this problem. Why is this book worth citing? It's a book published by a noted publisher dealing with drinking games. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Keep. I don't know anything about a Milton Bradley game either, but this was a popular game thirty years ago (we played without booze, come to that, and I still have the old cigar box with which we played, too). That MB decided to cash in on a popular game by writing one with the same name is understandable, but readily enough distinguishable by Liar's Dice (Milton Bradley), if need be. RGTraynor 20:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The written text of rules is copyrightable, but not the abstract rules themselves. You could make a Monopoly or Scrabble clone and as long as you didn't straight out copy anything and you avoided trademarks, you'd be fine.--Prosfilaes 04:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep; to meet WP:NOT content should be limited to the published games and not the rules. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; simple mention of the rules is not a tutorial, and encyclopedias (which Wikipedia is) have long included rules for notable games; both EB 1911 and EB Online include rules for chess, for example.--Prosfilaes 04:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; the assertion it is unverifiable is absurd. The game has been around for decades with tens of thousands of references on the Internet. The nominator should have at least done minimal research before making such a nomination. 2005 06:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. You kid, right? I've played Liar's Dice in England, Wales, US and Canada. -- GWO
  • keep please this is a extremely popular game and erasing this makes no sense Yuckfoo 01:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • you have got to be joking keep  ALKIVAR™ 01:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it's an internationally award-winning board game - it shouldn't be deleted just because there's a drinking game variant. Percy Snoodle 13:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as this appears to be a highly notable dice game, with or without the drinking aspects. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep I've seen this game played on three continents. This mass nomination, even listed seperately seems like WP:POINT. Dspserpico 18:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep Liar's dice is a legitimate gambling game, and this doesn't seem quite so much an instruction manual.Apollo 10:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Three

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 10:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT a collection of rules/instructions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on "Mr Three" has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 10:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 21:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Except, you know, being featured in a published book. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable. Less dull than basketball. -- GWO
  • keep all notable drinking games. :-) Roodog2k 02:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep this and other notable drinking games please Yuckfoo 01:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per yuckfoo. Dspserpico 18:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seven-Eleven Doubles

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 10:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a fine WP:V example of WP:NOT per my previous; I agree with User:Vizjim on background/origins/etc, but this is not, and never will be, that kind of article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why not? This is a genuine question: how can you be sure that someone won't ever be able to add such details in from a verified source? Vizjim 11:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. How-to, no assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 21:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Except, you know, in a published book by a noted publisher. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep a solid drinking game... I've played many times.

  • Keep. Almost standard in England, including the point only with your elbows rule. Puritans suck. -- GWO
  • keep please another very popular game we should document Yuckfoo 01:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per vizjim. Dspserpico 18:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tablero da Gucci

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 10:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, likely a dice game listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:NOT in competition with the Best Drinking Games Book Ever. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on this drinking game has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverified, no assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 21:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiable. -- GWO
  • keep please it is verifiable and notable too Yuckfoo 01:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep as per all of my other votes in this massive nom. Dspserpico 18:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blates

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 10:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Oh and, by the way, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep,likely a dice game listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on Blates has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 21:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Played in more countries than American Football. -- GWO
  • keep please this is a notable game Yuckfoo 01:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per vizjim. Dspserpico 18:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quarters

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 10:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • If deleted, redirect to Quarter. -- Saberwyn 10:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the BarMeister's Big Book of Drinking Games, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Even I've heard of this one. --Bachrach44 14:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and maybe add some background history and specific examples for "verifiability". This is one of the best if not *the* best known drinking game. --Vossanova 15:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 17:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Vizjim and badlydrawnjeff, among others. Nominator certainly hasn't run a Google check on this one, but must have had the good taste to avoid some of the bad movies in which this game is played. Fluit 18:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:NOT a collection of random cruft, and specifically not a list of instructions (such as this page). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Talking about a game without talking about the rules is pointless. If the article delves too much into the rules, then a cleanup tag is appropriate. Fluit 22:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on this drinking game has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). As Fluit says, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This one's actually notable. Brian G. Crawford 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep as this one seems pretty universal. Roodog2k 23:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this game is actually famous... --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 02:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Well known -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 05:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable. --- GWO
  • Keep, and move to Quarters (drinking game). Quarters should redirect to quarter. -Sean Curtin 06:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep and move per gtrmp, there are a lot of pop culture references to this game. Dspserpico 18:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I don't think many people haven't heard of this. Jgamekeeper 08:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 00:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matt the Zombie

Tagged for speedy and contested. Fails WP:NOT (a crystal ball) and the informal guideline, WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 10:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN and WP:NFT. Oh, and crystal ball as well. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Recreate if/when the film is both complete AND notable. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The thing about that is that may take a while, and peo-- Oh, to hell with it. Delete it.
  • Delete per all above. --Arnzy (Talk) 13:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable Flash film, especially when it's not yet complete. JIP | Talk 16:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Matt the Zombie is the possible title of a Flash movie, expected to be completed in late 2007." So, its a possible title for a movie that might be released in a year-and-a-half? Fails WP:Not A Crystal Ball, at the very least. Delete. -- MarcoTolo 16:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robopound

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 10:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't particularly tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to Redirect to Quarters as per Brian G. Crawford. Vizjim 11:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, likely listed in the BarMeister's Big Book of Drinking Games as a Quarters variant, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete an example of what WP:NOT Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need this if we keep Quarters. Brian G. Crawford 21:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've read about it in a New Jersey newspaper once.--Plokloon 23:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see any way in which this article is an example of WP:NOT. Furthermore, this topic should not be subsumed by Quarters, as this game has totally distinct (and far more complex) rules than Quarters, though the mechanism of play is the same. Also this page is far more detailed than the Quarters page, and includes external reference links rendering it verifiable, if that's the concern. infix 18:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep I think this article is too big to be merged with quarters. Dspserpico 18:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Land Mine

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 10:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • If deleted, recreate as redirect to landmine. -- Saberwyn 10:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. The category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete again WP:NOT Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on Land Mine has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Appeared in Hamilton College in 2004" equals WP:NFT. Brian G. Crawford 21:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Listed in a published book by a noted publisher equals notable. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; there may be 250+ books listed, but this seems to be an obscure new game that's probably not listed in most of them.--Prosfilaes 04:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's listed by this name in at least one of them, and that book isn't the newest one on the list. So this comment appears to be incorrect. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep A legit game.

  • Move to Land Mine (drinking game). Land Mine should redirect to the munition. -- GWO
  • keep, move and redirect per GWO. Dspserpico 18:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 22:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supermarket Careers

Advertisement for a non-notable programme. cj | talk 10:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roxanne (drinking game)

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 10:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever, likely listed in the BarMeister's Big Book of Drinking Games, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because WP:NOT a collection of rules and instructions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on this drinking game has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Did any of you knee-jerk keep voters read this? It sounds like a hoax. Brian G. Crawford 21:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Did you? It's most certainly not a hoax. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • comment Knee jerk?! er... What about assuming good faith? ;-) I can tell you this... The very first 'college party' that I attended back in the day featured this "drinking game." I never got it, don't pretend to understand it. Saw it during 4 years of undergrad school, 2 years of grad school, two different schools, two different states, two different regions of the country. Roodog2k 15:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable, no hoax. Having attended undergraduate and graduate school at two different universities in two different parts of the country, I just wish that this article explained more about HOW this became such a meme. Roodog2k 23:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep JeffBurdges 15:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I see what Brian was saying... there was some vandalism on the page that needed to be removed. My bad for not noticing sooner.Roodog2k 16:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wondering when we'd get to this one. They play it in England too. Once v. popular in St. John's College, Oxford bar. What about the "must stand up" rule? -- GWO
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drink while you think

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 10:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep - have added a huge list of scholarly sources, drawn from Google.Vizjim 11:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC) - Also, adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would have been a good way to start this process. What we have here is an abuse of the deletion process, designed to overwhelm opposition by simply giving opponents of your view all the work to do, all at once.Vizjim 11:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per BBC coverage [19] as well as the 250 drinking game books listed at Amazon... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because WP:NOT a collection of rules and instructions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on this drinking game has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per BBC coverage; encyclopedias have always included rules for notable games, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT limited by the limitations of paper encyclopedias.--Prosfilaes 04:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A classic. Do we have a Botticelli on the headie page? (AKA Rizla game) -- GWO
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was move to 21 (drinking game). There is no consensus to delete this, but I agree that when I think of the game 21, I think of Blackjack, not some obscure drinking game. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 21 (game)

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 10:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. (Oh, and I know this one!)Vizjim 11:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, likely listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever as the "21 Gun Salute," BBC, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If deleted, redirect to Blackjack. No vote as I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to give informed opinion. 23skidoo 16:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because it's an example of what WP:NOT (indiscriminate ... number 8). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Point 8 says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on this drinking game has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 21:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Except a published book and the BBC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete of no obvious merit. Just zis Guy you know? 21:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right, things noted by one of the most highly respected international news organizations has no merit. Come on, Guy. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Another classic. Boo to puritans. -- GWO
  • Keep, and move to 21 (drinking game). 21 (game) should redirect to blackjack, or disambiguate between the two. -Sean Curtin 06:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, move and redirect per Sean Curtin. Dspserpico 18:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and move to 21 (drinking game) per Sean Curtin. (I remember playing it one time, but I don't remember having any fun.) Ewlyahoocom 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".
  • keep this but move it to 21 (drinking game)) Yuckfoo 18:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer-In-Hand

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 10:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, mentioned in the Chronicle of Higher Learning, likely listed in the BarMeister's Big Book of Drinking Games. With over 250 Amazon.com search results for drinking games... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, however Notable and Verifiable, it is a poster child for WP:NOT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on Beer-in-hand has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If a single reference in a piece written in the first-person in the Chronicle of Higher Education is all Jeff could come up with, it's pretty non-notable. Brian G. Crawford 21:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "likely" listed in a book of drinking games? Big deal. I care less after reading the article than I did before. Make a pisshead student Wikicity and be done with it. Just zis Guy you know? 21:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. The author runs a website that lists the game, and the book stems from that. Websites aren't worth anything due to our screwed up policies, but published books are. The book very likely covers it, as it covers what's on the BarMeister's site. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A rugby club staple. -- GWO
  • keep it just needs a cleanup and sourcing. Dspserpico 18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffalo (game)

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 10:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, likely listed in the BarMeister's Big Book of Drinking Games. BBC article lists a variation while discussing "Drinking no-no's." With over 250 Amazon.com search results for drinking games... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, although as the article creator I'm not sure what my vote is worth. Can be found online easily in drinking game databases (such as the one linked in the article) and numerous drinking game books I've seen over the years, although I don't own one myself to provide a print source. - dharmabum 20:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, however Notable and Verifiable, it is a poster child for WP:NOT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on Buffalo has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and a move to Buffalo (drinking game) Dspserpico 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".
  • Keep, I've heard of this game from several sources, and it's beyond any doubt that it exists. I searched for it on Wikipedia to learn more about it's origins, and I found the article interesting, though it would be even better with more background information. The problem with social games of this type, is that it's in their nature to be hard to verify, because they are spread by word of mouth - but that doesn't make them any less real. 83.250.218.159 16:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Redfern

Tagged nn-bio but tags repeatedly removed by creator, which I'll interpret as contesting the speedy. No evidence of notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 10:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caps (drinking game)

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 10:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever, likely listed in the BarMeister's Big Book of Drinking Games. With over 250 Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as above. Fluit 18:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as usual WP:NOT the place. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "First played in 1992" = not-notable. Brian G. Crawford 21:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on Caps has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? A drinking game invented 14 years ago and still being played is definitely not something made up in school one day and forgotten the next term. Vizjim 11:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep JeffBurdges 15:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gosh, what fun we're having. -- GWO
  • keep per vizjim. Dspserpico 18:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".
  • Keep, but mark the article for cleanup and formatting. Jgamekeeper 08:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep it.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Paf

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 10:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Why? Because Stone Cold said so? Just because I support keeping Quarters, that doesn't invalidate my opinion on the other games. Brian G. Crawford 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Hadn't heard that phrase before - I like it! If your opinion is that we should keep Quarters, and delete other drinking games, then you don't have a clear opinion for a category delete. More seriously, if you look down the many games listed in one day, it's clear that many editors are getting bored before they get to the end of the list, thus opinion is not being truly represented. Vizjim 11:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep, likely listed in BarMeister's Big Book of Drinking Games, and with 250+ Amazon listings for drinking games... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete because BarMeister needs to eat and WP is not in the business of competing with his book per WP:NOT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on this drinking game has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If only these drinking games had run for Mayor of Bumrush, Idaho. Then they'd be notable. </sarcasm> -- GWO
  • keep actually, those games ran for mayor in West Bumrush, Wyoming. </sarcasm> Dspserpico 18:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games". Didn't even get the name right! "Here's to Cardinal Puff!" :) Apollo 10:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please this is a notable game wikipedia is not made of paper Yuckfoo 18:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disassociation/Association

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 10:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. And nominating all at once means I have to do this boring cut-and-paste job over, and over, and over again. Vizjim 11:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact that you are cutting and pasting again and again suggests that you have very little to offer in these discussions except an objection based on process. Brian G. Crawford 21:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • My objection is, yes, based mainly on process, as I think is clear from the above. There are lots of separate nominations, made on the same day, to which I have the same objection, hence the cut-and-paste. This is why first of all trying to clean up the articles (if the objection is actually based, as it say it is, on lack of verifiable sources), then listing ONE of them for deletion, would have produced a fairer result. As it is, this looks suspiciously like trying to get the desired result by flooding AfD. Vizjim 10:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, variation on Drink While You Think, which was mentioned in a BBC article and likely listed in the BarMeister's Big Book of Drinking Games. With 250+ Amazon listings for drinking games... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability and verifiability are not all that's required; see WP:NOT Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on this drinking game has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, no evidence that this has anything to do with Drink while you think. Brian G. Crawford 21:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So why do you vote delete before reading articles? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Looking purely at the article, I have to agree with Brian. The article does not say that is a variant of DWYT, the article says that the time limit rule may be borrowed from DWYT. -- Saberwyn 21:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Then fix the article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Would you kindly suggest how I can fix the article to demonstrate notability, when a Google search for ["Disassociation/Association" drinking -wikipedia] comes up with 9 total results, six of which are copied from Wikipedia articles where the game is wikilinked. The other three mention an "oxygen disassociation/association curve" (2 results, the context doesn't sound much like a drinking game), and the other mentions homeopatich remedies. I have no sources by which to improve the article. And, if I have access to no sources, how am I supposed to say if the optional inclusion of a certain rule is a borrowing from another game, or makes this a subtype of the aforementioned other game? -- Saberwyn 10:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, or merge with Drink while you think. -- GWO
  • keep ot merge per GWO. Dspserpico 18:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FizzBuzz

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 10:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a computer gaming exercise, plenty of books list it: [20] [21]. O'Reilly deems it interesting. As a drinking game, likely listed in the BarMeister's Big Book of Drinking Games, listed as "Buzz" in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever. With 250+ drinking game books listed in an Amazon search... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a collection of instructions like this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 21:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a howto, including a repository of game rules. Just zis Guy you know? 21:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • {{sofixit}}. --badlydrawnjeff
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on this drinking game has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC) (WP:MEMES?) 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per O'Reilly and other computer programming coverage; encyclopedias have always included rules for notable games, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT limited by the limitations of paper encyclopedias.--Prosfilaes 04:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, provide citations of the confirmed example in a drinking book, list the java programming example as an external link -- Saberwyn 21:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A classic, and the natural follow-up to a good game of Fuzzy duck -- GWO
  • Keep. Unfortunately, I cannot offer a verifiable source at the moment, but teaching seminars on teaching techniques sometimes recommend this game for middle school aged students. -user:rasd
  • keep Dspserpico 18:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuzzy Duck

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 11:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Ducky fuzz? Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, rules, meet WP:NOT yet again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 21:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, provide citation in article, remove final paragraph, which appears to be a wesally, POVvy how-to, and tag with {{Template:Importance}} per badlydrawnjeff. -- Saberwyn 21:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sheesh. Anyone who hasn't played Fuzzy Duck at least once needs to get out more often. Ducky Fuzz, Duzzy,... etc. -- GWO

KEEP resourceful

  • keep please this game is notable enough Yuckfoo 01:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we should gather up all the drinking games and put them in List of drinking games, then delete the lot. Just a thought M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete is my vote, however. Not resourceful, not notable enough, and completely unencyclopedic. Do we care about drinking games from the 50s? No. Will we care about this game in 2050? No. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on that argument. If a drinking game were referenced in 1950's literature, but the rules not given, where the heck would you go to find out about it? Wikipedia will be a grat resource in 2050 for this sort of thing. Vizjim 13:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per vizjim Dspserpico 18:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One fat hen

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 11:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • One Fat Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT and rules again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on One fat hen has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reads like complete bollocks, with no assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 21:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Then fix the article. Notability is established, and it's not "bollocks." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn drinking game Eusebeus 02:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, or possibly Coop -- GWO
  • keep' please this all could be avoided by adding {{unreferenced}} did you know that Yuckfoo 01:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bouncing coins

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 11:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Big bouncing Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever as "Bounce 'Em," also as a variation of Quarters, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT and , well, rules again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on this drinking game has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's plenty of room in Quarters to discuss variations. Brian G. Crawford 21:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Quarters. -- GWO
  • Merge with Quarters. -Sean Curtin 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • merge per GWO. Dspserpico 18:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".
  • keep this or merge it to the article for quarters instead Yuckfoo 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge A variation of Quarters.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matchboxes

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 11:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • If deleted, recreate as redirect to Matchbox? -- Saberwyn 11:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all the matches. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever as "The Matchbox Game," and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT and rules once more; how many more are there ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on this drinking game has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? (Bleedin' hundreds, BTW) Vizjim 11:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 21:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Except, you know, a published book. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, provide citation in article, and move to The Matchbox Game per badlydrawnjeff
  • Move and Keep, as b-d-jeff. -- GWO
  • Matchboxes should redirect to matchbox. If kept, move to The Matchbox Game or Matchboxes (drinking game). -Sean Curtin 06:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep' please it is notable and verifiable too Yuckfoo 01:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, move and redirect per Sean Curtin. Dspserpico 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 22:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Wide Dream Builders

This page was deleted before for failing to meet WP:CORP - notability was not established. Consensus was to incorperate any information into the Quixtar article. Gallwapa 11:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I am the original author of the article. Please pardon me if my comment does not follow approved format. I read everything I could find on the deletion policy and related discussions and could not find a way to ask for clarification, so this is my clumsy attempt. The nomination for deletion (from User:PaulHanson) stated that, as a company or organization, it has very little claim to notability, and any relevant information can be incorporated into the Quixtar or IBO article (which Paul originally wrote, and I recently restored). What are the grounds for "very little claim to notability"? If Manaan (an obscure planet in the fictional Star Wars universe) gets its own article, and individual episodes of TV shows get their own articles, why does an article about a business organization with an estimated 1,000,000+ members not? Also, where can I find the original deletion discussion, from the last time the article was deleted? An honest quixtar ibo 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point raised by our friend, the Honest IBO - many stupid topics get their own article, so why shouldn't (xyz) have its own? If it were up to me, several tens of thousands of articles would be deleted immediately, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. This article should be deleted because WP:NOT a directory, which is what this article would inevitably be; it currently lists the people associated with "World Wide Dream Builders," and does little else. The "estimated 1,000,000 members" you mention does not automatically make this orgaization notable, partially because that number may or may not be accurate/verifiable, partially because the meaning of "members" is unclear, and partially for other reasons.
In a somewhat related vein, it is important to delete this article becasue Amwaycruft could easily become rampant on Wikipedia, and we ought to hold the line wherever possible. Amway-related articles on topics such as this should be nipped in the bud. I do not say this to offend the people involved with Amway/Quixtar - I have nothing against them personally, or their organization - but considering the history of Amwaycruft and abuse of Wikipedia on Amway-related pages, immediate deletion is in order. If my vote has not been made clear, then here it is: delete, again. Incidentally, why was this article even restored? Paul 20:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems every few months the MLMers decide to try again on posting thinly disguised advertising. It's not surprising. The internet is the prime recruiting tool for MLMs. Try googling them; the results are uncountable. They post in every forum you can imagine, any place they think they might find a new recruit. Not here. Fan1967 01:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Previous vote was for delete, so its time to go. I suggest information be incorperated into The Quixtar Wiki or the Quixtar article. Quixtar discussion even has a proposed rewrite to change the article that no one has commented on. Gallwapa 02:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Jeff has provided a source, though that book refers to the game as "Bullshit". With that in mind, I will move this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who Shit

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 11:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Holding my nose, I'll vote Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever as "Bullshit," and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT and rules once more. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on this drinking game has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 23:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Except, you know, a published book. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, provide citation in article, and move to Bullshit (drinking game) per badlydrawnjeff. -- Saberwyn 21:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- MaNeMeBasat 10:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and probably best to move to bullshit (drinking game) like suggest Yuckfoo 01:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 22:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Team (QMO)

This article has been deleted once before for failing to meet WP:CORP. Notability was never established and consensus was overwhelmingly delete. Gallwapa 11:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Do Not Delete. I believe it is helpful to show criticism of The Team on Wikipedia. People should see both sides of this issue.
MarcoTolo - please be specific as to why this article is WP:VSCA. Of the 4 VSCA options, which one(s) and why? (BTW - I am the original author) An honest quixtar ibo 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay. For clarity: VSCA = shorthand for Vanity + Spam + Cruft + Advertisement.
Vanity: As far as I can tell, all sixty of your edits (all in the past week) relate to QMO. This is more than a little suspicious, especially since your username seems directly associated with the product. See WP:VAIN.
Spam & Advertisement: I visited several of the other pages you've added and they all appear to be pushing a Multi-level marketing scheme - thus, "advert". See [Wikipedia:Spam]
Cruft:"Content [that] is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." See WP:CRUFT.
Bottom line: is it encyclopedic? My view: absolutely not.-- MarcoTolo 22:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Checkerpaw 20:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Obvious advertising for those who make money off Amway suckers representatives. Fan1967 22:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. There is, and has been, an onslaught of advertisement, spam, and other assorted cruft coming from and-or concerning Amway/Quixtar/IBOs/Motivational Organizations etc. This article is a good example. Anything on Wikipedia concerning Am/Quix etc. should be viewed with extreme suspicion. Delete this article and be vigilant for others like it. Paul 00:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Previous vote was for delete, so its time to go. I suggest information be incorperated into The Quixtar Wiki or the Quixtar article. Quixtar discussion even has a proposed rewrite to change the article that no one has commented on. Gallwapa 02:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Numerals (game)

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 11:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, for the XVIIIth time. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever as this is a variant on "21," and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Is the game the variant, or does 21 the drinking game occasionally use Roman numerals (the numbers) instead of the standard Arabic numerals, for a different stye of play? I am left with the impression of the latter. If a variant, merge to 21 (game). -- Saberwyn 21:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT; rules are a not, these are rules. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on this drinking game has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- GWO
  • keep this one as well please it is verifiable Yuckfoo 01:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Minute Warning (drinking game)

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 11:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Warning - Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Which is why they have been listed individually, so the ones that are verifiable and sourceable can be found and improved, and the ones that are not can be deleted. -- Saberwyn 21:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, likely listed in the BarMeister's Big Book of Drinking Games, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT and rules for the umptieth time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on this drinking game has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted. Your "Paste" button wearing out too? Vizjim 11:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 23:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If wikipedia was paper, we'd merge & reduce the drinking game rules articles, but its not paper, and this appears to be the standard format for these games. Whatever. In fact, I suspect having such articles serves the valid meta-purpose of making wikipedia more welcoming to collage students. JeffBurdges 15:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia can be a gazetteer of Irrelevant Hamlets in Idaho, List Of Irrelevant US High Schools Added By Alumni, Jane's Fighting Ships, A History Of The English Speaking People and Encyclopedia Of Drinking Games, all at the same time. I love the intaweb. --- GWO
  • Transwiki to Wikianythingelse, but this is patently unencyclopaedic. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please this is not the place to ask for sources Yuckfoo 01:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • merge it's a variant of Power Hour. Dspserpico 18:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drinking fives

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 11:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Even though it's a rubbish game, I'll vote Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • My objection to this process stands, but I've checked out this specific article more thoroughly and it does indeed look like codswallop. Delete. Vizjim 10:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, likely listed in the BarMeister's Big Book of Drinking Games, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. "Likely listed?" Do you actually know it is, or do you presume it must be? For my own part, I just wasted twenty minutes Googling every possible iteration of "Fives", "Claw", "Drinking games" and even "Edinburgh" and "Scotland" and found not a single hit referencing this game. WP:NOTMUISOD still applies, I would imagine, even to drinking games. RGTraynor 20:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete See above Checkerpaw 20:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT and rules again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no proof it's "widely played throughout Scotland." Brian G. Crawford 23:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • To both of you: so fix it! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; no real evidence of existence.--Prosfilaes 04:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn drinking game. Eusebeus 02:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Made up in school. -- GWO
  • delete per above. Dspserpico 18:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 22:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladesh January 1971

Do we really need a specific page for certain days/months in one country? Couldn't these things better be kept in the regular day/month entries or the articles about Bangladesh? Gadren 11:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also new Bangladesh-specific day/month pages:

  • Bangladesh March 1971
  • Bangladesh December 1971
  • Bangladesh November 1971
  • Bangladesh February 1971
  • Bangladesh 25 March 1971
  • Bangladesh 26 March 1971
  • Bangladesh 16 December 1971
  • Bangladesh 03 December 1971
  • Delete per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 13:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Ragib 14:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete whatever can fit into an appropriate criterion (e.g. db-empty), and delete the rest. Zunaid 15:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nominator. JIP | Talk 16:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all this ragbag of small oddments. I have copied their useful contents into Bangladesh Liberation War#Events of the War , which pointed to them all Anthony Appleyard 18:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please nominate each of these separately ... just kidding. These appear to be someone's attempt to spread the Bangladesh Liberation War all over the calendar. There's already an article for that. Delete all these.

AnonEMouse 18:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and set them all on fire. RGTraynor 19:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete because it would not be possible to make separate entries for every country and every calendar day, which would be required for completeness if any one country receives such treatment. Agateller 04:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Doc ask? 22:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Area code 989, Area code 985, Area code 973

I don't see other area codes getting their own articles -- there are already [which list the area codes and their locations]. Gadren 11:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Other new area code pages I've found, created by the same person, are being AfD'd as well.


  • Comment ZIP codes and area codes are different... ZIP is for mail, area codes are for the phone system. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops! Must be too early for me to be editing... My first post is now fixed. --Gadren 11:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. No need for individual articles like this. JBEvans 11:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. All this is redundant with list of North American area codes. The only area code I find interesting is Area code 321. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. --Arnzy (Talk) 13:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, since List of North American area codes already contains all this information. Note that other area codes do have their own articles (see the list, which contains many such links). One I've worked on is Area code 905/289 (though the list of CO codes were added by someone else, and should probably be pruned). However, this article, as it stands, clearly does not merit inclusion in WP. Mindmatrix 16:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment If the topic is valid (which I think you accept), then patience rather than deletion is more appropriate. It will get expanded. Deizio talk
  • Keep; other area codes have their own articles that mention what cities they contain and the history of their splits or overlays. --Elkman - (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, nothing of real note in the article right now, but in practice area codes can have their own pages. Tag for expansion and maybe ask eds on relevant cities article talkpages to flesh it out if you want to see it improved in a hurry. Deizio talk 17:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I was going to say delete until I saw the List of North American area codes and looked at the other articles containing different area codes. These pages have the potential to grow. So either delete every area code article along with these three, or keep them all, its only fair. RiseRobotRise 17:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup, expand. There's plenty of other articles about area codes. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 18:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, if kept Rename lots of regions of the world use the term area code (or a term so translated into English) for the same function as the North American area codes, so "Area code 989" for the US is different than Area code 989 in India, Russia, or wherever. So if these must be kept, the should be renamed North American area code 989 or Area code 1-989 or something sufficiently distinct unless we want this to be a USA encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 19:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename per above Jcuk 21:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. These are very helpful as a resource, and we have hundreds of other articles just like this one. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because there is nothing new on these pages that's not in List of North American area codes. If more detailed and/or historical info is available, recreate article. As for the same area codes outside NA, it should be added to country specific pages as per Carlossuarez46. -- P199 16:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Wikipedia is not paper. Peter Grey 07:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic, failing which rename to make clear that these are US area codes, because Wikipedia is international. Stifle (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please this is important and verifiable too Yuckfoo 18:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 22:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mechanican

Neologism. Very few Google hits, and the ones I've found don't refer to what this article is about, but rather an alternate term for "mechanic." Gadren 11:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, could be better put to use transwikied, but it doesn't even seem worth it/notable/verifiable Hobbeslover 02:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skateboarding in Egypt

Advertisement. Gadren 11:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ConDemTalk 13:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this ad --Astrokey44 14:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 16:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience/List

We already have List of alternative, speculative, and disputed theories, and, besides being unneeded, is too prone to POV. Gadren 11:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Line Learning

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

Vanispamcruftisement. Delete unless cleaned up. — May. 3, '06 [12:36] <freakofnurxture|talk>

  • Delete unless cleaned up. As the article stands at the moment context is unclear and heavly POV.--blue520 15:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Article is defamatory, soapbox, contains unauthorised reproduction of copyrighted material, makes unsupported claims re teaching paradigms... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.20.10 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment looks like the article got vandalised; reverting to previous edit so that people can see what they're voting on. ergot 15:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

leave it alone i think this is a valid entry especially if you used to go to the school and see the state it's in now you would totally agree with what this has to say. - 'La Resistance Por La Stag!' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.42.78.205 (talk • contribs) .

'Save' The article shows what the senior team at NLL fail to look at... the students view! As well as informing individuals about what is happening in a school that was very good in Mr Woods time, the previous head. Fair enough discipline may have gone down during that time but from what I see its become worse and all Gerry seems interested in doing is window dressing - just trying to make it look good.... was this one of the reasons for giving all year 7's a tablet laptop? Come to this school we will give you a tablet! Not only has Gerry done all that is outlined in the article but he has also reduced the library to practically nothing, something that used to be a good source of information for students now stands as a couple of book shelves, tucked away in a room becuase where it used to be are now computers. Anyone in their right mind knows not all information on the Internet can be trusted and books are a valuable source of information and at least through using books students have to find the information instead of just going to the first website they find and clicking print! - NLL Mafia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.25.194.69 (talk • contribs) .

As an ex-employee of the Cornwallis School. I took voluntary redundancy recently. I know there is a lot wrong with the Management style of NNL. I am in now way surprised that pupils are getting so disgruntled with their education that they are resorting to this form of expression. I think the media needs to investigate the problems and listen NOT just to the Management's views ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.96.229 (talk • contribs) .

  • Speedy delete as an attack page. Instead of being an article about what New Line Learning is it just reads like a rant from a few students who don't like it. --TheKoG (talk|contribs)

13:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As a student at that so-called school, i believe that the article is 100 percent fact. And this view is held by most of the older students in the school. I wish I'd written it first. Problem is, noone takes notice of students, just the staff, and they're paid to agree with Gerry. This article should be kept because it is the only way that anyone will ever listen to our opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.174.241.66 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment Please read WP:NOR and WP:V. Simply put, personal opinions do not belong in Wikipedia articles. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 20:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - As is, fails NPOV, NN, and is an attack page. If the authors really feel that this matter is suitable for an encyclopedia, they should write an article citing more than one newspaper article about the matter. Otherwise, it will fail WP:OR repeatedly. GRBerry 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As a parent I totally agree with what the article states. Perhaps this isn't the right place for the students to publisise their views but as Dr Gerry's answer to parents who express concern over what he is doing is 'if you don't like it remove your child', what hope have students got of being heard, execpt through mediums like this. After all it is creating a lot of interest not least by the person concerned! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.25.193.119 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic attack page. ergot 17:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As an ex student of this school i feel that it has become the worst school in the area. Gerry has ruined that school with all his stupid ideas that are ruining the learning of the students. This article should be keep to show people what he is really doing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.12.229.165 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep As a student I belive this page is 100% true. The managment iw not willing to listen to the students. Most of the people I talk to including staff belive that this article is a true representation of what the school is like. Well done to the original poster! 13:22, 8 May 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.80.20.10 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep This may seem very repetitive as again I am another ex-student, during the my years at the school which was from infact yr7 - 13 only having just left, i feel this article is complete truth, throughout yr 7 - 11 under Mr Wood the school was the one to join the one that everyone wanted to go to, I even remember when tryin to join the school people gettin turned away! Now through the years i have noticed discipline waivering a bit but i put that down to certain students joining the school whom would be better off doing some sort of Tarmacing or Roofing job! The school came under Gerry's control when i joined yr 12 and has been goin downhill since then like many have said before he is tryin to make it look good while inside it is collapsing! From previous experience it is not only the students who moan and groan about it the school the staff are taking it hard too, although not publically displaying this, it is not hard to tell! I feel that the school is spending too much on posters, signs, logos and brand new tablets and forgettin about the realy things, like classrooms and chairs! Now this is not a dig at any teachers as they try their very best day in day out and they do a good job, some of them have been there all my school life, they dnt need some new bloke coming and ruining it! (What is he a doctor of anyway?) Like trying to bring in the idea of calling teachers by their first names?!? yeh great dicipline there sir! - I have also noticed in previious comments people saying this should not be included it is only an attack, well i apologise but it does need ot be said and it seems that this is the only way or gettin this out! The students who made this article are gettin punished for it by Dr Gerry, is that fair? Everyone has a right to an opinion and plus what is he so worried bout a few students making a little article about the school? hmm he has something to hide!!! My suggestion is dnt send your child here, there are plenty of good schools in maidstone, that are gettin better and your child will gain much from, and yes the media need to get behind this and show the school for what its really for! I dnt say just bring back the Stag i say bring back Mr Wood but i dnt think that will be possible! Well done poster! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.140.31 (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dummy(Emma Robets song)

The article's title is misspelled, the article itself is very short, poorly written, might be considered original research and its subject is hardly notable. Delete. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tatjana

Contested PROD. Article provides no information about "Tatjana" that establishes her notability. It says that a 1995 single became a smash hit in Europe and Japan, but it doesn't say she sang it. No verifiability, no sources, nothing. Delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Yes, she sang it (why else would it be in the article?). I'm not sure if I'd call it a "smash", but it was a modest dance hit in several countries, and enough for an article. Note that, although not stated in the article, she also has an acting career under her full name, Tatjana Simic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Tajči if thats the same person? --Astrokey44 14:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not the same person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have expanded the article based on Andrew's IMDb link. "Santa Maria" was remixed by Mike Stock and Matt Aitken of Stock Aitken Waterman fame see [22]. With an IMDb and Allmusic.com article, she is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 20:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable enough to me Jcuk 21:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep quite famous in the Netherlands Bemoeial 00:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Two CDs and a movie qualifies her. --John Nagle 04:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Starblind and Capitalistroadster, meets WP:BIO guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beeman

This was PRODed as "nn company", Google returns over 1.5 million hits for "Beeman" [23], the vast majority false positives. However, "Beeman Airguns" returns over 29K hits [24], and "Beeman Precision Airguns" returns almost a thousand [25]. It seems to me that this may be a leading company in a niche industry. No vote Dsmdgold 14:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, seems to be notable within a niche industry. Stifle (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Sam Blanning(talk) 13:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Google shows them to be notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand.--blue520 16:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Beeman Precision Airguns", as the vast majority of pages for Beeman are false positives.--Prosfilaes 04:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 content; there is no consensus at this time about merging; this can be discussed on the talk page. - Liberatore(T) 18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Ash

Badly-written profile of a minor character from a video game series. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by McGeddon (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep Recurring (and not particularly minor) character in at least three different games. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to TimeSplitters, per WP:FICT. No indication that this character is worth its own article in terms of popular notice or widespread influence. Barno 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to aforementioned. Articles like this are not allowed in Wikipedia. --Slgrandson 16:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: See TimeSplitters: Future Perfect#Main Characters before voting, there are similar articles there. Personally I think these should all be merged into a new List of characters in the Timesplitters series. Grandmasterka 17:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into proposed List of characters in the Timesplitters series. I don't think there's enough to say about each of the Timesplitters characters that warrants them entire articles to themselves. Hammer Raccoon 15:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Hammer Raccoon. Stifle (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all per Grandmasterka. -Sean Curtin 06:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Isn't this wikipedia- the great encyclopedia that covers all? Ford Prefect 2
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 1 vote to keep, 8 to delete and 5 to merge (three votes were discounted). A clearer consensus is needed to delete, so the result is merge. Ezeu 10:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Decider

One word (or simple article-noun phrase) from one remark does not make an encyclopedia article. It's ridiculous. --Kbh3rdtalk 07:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I diagree, as this has taken on a life of its own, similar to "Where's the beef?" I will say, however, that it has the danger of becoming horribly NPOV, and thus should be watched closely by experienced Wiki users such as yourself. -- Randvek talk 10:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as attack page. --Bachrach44 14:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and Bachrach44. Note that the Oxford English Dictionary defines "decider" as "One who or that which decides (a controversy, question, etc.)" which means that George W. Bush's usage of the word wasn't even incorrect. --Metropolitan90 14:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Stop the Republican Takeover of Wikipedia. He said it. Anyone with a legitimate college education would have said "decision maker". It was technically accurate, but it was still goofey. Now its a T-shirt or several hundred variations. It's not an attack. It's a fact. --Mtaus 14:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Republican takeover? Considering the magnitude of the vandalism of the George W. Bush page, I disagree. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 22:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It was funny, yes, but unless it makes some real gains in notability outside of the Daily Show and left-leaning blogs, Delete. We don't have an article for "Food on your family", do we? Nedlum 01:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - We don't have an article for "The Buck Stops Here", an equivalent and much more notable statement by a prior U.S. president. Instead, we have a redirect to the page of the president that said it. GRBerry 01:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Come on now, I know many people don't like Bush, but this is ridiculous Hobbeslover 02:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Maybe add it to a list of euphemisms used by Bush. --Strothra 02:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. This is barely a Bushism, but if people think it's funny that Bush said "decider", then add it to the list at Bushism instead of keeping it as a separate article. --Metropolitan90 05:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Bushism. --Eivindt@c 12:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If we had an article on every silly/confusing (Make the pie higher!)/ironic/unintentionally humorous thing Bush has said, we'd need a whole new wiki. Wikipedia may not be paper, but we'd run out of bytes before we got through the first term. ScottW 13:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is what Wikiquote is for. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 22:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Bushism. Ridiculous things from Bush are, sadly, unremarkable. (Though it would be cool if Arnold picked up the nickname 'decisionator'...) Peter Grey 07:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Random House Unabridged Electronic Dictionary also confirms it's a legitimate word, though maybe pretentious. The funny part is the way Bush tries to sound as if he's saying something profound, and instead he comes across as if he just realized what his job for the last five and half years actually entails. Peter Grey 04:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Bushism. As the previous user said Wump 08:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Stick it in Bushism. We can't have an individual page for every idiotic thing your president has said. The web isn't big enough. -- GWO
  • Merge with Bushism.It makes sense to have all this president's linguistic butchering collected together. --Piercival 7:42 06May2006
  • Merge with Bushism for the rasons stated above. Technogeek 21:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This word has now entered the lexicon in the NY Times and throughout the blogosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxgray7 (talk • contribs)
    • Yes, the New York Times has recognized the word "decider" -- they recognized it before George W. Bush ever said it, because it's an English language word. See this book review from 1992, which quotes John F. Kennedy as saying, "The essence of ultimate decision remains impenetrable to the observer -- often indeed to the decider himself." --Metropolitan90 06:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep reactions can not be merged into bushism --Striver 14:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bushism prominently links to this article. Link to Video. SugakuKarasu 23:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment the above user has 9 edits on Wikipedia. [26]--Jersey Devil 02:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism. Any relevant information can be placed in the Bushism article.--Jersey Devil 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge to Bushisms. It's already there, but possibly a mention of the Daily Show comic could be added if somebody wants. The Kobe quote seems pretty irrelevant. A redirect might be warranted, but I have no strong opinion on that point. Шизомби 04:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leah Dizon

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. Previously prod'ed, added information isn't any more significant. Non-notable car model who has been on the cover of a few magazines and attends auto shows. discospinster 14:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Closest thing to notability is appearing on "Import Tuner" magazine. Not enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ConDemTalk 16:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slashcoast

This word does not exist. It only appears in similar Wiki environments, and has been deleted from en.Wiktionary Jeff Knaggs 07:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NEO. Very few Google results [27], most of which are from Wikipedia and its mirror sites --TBC☆O M G! 15:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and TBC.--blue520 16:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 09:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Society

YASNS, only launched in March this year. Alexa ranking of a whopping 2,004,734, only 1500 members, and no assertion of notability per WP:WEB └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Murena

Was on prod, objector removed tag, nn notable, semifinalist placing 18th in a competition, few unique googles, very low Alexa rank, possible vanity, only one brief imbd entry was American Idol --John Lakonias 16:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--John Lakonias 16:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 17:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • His fifteen minutes have been up for so long, he really only had three minutes thirty seconds. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 19:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Chantessy 20:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 repost, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy, which IIRC was endorsed at deletion review. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Briefs controversy

Article is unverifiable, suspected hoax. I can't really say if this is a genuine article or not. It's best to take it to AFD. KarlaJoanne 16:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete as nonsense, hoax, etc. This borders on being so non-sensical that it can be speedied. -- Kicking222 16:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blinx 3

I previously prod'd this article twice, but the author deleted both tags, each time adding more information that either does not improve the article or cannot be verified; here's what I wrote as the second prod: aside from WP not being a crystal ball, this game was announced before the second game was even released (almost two years ago), and there has been no news on it since then (in addition to the second game selling poorly), meaning that this game may not even be in development. -- Kicking222

  • Delete per my nom. A person claiming someone told him a game exists does not mean the game exists, and even if it did, the info would be unverifiable. -- Kicking222 16:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - rumoured does not equal verified.--blue520 17:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 19:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, etc. Stifle (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Ezeu 09:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KVHW

Delete, nn band, deprodded so sent here. Great canidate for a speedy delete. San Saba 17:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Is "toured nationally" a claim to notability? -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, since notable artist Steve Kimock played with them. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Sam Blanning(talk) 17:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Squegg

Contested PROD, Simply non-referenced and unverifiable WP:V blue520 17:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Squedd's (species that lays the egg) have been sighted around 10 times this year already. The UK Squedd Protection agency provides a shelter and attempts to find homes for wayward and stray Squedds that have somehow managed to leave either Hyde or Regent's Park. The excavation of Squeggs is punishable with an unlimited fine and up to 15 years imprisonment and those caught selling the Squeggs can be dealt greater penalties. This is a valid entry: knowledge of Squedds and their plight must be exhibited to ensure the survival of this beautiful and most noble creature.

  • Comment - Save your breath, sir. You've been caught and outed, and it's time to give up gracefully. RGTraynor 22:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 09:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Andrews (magician)

The individual is non-notable. The subject was already submitted and approved for deletion [29] on 23 January 2006, but the page was then re-created on 1 February [30]. Attempts were made over the last three months to try and expand the article. The individual's name does appear in the press in a few minor mentions, but the article still does not meet the Wikipedia standards for notability, and should be re-deleted. -17:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above description. -Elonka 17:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 19:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete can't see how this illusionist is special.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC
  • Delete Not notable. The ONLY reference I can find on Google (apart from this page) is this ilusionists own website! -- (217.37.59.203 16:23, May 7, 2006)
  • Keep References found at numerous trusted sites [31][32][33].Modworker 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 09:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Plank

  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 was already speedied once by Luigi30 as non-encyclopedic. However, since the page's creator disagrees with the its deletion and has just recreated the page, I am bringing it here for greater community discussion. The article is about a 19 year old who owns Wrongplanet.net (Alexa rank 167,052}. The article deals mostly with the minutiae of this teenager's website. As both the website and the person seem to have notability problems (as well as problems with reliable third party sources) I am recommending delete. --Hetar 17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Alexander Plank is one of the most visible members of the online autistic community, widely know both by people with asperger's and by the friends, parents and significant other's of people with asperger's. --PeterMackenzie 18:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn bio. A stub on wrongplanet.net seems more suitable, though, it's mentioned in several legitimate articles [34], assuming they're not planted there by vanity editors. -Obli (Talk)? 17:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I would also like to argue that the page should not be deleted. The website in question is controversial within the online AS/autism community, and the individual concerned has had a significant impact on how the community is viewed through his actions - he has a high level of visibility and some notoriety within the AS/autism community. Leaving the article online to be edited and improved would be providing a source of information about the affair which is not otherwise available online, and would allow the author the opportunity to verify his research. I urge you to recategorise the article accordingly. --Duncvis 18:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.173.194 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This user does not exist, it is actually an anonymous editor
  • Keep and move to Alexander Plank. His resume [35] indicates nobility via WP:BIO for his appearances on Good Morning America and Geraldo at Large, as well as claims to be quoted in various books on Asperger's. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and STRONG clean-up if kept This article is... well, it's pretty terrible. The author attempts to assert notability by saying that the subject applied to be a WP admin! Oh my lord! He's more important than Einstein! And you know what else we need? A list of people who have been banned from posting on a barely-notable web site! Intense sarcasm aside, this article, in my opinion, barely fails to qualify for inclusion in WP, and it needs to be so heavily edited that it might as well simply be deleted, anyway. In addition, since it is recreated material that was previously deleted, it could just as easily be speedied again. -- Kicking222 18:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It should definitely be kept. It is a good biography for one of the "leaders" of the AS community. Just because you don't have AS, does not mean this isn't important. ^^^^QuirkyCarla (forgot to sign)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.68.206.77 (talk • contribs)

  • Note: This user does not exist either, it is actually another anonymous editor
  • Delete per nom. Not only is this article a mess (and just this side of an attack page, come to that), not only are the sole sources for his "guest appearances" his own resume, not only is this "well-known" person quite faceless in actual fact (excluding the two websites he runs himself, he has exactly five unique Google hits), the recreation of this page is editor's sole contribution to Wikipedia, other than asking on the Talk page how he can bring more outsiders into the debate. If Mr. Plank was genuinely well-known in the Asperger's community, surely someone would have heard of him other than on his own websites? RGTraynor 18:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC#)
  • Delete WP:NN not verifiable. Dominick (TALK) 18:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What I see here is a heavily POV article about someone who has annoyed a bunch of people on Wikipedia (which would definitely not make him unique or notable) and also on another website which is itself non-notable. I see no evidence, or even assertion, really, to support his "leadership" within the AS community. Fan1967 18:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable, unencyclopedic, not notable (includes a list of people banned from some website?) Use of sockpuppets is also not a good sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Only verification of notability I could find is already in William Freund. A Plank just seems to be a webmaster of a forum Freund posted on. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to find people who know all about him, try any of the following websites:

http://gestalt.as4us.net/phpBB2/index.php

http://www.intensitysquared.com

http://www.onthespectrum.com/board/index.php

http://pearlsofwisdom.forumup.com/

http://www.stimmy.net/aspietrash/index.php

http://www.duncsdrivel.biz/

http://www.neurolands.com/index.php

Alex is the fulcrum of much of the online asperger's community. He's had a great deal of influence in shaping the community since 2004, but lately, his influence has changed from constructive to destructive, and since he's taken to manipulating information on his site and taking advantage of the generosity and gullability of many people with AS, it's important to have a independent source on him, to which the entire community can contribute.

The people contributing annonymously at the moment are from that community, and are contributing soley because it's an Alex Plank article, rather than due to any experience with wikipedia, thus the problems with their signitures and the newness of their accounts. They are not sockpuppets, and each one has their own identity on those sites, with long posting histories. PeterMacKenzie 19:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment If you have evidence to support your claims, you will need to provide specific citations in the article. I can 100% guarantee you that no one here is going to spend hours combing through a bunch of forums that we've never heard of, trying to find it. Second comment: Basically your second paragraph above sounds a lot like "We need this article so we have a place to attack him." If, in fact, there is a large online AS community, it would seem that there have to be better places for you to post your warnings about him. Fan1967 19:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete borderline speedy at NN-bio. --Bachrach44 19:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per RGTraynor. Gwernol 19:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with clean up and move to Alexander Plank. Alexander Plank is well-known in the Autism / Asperger Syndrome community. Alexander Plank has 1,290,000 hits on Google, and is notable. [36] He appeared on television after the William_Freund incident as a representative of the Asperger Syndrome community and as the owner of a notable Asperger Syndrome website, WrongPlanet.net [37]. Aspens 19:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (note: user's second edit)
  • Comment -- no, he doesn't; nice try. A directed Google search (with Asperger's, using "Alexander Plank" as a phrase instead of included words, and excluding his own two websites) returns this: [38].
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=Asperger%27s++%22alex+Plank%22+-alexplank.com+-site%3AWrongPlanet.net&btnG=Search

I wouldn't call that significant, nor (even if true) do I call everyone who gets a couple minutes on TV notable. I've been interviewed on TV twice; that sure doesn't qualify me under WP:BIO. RGTraynor 22:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unless you are Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia activities do not qualify you for main article space. If his Asperger's website are the grounds for inclusion, he should be assessed against WP:WEB and I don't think he meets those standards either. Further, we need reliable sources to meet our verifiability standards and web forums are not considered to be reliable sources. Capitalistroadster 20:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE Please. Perl 23:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Perl is Alexander Plank. PeterMacKenzie 23:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Although Alex has done alot of things to upset the members of WP.net however I think writing a wiki article about is going a little overboard in my honest opinion. This whole thing has been blown way out of porpotion. WP.net is not as well known as people may think. Whoever wrote this article did so with the sole purpose of attacking Alex. I realize alex has done alot of things to upset the community, everyone needs to keep in mind that he is just a 19 year old kid who made a website. The website just happened to get its 15 minutes of fame due to the William Freund incident. I don't see this article relevant enough to be a wikipedia article. I vote to either DELETE or MERGE with another article such as the one that concerns William Fruend. --69.164.183.81 00:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Jman

Comment His involvement with William Freund is already covered in that article. Or at least it was until 15 minutes ago when Perl removed it. The article under discussion here seems mainly devoted to describing how he's not a nice person on web forums. Hardly worthy of note, and hardly encyclopedic. Fan1967 01:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, though it is CSD G4, repost of deleted content. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; unencyclopedic gossip, nn bio, recreation of deleted material. ergot 16:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Clean up and keep, if only to allow for substantial rewriting. Some of the content may well be unencyclopedic, and it needs some editing, but WrongPlanet.net IS a big fish in the online AS/autism community, and Alexander Plank highly visible and notable within it - it is a site which generates several million hits a month and is often surfers first contact with the AS/autism community. As such, I would like to see the article remain to allow time for notability to be demonstrated. I made an anonymous comment yesterday as Duncvis, my nick on those forums - I believed I had already set up a wikipedia account in that name, sorry for any confusion. I am not a sock puppet. Spudboy 18:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Note-This is the users' only edit. should not be counted for the consensus.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 18:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm afraid the way it works is first you get notable, then you get to have articles about yourself. WP:CHILL. RGTraynor 21:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is for encyclopediac knowledge, not personal opinions, and I'm going contrary to the majority of the people who are here and actually know Alex... Also, appologies for this being my first edit under the username, I rarely remember to log in, and my IP keeps shifting due to reformatting of computer... BlackLiger 00:21GMT 06 May 2006

Keep and Edit (author open to editing suggestions). I am the person who submitted this article and i would like to apologize for not signing my name to it. Also, not well versed with your guidelines. But i have been studying them and hope to one day be a positive contributer to your informational resource. My user name is Freedom of Information and i firmly believe that all information should be freely readable and acquired. The reason for this article satisfies that right to information. I believe that the actions of A Plank is detrimental to people with disabilities on the autism spectrum. Evidenced by the people that he has hurt. One of the main issues with Asperger's syndrome is that those who are afflicted do not possess the same social skills as 'normal' people. As a result many have been bullied their whole lives. Forcing them into a life of recluse, and quite saddened lonliness. A Plank is not doing a service to the Autistic community for he is a bully as well. However he has numerous sockpuppets on his own site (which claims to be a support forum for AS/HFA, and uses them to spin his POV. Using members to make money through ads and donations. Eventually he will certainly disenfranchise more people, people who have already had enough bullying and dared to reach out to the world again, but unfortunately found his website. The reason that they find him is because he controls all the information lines. I feel that a deletion of this article would do a disservice to the thousands who visit his website. His PR person actually predicted 10-20 members in the next few years. Being an information resource i would think that Wikipedia would be pro information, and especially when it might do others a valuable service. I would like a chance to edit it and the opportunity to keep it available as an information resource. if we could please move the discussion towards editing suggestions, it would be a true service to the freedom of information.Freedom of information 10:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment We've seen repeated arguments that argue that you need Wikipedia as a place to warn people about him. Sorry, Wikipedia is not free blogspace for attack pages, and that's what this is. Fan1967 14:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

response to comment Never has it been stated that wikipedia is needed as a vehicle to warn people. It has been argued that Wikipedia is a valuable information resource. This is not an attack blog, it is an informational blog. It would also seem like you, the administrators of Wikipedia would also want to know what type of person has an obsession with administatorship on your website. The person who has made repeated attemts under several different aliases to gain power here because of his lust for suppressing information. DO YOU ADMINISTRATORS REALIZE WHAT TYPE OF POWER WIKIPEDIA HAS. I thought that you might take a persons right to know the facts and have freedom to acquire honest information. The article was and remains a strong case of untried internet law. Read it again and look at the facts, you will certainly rue the day that you chose to opt out of internet precidence: copyright issues, internet users personal liberties, money making sites, asking for donations and claiming poverty in doing so (fraud), supressing of information, and bottom line ownership. I have asked and i will reiterate I would like the opportunity to edit the document, not for content, but for perception. BTW- I have Asperger's as well, so i apologise for my lack of social grace.keep it and edit Freedom of information 09:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Many people have tried to become Wikipedia admins through fake identities or dishonest means. He wasn't the first, won't be the last, and most succeed no better than he did. That is an internal Wikipedia issue. It has been, and will continue to be, dealt with internally. It is not an encyclopedic subject for article-space. Fan1967 15:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Beyond that, Freedom, a great many people have the notion that Wikipedia is useful for a great many things that are in fact beyond its explicit purpose. I recommend reading WP:NOT for a list of these erroneous suppositions. It isn't for advocacy, it's not for informational blogging, it's not for "getting the word out," it's not even quite an "information resource." It's an encyclopedia, nothing more. RGTraynor 20:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 09:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenix Dollar

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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


Recreation of content previously at Phoenix (currency), which was deleted as advertising and replaced with a redirect to something unrelated. Subject matter is a non-notable private "currency" which hopes to replace the US Dollar following the dollar's collapse (WP:NOT a crystal ball). Until said event takes place, the currency in question is non-notable, being something that only a very small special interest group is even aware of (WP:Cruft). Google news search on "Phoenix Dollar" results in only one hit, a reference to a probably unrelated mutual fund. This article could also be construed as linkspam. ergot 18:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. ergot 18:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as crufty nonsense per nom. RGTraynor 18:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom, looks like spam/ego page Pontificake 19:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable currency. --Several Times 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is a Stub and wikipedia supports stub entries so that they may be expanded at a later time. We fully intend to expand this page to incude much data about what metal backed currencies are in general. We are now working on getting this done and we ask that you allow us enough space to improve the listing to be informative in a general way rather than just a stub as it stands now. The thoughts put forth above are not valid points. The Phoenix does not intend to replace the US Dollar and has never stated such a thing. That is a bold faced lie with the intent to harm the reputation of a solid private silver currency with thousands of clients. Also, noting that the currency is small is no reason not to allow a page for such a service. If the page is spam then I concede, but there is nothing wrong with having a page for a currency that is issued by private parties and wikipedia should support free market money. I also note that searching google pulls many results. You said google news which has no bearing on the merit of a business. Google does not determine a companies future and also is not a basis for judging a business or idea. It should be able to stand on facts and not search results. I suggest keeping the entry but expand it to include more data about what a private silver backed currency actually is and make it more informative. I would be happy to do that and will add to this article shortly.Fredhandlive 16:03, 5 May 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep I don't think it would be a good precedent to decide whether something should be included in Wikipedia based upon whether it has a high Google news position! That is a really disturbing idea to me--that one group could on wikipedia could decide that another group's interests aren't important enough because they don't make the news! This is a stub, and isn't particularly helpful yet, but it's not advertising anything, and as the poster above pointed out, stubs are supported by wikipedia. Also, the argument against this entry sounds a lot more like editorializing than the stub itself. I think perhaps this person has a vested interest? Also, there doesn't seem to be anything in the article about replacing US currency. Has that been removed already--because I tend to agree that the critique is a bit over the top. Anyway, just looks like a stub to me--why not see if those interested in it can expand it into something useful, then revisit this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.13.130 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment please vote only once. ergot 03:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC) --Sorry, I'll compile. 71.35.13.130 19:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Were this a local currency, I would not be at all opposed to keeping it. Unfortunately, it is a non-notable private currency which has not yet attracted enough attention to merit mention in an encyclopedia, hence my listing of it for deletion. ergot 02:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep "No intelligent idea can gain general acceptance" "If people are free in any meaningful sense of the word, that means they are at liberty to foul up their lives as much as make something grand of them. That's the gamble we all take. That's the risk of liberty." Who are these people to dictate deletion, that the community i feel at liberty with are crafty nonsense, non-notable currency. If it is a non-notable then i am a non-notable entity who uses this currency for my own personal dealings with other community members. i noticed they give to children's charities, i do not see other non-notable companies doing the same. They have every right at having a mark on history in my opinion, every entity in this life makes up a whole for history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.16.77 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per Several Times, flood of socks. Stifle (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Also, sockpuppets on an AFD is never a good idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 09:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viatalk

ViaTalk is a Very small VOIP provider that provides E911 to all Customers. (Http://www.viatalk.com)

(Please Add to this) Why delete it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Locust43 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Editor who tagged the article, Locust43, apparently changed his mind, or was confused. Editor has removed the AfD tag from the page. Fan1967 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: No evidence that it meets WP:CORP and no independent and RS sources --Hetar 17:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete as per WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 09:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxygenstartank

Contested prod. Article about a personal website that has no Alexa rating[39] and for which Google only reports a handful of hits to forums and similar unreliable sources[40]. Delete as per WP:WEB. --Allen3 talk 19:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 20:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Several Times 20:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Include this in wikipedia: The Oxygenstartank is a useful reference for those who are involved or affected by the increasingly violent street battles in the Northside county Dublin estates, as well as any wishing to investigate the ongoing disturbances in that area, and their increasing levels of organisation, in which the startank plays a central role —The preceding unsigned comment was added by No bunny (talk • contribs) .
  • The Oxygenstartank obviously has cultural significance and a plays a large role in current events in dublin. As such, this remains an excellent reference for those in need of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foymaster (talk • contribs) .

This is a farce The Oxygenstartank has help me on numerous occasions and so should have its spot for any one seeking wisdom from them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.190.129.19 (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete: as a failure of WP:WEB. Please ignore the sock puppets. --Hetar 17:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • sooner or later it will be included as a matter of necessity anyway. The merger of the Fianna Fáil 'the republican party' and PD coalition [41] with the main negotiators of the new auxiliary garda force[42] includes the branch of Fingal County Council that governs over Coolock/Artane and who are maintaining an open dialogue with the Oxygenstartank. The startank in many ways contributed to the opening of these negotiations in the first place. It would be negligent of you to overlook this.

Clue: check [43] "The Taoiseach has said he believes the rioting in Dublin on Saturday was organised by a small group of agitators"


The Oxygenstartank (Startank for short) is arguably one of the web's few precious gems. As distinct from other personal webpages, it is not concerned with a central message or theme. Rather, the phenomenon exists solely in the site's guestbook-turned-Bulletin Board. The board is one of those rare occurences, directly influenced by the world of mass communication exchange, which allows for the intimacy and idiosyncrasies of everyday life to seep into the digital diaspora, uncensored, and unapologetically plain-view for all to see. For this reason, the board should not be casually dismissed as unimportant, for it's all too easy to ignore the diverse and wondrous contribution to the board over the years by various different members. Each of whom holds the board in high esteem, and sincerely recommends the perusal of the board by anyone who chooses to do so.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last surviving cast member

I can think of absoultely no rhyme or reason why this page should be in an encyclopedia. It serves no purpose (be it useful, informative, interesting or even relevant). Stenun 19:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh dear lord, please delete I don't think anything else really needs to be said. -- Kicking222 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, yet this article insists that actors will die eventually. Everyone knows that they live forever in the hearts of their fans or something. --Several Times 20:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Unfortunately, who exactly the last surviving member was is often an issue of contention." A prime reason why this list is inherently unencyclopedic - there are no objective criteria for this list. The sub-categorization within each movie listed only confirms the subjectiveness of this list. Fluit 22:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Errr ... I would think that the objective criterion for this list would be "when the last cast member dies," myself. Painfully obvious replies aside, Delete and Merge the information as trivia bits into the individual films cited. RGTraynor 23:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It was mostly built by an IP address last fall. A few users have added to it since. The problem I have with it is its arbitrariness and incompleteness. If you're going to do something like this, you pretty much have to do every movie, which could get lengthy. I concur with Merge and Delete... put the info, where known, on the individual movie pages, if it's not already there. Wahkeenah 00:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete For the love of god.. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. Send any useful information to other pages. Sue Anne 21:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not very useful and horribly incomplete list. BryanG 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ardenn 04:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Basically production trivia that has no relevance to the content of the artistic works. (Although I think there is a concept of Last surviving cast member for the one character still in the film at the end, for some murder mystery or horror films.) Peter Grey 07:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no useful value. Carlossuarez46 17:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I doubt information from the article is not in other articles already, but if not, it could be merged. -- ReyBrujo 06:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Did anyone get a chance to see if the info was on the individual film pages, before clobbering it? Not that it matters very much. Wahkeenah 23:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanespo

Article is in Portuguese, has been marked with {{translation}} since April 12, but nothing has happened.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, if it was important it would have been translated by now. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the portuguese Wikipedia deleted it twice already [44]. -- ReyBrujo 06:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of bands by country

This page, in theory, should list every country for which a WP article about a band exists. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists, and this page seems like it could turn into a list of every country in the world (although it already includes all of Europe as one region). There may be a complex list system here which I'm not aware of, so no vote from me. Several Times 20:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. This would be more suitable as a category (i.e. Musicians by country. By itself it's not really an article. It also strikes as a difficult exercise. Individuals are easy to say where they come from (i.e. Johnny Cash), but bands are not so clear (i.e. CSN&Y: Americans, a Brit, and a Canadian). Fluit 22:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We have Category:Singers by nationality, Category:Musicians by nationality and other similar categories. I guess this could be redirected to a list of lists of musicians by place or something. Tuf-Kat 23:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with TUF-KAT, that's why WP has category pages. -- P199 16:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There is already a List of bands and musicians by country. This page is not needed.Tartan 19:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tartan. -- ReyBrujo 06:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prhizzm

Delete non notable artist. WP:MUSIC. Strothra 20:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete - Tough call; Benbecula Records is a notable independent label in its field (electronica) but none of the listed releases are full length. Ac@osr 20:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep 2 singles or EPs on a notable label are almost as good as an album. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Artist fails to meet all standards set in WP:MUSIC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Strothra (talk • contribs) .
  • Speedy Delete per SD Criteria - Article 7 Hobbeslover 02:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 06:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Fluffy Bunnies of Doom

Delete Non-notable website Typos 20:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete being listed on website directories isn't a sign of notability. As that is stated upfront, I imagine that is the only claim to notability this site can even make. IrishGuy 20:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Despite being less than a month old, and having virtually no advertising whatsoever, this site has averaged about 25 page views a day for the past week (ON home page only) and that number is rapidly increasing. It will eventually be very popular, hopefully.-- This unsigned remark was left by Smartyshoe
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This may become the most popular website of all time. It may fade away into obscurity. Right now it's a brand new site with very few viewers. Right now it does not meet WP:WEB. If that changes, the article may be recreated in the future once it has achieved notability. Fan1967 22:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 25 page views a day is not notable, considering that some of those hits might be from Wikipedia editors reviewing it for the AfD vote. Should that number rapidly increase over the next year, then the article can have another look. Otherwise, there are MySpace pages with more pageviews, and the article and topic as it stands now is non-notable. --Ataricodfish 21:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    comment I agree with the above statement. 25 hits a day isn't notable. Nor is Wikipedia for advertising websites. IrishGuy 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Shuki 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per nom. -- JeremyA 21:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 25 hits a day = not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As above. DJ Clayworth 16:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Fan1967. First notability, then Wikipedia, please. -- ReyBrujo 06:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Konover Construction

PROD tag removed by creator User:Konover with no explanation. Article seems to be promotional in nature about a company that doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. W.marsh 20:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete There are several construction companies with Konover as a name (Google test), it seems this might be vanity or misleading; either way, I agree with nom Hobbeslover 02:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If this company meets WP:CORP, it may be due more to criticism of labor practices and a lawsuit over a workplace injury (actually this incident has received a fair amount of coverage). What's interesting about this article is that half of it is about a labor activist who is critical of the company's practices. If it's intended to be promotional, I doubt the company would include this information, and certainly not a link to the Web site of the critic [45]. In any case, none of this has a bearing on the company being notable. It just seems odd to the paranoid amongst me. ScottW 03:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity or not, it doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP.ScottW 12:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Wu

  • Delete - Written by Billy Traner, friend of Anthony Wu as listed in the article. Vanity listing. -Tεxτurε 20:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. I couldn't find any references to this person via google. IrishGuy 20:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity and nn. -- MarcoTolo 22:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Texture (whose signature is nearly impossible to read when attempting to cut-and-paste) -Harmil 01:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am the primary author and the one mentioned in the article gave permission for me to create the page. --BillyT 12:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, nn. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete admitted vanity and non-notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails to meet WP:BIO. -- ReyBrujo 06:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nom's withdrawal, addition of sources, and no delete votes.. --Hetar 19:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christ.

Weak DeleteKeep non notable minor artist. Notability is not established in the article. There are no citations to prove notability. article updated Strothra 20:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - the above is the nomination, not a response. The article asserts notability, but I am not in a position to evaluate it for this topic. 20:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GRBerry (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Assuming the information in the article is true, he's notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Assuming? You're voting on whether or not the article establishes notability. You just implied that the article does not but you're going to go ahead and assume that what it says is true eventhough there is no verifiability in the article. Please see WP:VERIFY.--Strothra 23:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Needs cited but not verified is not the same as not verifiable. Several releases on a notable independent label in the field (it is noted that the 2nd full-length is forthcoming, however) and he's an ex-member of another notable act Boards Of Canada. I'll give this a spruce up later today. Ac@osr 07:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - article now reworked. I would add that there is an entry for him at AMG, although there is very little information there. Ac@osr 12:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- this is an artist of international reputation, with several highly acclaimed releases, a john peel session, and concerts worldwide. All of the information on the page is entirely verifiable by searching the web.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.104.244 (talk • contribs)
Comment Please note that if you do not sign out then your vote will, most likely, not count.--Strothra 16:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • further comment i don't know what you mean by that.. you have my ip . i don't really have a computer nickname. i'd additionally like to point out that this artist meets at least three of you criteria on musicians. international tour(japan)(uk)(europe). link to other band of note (boards of canada). dedicated radio broadcast of half an hour or an hour (john peel show).
1) What I meant by that was anonymous users do not usually get credit for votes because they do not have the edit histories to gain the respect of admins. 2) You need to cite this evidence in the article. If you did that you may change my vote if you can PROVE notability. --Strothra 21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
further comment - ALL of the aspects listed by the unsigned user are now in the article with citation following my clean-up yesterday. The link at the bottom has the touring details and the Peel session, the link to another notable artist is in the BoC US press release that has been linked to at the appropriate paragraph. Ac@osr 11:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Ah didn't see that. --Strothra 14:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now establishes notability. GRBerry 16:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (Triple strength) Google returns "about 162,000,000" hits! How is that not notable?!!?!?!? 20:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
oooooo you typed Christ into google a hundred thousand hits. big surprise. Google hits do not make something notable rather the individual sources do. --Strothra 21:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
oooooo you missed the point that stupid names like this are hard to search for. (BTW, I typed "Christ." into google.) I'd delete them all, including .NET Framework, if it was up to me. And I was going to vote delete here but there seems to be enough Keep's already to make the result at best "no consensus". Ewlyahoocom 10:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I had already changed my vote to keep because the article established notability. Google does not establish notability if the article does not. If you type "Christ." into a search engine you get the results of ever sentance that ends with "Christ." that's stored on their server. That's a lot of results, you're not neccesarily getting results which have anything to do with the article - that's just pure common sense and I even just did that same search to prove myself right. You should have actually reviewed the results of your hit rather than the number of returns. --Strothra 11:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Point of information if you type "Christ." into Google (and probably most search engines) you'll get the exact same results as if you type "Christ" in -- it ignores that puncuation (Look! "Christ." just got about +5,000,000 more hits!) Ewlyahoocom 13:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
well that still doesn't invalidate anything i've said about how pointless your google search leading to notability statement was. --Strothra 19:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 10:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Tawker as CSD A7.. --Hetar 17:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dansenie

Not notable (very few Google hits), neologism. Gadren 20:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I find it highly amusing, but it is of course speculative, as per nom : Librarianofages 22:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NME compilations

A series of tables listing the tracks included on free CDs issued by the NME. I have many of these CDs myself, but nonetheless I don't think magazine covermount albums are notable per se. I'm also of the opinion that any NME compilations which are notable - In A Field of Their Own and Ruby Trax might be - should have standalone articles with infoboxes and commentary, not a mess like this. The bottom line here is that the only people who could be remotely interested in the tracklistings of some old freebie compilations are... well, nobody really because those who own the discs presumably have the covers too! Delete kingboyk 12:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - which is a pity as there's obviously been a bit of work in this. Some of these might be relevent to an artist discography (such as the Morrissey compiled disc), but apart from that, no. "Ruby Trax" and "Sgt Pepper Knew My Father" would be worth entries as both were comprised of exclusive recordings made particularly for the magazine. Ac@osr 13:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree entirely. Even if it is deleted, I'm always happy to userfy articles like this upon request, as it might save somebody some typing if - for example - they want to put the tracklisting of Morrissey's disc into his article. But, I think this overview article as it stands is really not worthy of an enyclopedia. --kingboyk 14:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Sgt Pepper KMF presently has a little section in the Sgt Pepper article. It's ok to mention its existence there, buy the detail of that would probably best be kept here. -- GWO
  • Keep -- I've a stack of those 4-track EPs somewhere, so if this doesn't get deleted, I'll add the information. Tom Waits, Pixies, Hüsker Dü, The Smiths, The Wedding Present, C86. Them were days. (Ambles off into cloud of nostalgia.) GWO
    • I have at least 10 of them, some of which aren't listed, so if the list is kept I can add them too. (My two favoured outcomes of an AFD are a bad/inapproriate article being zapped, or impetus beginning for an article's improvement - clearly the latter is best in most cases. In this case, I'm still not convinced that it's a worthy article, but I welcome the high quality debate and if it is kept at least we now have some people who undertake to improve it). --kingboyk 03:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Certainly the issuance of these sampler discs by the magazine is a noteworthy fact, and the background paragraph should be expanded. The tables may not all be well designed, but seem verifiable, and answer the obvious questions that will arise once the existence of the compilations is announced. I can't see merging this stuff into the NME article in chief either. Smerdis of Tlön 16:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Is this opening the floodgates? Nowadays there are UK music magazines who have a CD on the front of every issue (and I mean EVERY issue). In the days of the 7" EPs the NME included (of which I have a small pile too...), such giveaways were a rarity but things have changed and it's now more surprising if a music magazine doesn't have a CD glued to the front. I don't feel they represent a notable event in the life of the magazine but I suppose the question is whether or not these discs are notable purely because they were issued by the NME (etc..). Ac@osr 17:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the earlier releases are more notable than the later. Back then the NME was considered the arbiter of cool, and those tapes/discs were a rarity. Hell C86 even spawned a genre. These days ... not so much. I think the worry is the slippery slope that says NME discs are notable, therefore Uncut discs musts be too. It's the same thought that says Star Wars minor characters are in, therefore every minor character in Anime du jour should have its own article. That argument is so monstrously wrong-headed that its hard to know where to begin, but is does seem convincing to many editors. -- GWO
Comment. I would try to hit the brakes on the slippery slope if individual issues of the magazine or its accompanying disc got individual articles. NME was perhaps something of an industry leader in adding this content; but that in itself does not mean that they should get an article while its imitators do not. Wikipedia is not paper, and people write about what interests them. If someone else decides to compile an equally comprehensive list of a competitor magazine's gimmie discs, I'd be inclined to keep that too. To me, in a nutshell, this is a compilation of verifiable information about a noteworthy publication. Someone has taken the trouble to compile it and write an article for us. The text should be expanded. The info which someone has taken the trouble to compile should not disappear. I know it's a logical fallacy to point out that we have an article about AOL disk collecting, but if AOL discs are worthy of an article so are these. Smerdis of Tlön 19:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge? No, indeed not. I do however think the important compilations should be in individual articles, where they get an infobox, a bigger picture, and commentary. C86 is clearly a case in point! (and I didn't know it was an NME tape until I read it here). Ruby Trax is pretty notable too I reckon. --kingboyk 03:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename List of NME Compilation CDs or List of NME Compilation tapes or List of NME Compilations - On the sole basis that I personally find this interesting, ignoring all "deletion" rules jsut this once ;). However, if it is to be deleted, then save me a copy of a page, which I'll put somewhere (most likely as a subpage of my userpage). --Dangherous 17:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Notable, many major artists involved, and informative. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic, i.e. material that you would not expect to find in an encyclopaedia. Stifle (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly rename to list of NME compilations. -Sean Curtin 06:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 me. Pepsidrinka 23:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PhopArt

Neologism. And I'm curious -- when there's an image that is uploaded just for a page like this, what happens when the page is deleted? Does someone remove the image from Wikipedia's archives too? Gadren 21:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Answer Once an article's deleted, there's an "orphan" tag that can be put on the image. It's kind of like a Prod, sits there about a week and then the image gets deleted. see WP:IFD. Fan1967 21:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This should be a speedy delete per WP:NFT. 21:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Nice try kid, but this reminds me of the Boyf article I PROD-ed before. Not notable. Bill Sayre 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity [46] and neologism. IrishGuy 21:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey look! A new term! Defined on a blog! And nowhere else! Fabulous! Delete me before I use anymore exclamation points!!! -- MarcoTolo 22:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quixtar Motivational Organization

What is this article? A couple of sentences on a barely notable topic, and a collection of links/names. WP:NEITHER a directory NOR a repository for Amwaycruft. Paul 21:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable and too specific, should belong at the Quixtar wiki. SCHZMO ✍ 21:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. Spam for MLMs. Just zis Guy you know? 21:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with even more prejudice than JzG suggested. I don't think there's a reasonable NPOV way of covering this topic without the m*lti-l*vel m*rketers coming back in and explaining their organizations in glowing terms. --Elkman - (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same junk as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Team (QMO). -- MarcoTolo 22:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As long as the article does not change into an ad for Amway groups, this article can offer insight to persons being recruited under the Quixtar banner who do not know that it is an Amway organization. Reserve the right to change my vote if the article changes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Bryant Evans (talk • contribs)
  • Sorry, forgot to sign it.JBEvans 11:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The article can serve that very function as a redirect. Paul 00:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a useful arcticle --pevarnj (t/c/k ) 22:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is an ad for Amway groups, and the people who make money off them. Absolutely, positively unencyclopedic. Fan1967 22:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete with prejudice per above Hobbeslover 02:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Previous vote was for delete, so its time to go. I suggest information be incorperated into The Quixtar Wiki or the Quixtar article. Quixtar discussion even has a proposed rewrite to change the article that no one has commented on. Gallwapa 02:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Delete My only desire is that people know Amwaya and Quixtar are the same. That's done I think. JBEvans 11:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete subtle advertisement. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Merge portions of this article with the main Amway article instead of a stand-alone article.--293.xx.xxx.xx 07:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Office Interactive

Software company launched in 2004, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP, no sign of significance, has been prod tagged but tag removed. What little is verifiable seems insignificant. Just zis Guy you know? 21:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This article seems as significant as Centraview, Compiere, and many other small CRMs that are in the List of CRM vendors. What makes this discription different from other CRMs? What makes a company eligible to be deleted when most of the companies on the CRM vendor list has never been heard of?Razwan

    • Delete per nom, doesn't meet WP:CORP, violates WP:VAIN. That you might yourself have never heard of a company doesn't make it non-notable; heavens, someone tried to AfD a subsidiary of Mittal Metals last week. Be that as it may, we vote on AfD on an article's own merits. This one's merits are scanty. RGTraynor 22:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing of note here. WP:CHILL until you hit WP:CORP guys. Deizio talk 02:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Deizio. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I heavily edited this article to create a neutral point of view but it seems that this article violates the WP:CORP as much as Vtiger CRM or Hipergate whose webpage visits is small See page count at bottom. It is one of few or only one that I was able to find on the wikipedia crm vendor list that is actually giving a free HOSTED version so what under the WP:CORP makes this less notable than lets say Hipergate?JMejia7704 21:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Ardenn 04:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 06:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great people of the 19th century (renamed: "Great people of the 20th century")

This list is destined to be either unfeasibly huge and unuseful or extremely controversial in the selection of its contents. A significant proportion of its current contents is already well-dealt with in State leaders by year. It would be better dealt with via a category along the lines of "People who achieved prominence in the nth century". Pseudomonas 21:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ridiculous listcruft. Article creator seems to have finally realized that this was a list of 20th century people, and has moved the article to Great people of the 20th century. Why not just call it Just about everybody you've ever heard of? At this point there are less than two dozen names, but a complete list would need thousands. Fan1967 22:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Such cannot become standard on Wikipedia. It is inherently subjective and therefore open to serious POV abuses. Needs to go. JBEvans 22:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Yikes. Redirect to Great misadventures in subjective listcruft. Deizio talk 02:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utterly subjective and original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. Conscious 09:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the above. Metamagician3000 13:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not a completely bad idea for an article, but much too vague and just invites NPOV abuse. There are already articles and categories like Occupation X by century N. Peter Grey 07:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion in the list. Carlossuarez46 17:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. -- ReyBrujo 06:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, preposterous listcruft --Nydas 13:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Texture as a copyvio.. --Hetar 06:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] El Rey

This page is just an advertisment Greatigers 22:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertisement. Maybe even Speedy delete due to copyvio from chocolates-elrey.com. --Elkman - (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as copyvio. -- MarcoTolo 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedily delete advertisement, copyvio. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by FCYTravis as nn-club. Stifle (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ragezone

not notable, vanity and remarkably poorly written frymaster 22:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't want to sound like a dick, but sites like this are a dime a dozen; this one doesn't distinguish itself in any way I can see. -- Captain Disdain 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. You're not being a dick, CD; game sites like this are a dime a dozen, right up along there with their adherents, who always feel that their site has a unique and titanic impact on the gaming world. Alexa rank of 35,723, which doesn't completely suck, but certainly not noteworthy. RGTraynor 22:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 10:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ardenn 04:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 CSD:A3, no content. Stifle (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sikhi wiki

No real content, pretty much just a link to the wiki in question. Furthermore, at the time of this writing, said Wiki has a mere 911 articles, which doesn't strike me as particularly notable. Looks like plain old advertising to me. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 22:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator after three minutes as a mistake. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psydoll

Prod removed. I haven't found any evidence so far that this band is notable per WP:MUSIC, despite their prolific number of albums. Delete unless evidence of notability can be provided. Grandmasterka 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw the nomination, I made a mistake. Grandmasterka 22:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete as copyvio. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cenega

advertising with little real substance on the company JBEvans 11:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom : Librarianofages 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • These things which look like the self-introduction of the company webpage are often the self introduction of a company webpage, and it's often an idea to google portions of the text to confirm that. In this case this is a copy of this website, and hence a copyvio. Will tag it and list on WP:CP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Send to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pitchforker

De-prodded by article's creator/sole contributor. Dicdef, possible neologism. A few hundred ghits, but first couple of pages appear to be unrelated. Icarus 22:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Too much of a neologism for Wiktionary, I think. RGTraynor 22:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef of neo. --Eivindt@c 12:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ardenn 04:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 06:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 09:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rui Gabirro

  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}}

Unverified, non-notable. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Delete Ardenn 22:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete with extreme prejudice per nom. While researching this spurious clown, I ran across this, which is the lead Google hit - it's worth a peek for the chuckle value. [47] RGTraynor 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for now at least. A cursory glance over Talk:Regular Grand Lodge of England shows this nom to be a backdoor attempt to cut off debate before consensus is reached there. (The insertion of the afdanons box, before a single vote was made, shows the current tone of the debate.) I have no idea whether RGLE is legitimate/notable/whatever... but this is not the way to achieve consensus. --Sneftel 22:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Urr ... isn't this an AfD on the Rui Gabirro article? It's NN and probably spurious on the face of it, without reference to any other debate. RGTraynor 23:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Rui Gabirro's one claim to notability is the RGLE thing. If RGLE is notable, then Rui Gabirro is notable. If it isn't, then he isn't. So why are arguments about verifiability being made here, rather than there? This AfD is only superficially about Rui Gabirro. It's really an attempt to build up a head of steam for getting rid of the RGLE stuff. --Sneftel 02:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
They are not exclusive to each other as you suggest. RGLE may be notable, (and I'm not saying it is) but this dude may not be. Nothing in the article verifies who he is, and nothing in the article explains why he deserves an encyclopedic article. Ardenn 02:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I don't care a rat's patootie about the RGLE stuff, although at this rate I'm thinking it's worth a good, hard look. Gabirro is NN, period ... and perhaps RGLE is too. RGTraynor 11:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The article says he's the founder of RLGE. That would make him notable, at least in the context of RLGE. Yet you didn't propose this as a merge, did you? I agree that the lack of sources is a problem, but things are deleted for being unverifiable, not for being unverified. --Sneftel 02:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Being the founder of RGLE is not notable. That's one minor diddly thing he's done for a barely notable organization. If he were Queen Elizabeth II or one of her children, then he would be notable. Do you see the difference? Or if he started Microsoft or Oxfam. Ardenn 02:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
"Barely notable organization" is exactly the point of contention. The RGLE claims to be extremely notable. You claim that it's non-notable. Whether this article should be deleted or not is entirely dependent on what consensus on RGLE's notability is reached. You seem to be quite active in that discussion, but haven't participated in the Rui Gabirro article at all (other than to add the AfD tag). So why jump the gun? --Sneftel 03:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
RGLE can stand alone as an article, without this one. THE TWO DISCUSSIONS ARE NOT RELATED. This afd has to do with this article, and it's lack of notability. It's about seeking consensus, not just what you want. Ardenn 03:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and RGTraynor. Maybe an article on the phenomenen might become appropriate some day. MyNameIsNotBob 23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, doesnt pass google test; it isnt a violation of WP:NOT made up at school, as it is a real person, but never the less delete Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per the RGLE link given above, at worst Rui is an online hoaxster, which means we should not be giving him publicity on Wikipedia, and at best, he's the founder of a very small organization with no real notability (no matter which RGLE lodge you wish to contact, he is the only contact listed - which is an impossible task to keep up with if the org was of any notable size). He doesn't satisfy any WP criteria that would make him article-worthy. MSJapan 04:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. ALR 21:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Regular Grand Lodge of England has been deleted in case it matters to anyone. Ardenn 05:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 06:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drakonskyr

non notable about some blogger... Kungfu Adam (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable and apparently vanity. IrishGuy 23:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blogger without any assertion of notability beyond that of a journalist. Possibly an A7 speedy candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, nn. DarthVader 10:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and IrishGuy. -- ReyBrujo 06:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with all possible haste. Utter rubbish. --Nydas 13:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by FreplySpang as (nn-bio/hoax). -- 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carlo holl

not notable, vanity, personal bio JBEvans 23:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per CSD-A1. Would also fall under A7 except for bogus claim of notability. Accurizer 23:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turtle Club

Non-notable "club". Page essentially the first half of seven jokes without the punchlines. Nedlum 23:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep this is a legitimate thing. It is predominately American and dates back to at least the 1950's. [48], [49], and [50] among other links easily found on Google. IrishGuy 23:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I thought for sure this was going to be an easily-deletable WP:NFT case, or at best a reference to that scene in the movie The Master of Disguise: "You mean I'm not turtle-y enough for the turtle club? Tur-tle, tur-tle..." But it turns out it's real, verifiable, and has quite a long history. Oh, and check out this great picture from one of the linked pages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely KEEP. This article is one of few remaining on the internet about this historically famous organization, except for the few links in the article itself. So what if there are no answers to the questions? Figure them out! I hope to add more of the questions to the article and maybe, for those who remain clueless, I might find a way to insert the answers in some obscure form. On the other hand, should Wikipedia provide a fudge sheet for those who wish to become members of this illustrious organization... I think not. In the meantime, YBYSAIA. Stepp-Wulf 00:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep. I had the same first impression as Andrew, but I'm satisfied that this is notable and worth keeping. Fluit 00:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand to include more information, if possible. Something has to be done about the answers to the riddles. Either the questions should be removed, or the answers need to be revealed in the article, or maybe a link to the answers could be provided. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & Expand meets notabily requirements. Although requires some attention. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Among other things it is mentioned in the book The Right Stuff. JoshuaZ 22:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've never heard of it until now, but it does appear to be a noteworthy enough "club". Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it, but boy, that article really needs to suck less. More historical context, less ... erm ... suckiness. --- GWO


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ha Sha

Non notabale juvinilia as it stands. Little hope of redemption. At best a cadidate for the wiktionary (sp?) --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. The very definition of WP:NFT. ... discospinster 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per WP:NFT. Not exactly a speedy candidate, but I doubt anyone would object... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons above, I wouldn't object to someone speedy deleting this. DVD+ R/W 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 10:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Close to being Patent nonsense. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I was going to nominate this myself yesterday but didn't get round to it. It is borderline speedy - just a load of school junk. SFC9394 12:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per all above. Mangojuicetalk 16:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete utter nonsense.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. -- ReyBrujo 06:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense and unencyclopaediac. --soUmyaSch 06:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Why would there be something that has "no particular meaning" be in wikipedia? Out, gone, bye-bye. JBEvans


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smudgetooth

Smudgetooth is a myth only known to a few bloggers? that right there dismisses its notability Kungfu Adam (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. Wickethewok 00:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator.--Prosfilaes 04:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I doubt this would pass a hypothetical WP:MEME. Delete. Alba 16:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 06:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above JBEvans 18:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. based on csd g4 (reposting of previously deleted content)--Kungfu Adam (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scythe the bounty hunter

I already tried prod'ing it and the author removed the tag, so I will send it to AFD. It is about a future release. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Kungfu Adam (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


  • I request as the author this article not be deleted. Alot of fans of the series need information on the topic, I plan to add more quotations and concept art of the series, information on the authors and writers. Deleting this article is censorship, which is a crime. JL Jeremiah (talk) 24:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - if you continue to post things claiming that you are being censored, when in fact standard WP procedure is being followed, no one will take your arguments seriously. Wickethewok 00:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I prod2'd it (removed of course without explanation). Remove for both crystal-ballism and complete lack of notability. Google search reveals few relevant hits. Wickethewok 00:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • it is in production, the release is but upon 60 days, and you tell me that i cannot create an article? Other people have created articles upon this site that have told of Preproductions and productions in process. please tell me what is wrong with the article? I was adding quotations and staff information and all of a sudden, "POP" someone plops a big ugly deletion request on top of it? What say you?

--JLJeremiah 00:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Response - Your webtoons do not meet any sort of notability criteria, which is grounds for deletion. Wickethewok 00:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Response- it is an adaption, it started as a publication. so technically, it applies to the entire concept of it. you are misinformed, let me carry out my article, i have much work to do.

--JLJeremiah 00:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

      • Response - Ummm, unless you are going to state why your flash animation is notable and important, its gonna get deleted. If you wish your article to be kept, I suggest you assert some significance. Wickethewok 00:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Response Scythe the bounty hunter began as a book series, they are written and currently published, yet the flash animation is in production. This article pertains to the entire concept, not just to the flash animation. So i plea that you leave my article be, and leave myself to carry out my good work sir. --JLJeremiah 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Response - A google search reveals no results backing up your claims. There are established notability guidelines for books and publicationshere. Please make your argument in terms of this, instead of disregarding this AFD. Wickethewok 00:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Although this could certainly become notable, at the moment it is clearly not. For that matter, it doesn't even appear (not in links nor a brief google search) to have its own web site yet. This encyclopedia cannot be a place to announce projects, only to cite sources that are published elsewhere. - user:rasd
  • Speedy delete, I have already deleted this once and warned the editor about spamming us with his non-notable non-existant product. The red link to his name is also worrisome. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe I can sum this up by saying: eminently non-notable and easily 14 loaves of vanity. As an added note, it is spiced with one previous delete. Bake it nicely in an easy bake oven and you get...Delete. 07:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Bye-Bye This is nothing but an attempt to publicise a piece of work, and one that is not even finished, for that matter. The author is attempting to drum up support for this project before it is ready.
    • Comment Also, the author claims the series is based on "previous writings" by him. Yet he has included no links to these writings.
      • Conclusion In Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is Not, under "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", it states a ruling by the abitration commitee, made on the 17th of February, 2006. Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves, their direct family or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain a neutral point of view while doing so. When the abitration comitee made this law, they would have said self-promotion of your sites should be included. Therefore, to be fair, this article should be deleted, however, if another user decides to create this page, it would be fair. The creator of a flash animation should not make an article discussing that animation. Scalene 08:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HourDoc

Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Also, website is ranked ~1.7m. Wickethewok 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:CORP. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP for sure and nothing is said that is at all interesting about this company. I'm sure hundreds of others identical to this one exist in cities all over the place. Mangojuicetalk 16:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 06:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 patent nonsense. --Ezeu 09:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boo baa boy

Added the page to the VfD, wasn't sure if it qualified for a speedy deletion.. seems to be user page on the article namespace, I've copied content to User:Boo baa boy.
FiP Как вы думаете? 08:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, breaks pretty much every guideline for articles ever. Recury 01:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.