Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 7

< June 6	June 8 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

June 7

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - that was crap. Tawker 01:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Acts in Prepubescent Boys

ridiculous information, the rest belongs in Child Sexuality. List of examples. did you read the part about Ontario?Adambiswanger1 00:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wtf?? OR and disgusting - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete sick and twisted; not all are like this; THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS OTAKU 00:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Garbage, unresearched, uncited, OR. Fan1967 00:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research or nonsense, and it's a bad sign when you can't distinguish between the two. Opabinia regalis 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written by a sick, sick person. Yanksox 00:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snowy Delete per everyone here BigDT 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cedars 00:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Opabinia regalis.--Andeh 00:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question, will any action be taken against User:FreshFruitsRule?--Andeh 00:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, he is a suspected sockpuppet, so he may be indef blocked anyway. Yanksox 01:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment suppose they'll be blocked upon deletion of the article then.--Andeh 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 01:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and a sock puppet investigation. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, unverifiable crap. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango 123 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Mitch

Strong Delete vanity, inanity, hoax, intentional self promotion per his website and per the text of this article ("Fans of Ill Mitch can join his promotional group called the "Spread Team"). Yeah..... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC doktorb | words 00:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is so bad my brain refuses to take it seriously. Opabinia regalis 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of google hits, but after paging through a bunch of them, they all seem self-generated ... no evidence that this article meets WP:BAND or the proposed criteria WP:MEME BigDT 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, vanity, self promotion. --Ter e nc e Ong 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above —M e ts501^talk 06:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Near Speedy Delete claims notability, but it is poor Computerjoe 's talk 07:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious vanity article, doesn't seem notable. JIP | Talk 08:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to fall under the criteria of WP:BIO.-- 陈鼎翔贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! (Tdixang is down with the flu and will be inactive) 09:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another "internet phenomenon" with a few blog mentions. Fails WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC. - Motor (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — Jun. 7, '06 [11:59] <freak|talk>
Delete per above. Molerat 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsustainable for WP:BIO. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 17:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the article fails to fall under the criteria of WP:BIO, this should not be a valid reason to delete this. The reason why I feel that the article needs to be deleted is because it is an obvious vanity page. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 22:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be proven. —EdGl 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bardahl

--cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Spam JennyRad 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Expand OTAKU 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a vote... pick one. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay fine then, I'll choose Delete OTAKU 03:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete w/o prejudice to recreation as an article that establishes notability, if there is any here. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if expanded seems like a somewhat notable company but the current article is totally useless. Opabinia regalis 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of being a notable brand name. --Ed (Edgar181) 01:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, but the company deserves a real article. —M e ts501^talk 06:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to be a notable brand. Open to evidence suggesting otherwise, but there is none in the article and google is no help beyond the official site listed here. - Motor (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A minimal stub, but it does convey information. The brand had its heyday more than twenty years ago, but it is notable. Smerdis of Tlön 15:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expand the article a tad. Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It definitely needs more info, but this company does (or did) seem notable. Mr. L e fty _{Talk to me!} 19:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable product for previous market position, and likely future link for sports links (as I found with Mercury (automobile)) - 4 or 5 such mentions already exist elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Cedders^tk 19:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no reason to delete an article simply because in the current form it is short, or we would delete a good half of articles presently on Wikipedia. Of course it should be expanded, thus the stub tag. The article certainly does not read like an advertisment - there are no glowing reviews of the supposed excellence of its products, nor is there even a list of them. In light of this, it is probably at least a little bit notable. It doesn't need to have changed history, or anything... Falcon 22:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an advert. --Ephilei 02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wish all corporate articles were this nice. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been expanded since it was nominated, and seems NPOV. TruthbringerToronto 04:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 17:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy McMillan

Delete non notable individual with miniscule, if any, following. not all candidates for political office deserve notability. vanity article, WP:VAIN. Fails to meet WP:BIO. Note: Rent Is Too Damn High Party is also nominated for deletion. Strothra 15:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked it up, this is a real guy who really did run for mayor of NYC and is planning is the running for governor of New York. He's sounds little crazy, but he's real and notable...barely...cleanup could be in order. Yanksox 18:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NN per WP:BIO. He apparently did run for office to make a point about rent, but his notability does not seem to rise to the level of WP:BIO for a living person. Also, one link is his own (which wouldn't count as source), one is a brief mention in a local web site of unknown (to me) popularity of his apparent candidacy, and two have no mention of him that I can see. Google comes up with this (that I would add to push a Keep view) which seems to confirm that he actually registered but so did some other unknowns/non-notables so it would take more than that IMO to rise above the WP:N barrier, like confirmation of notability in WP:RS or otherwise reliable proof of notable impact. Crum375 20:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A combination of his outlandish views and by virtue of him running for an office makes him notable enough. It is clear that the article doesn't support him so it isn't exactly a vanity article anyways.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you'd have to reliably show that it was widely known he was running. The issue is notability, not whether he did anything interesting. Crum375 00:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - precisely. --Strothra 01:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ran for Mayor, got some press coverage, seems like we should keep this. Merge in info from Rent Is Too Damn High Party. -- JJay 01:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we should keep this on what grounds? There's no firm establishment of notability or compliance with WP:BIO. It doesnt look like the other article will survive AfD so I think that it certainly should be held off on merging info in until the results of that AfD come in or then that material should be deleted due to it's lack of encyclopedic nature. --Strothra 02:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered with my original comment. --JJay 00:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into New York City mayoral election, 2005. Also see Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. -- Mwalcoff 03:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Running for political office is hardly guarantee of notability. Same goes for press coverage. Bwithh 07:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I almost voted keep based on the external links but they are all blogs or webistes owned by McMillan. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Everyone can run for mayor, there's always a few absolute losers who do it an get like 100 votes or so from people who ticked the wrong box. Voting for the Mayor of London 2 years back, I do remember the mass of non-candidates there. They are not notable. - Hahnch e n 00:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable minority candidate with no statistical chance of victory doktorb | words 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks notable enough for a living person. "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" --Kickstart70-T-C 01:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Also-ran' single issue candidate is not newsworthy in and of itself - anyone can pay a fee and do it - there is no reliable proof of notability here. Crum375 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; great, where's the actual proof he did receive "renown" or "notoriety?" This still fails WP:V; we are not supposed to just presume that anyone with an article passes WP:BIO, we're supposed to prove that it does. RGTraynor 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, so what if he ran for mayor for NYC? Is he notable? Non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought about voting Keep, but after viewing his Google hits (671), I say toss it. Adambiswanger1 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is there a WP:Crackpot category yet? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, winning the election would be the bare minimum of notability for me. Being a weirdo who got a little attention for being a weirdo isn't enough. -- Kjkolb 03:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yanksox Computerjoe 's talk 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Merge into New York City mayoral election, 2005. Non-notable frootbat. --Calton | Talk 07:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, failed political candidate... does not meet WP:BIO. Possibly deserves a footnote in the an article about the election itself. Certainly not a bio article. - Motor (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, single issue candidate who did not get up on the day. Not notable and clearly little from reliable sources - Peripitus (Talk) 11:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject does not meet the WP:BIO inclusion criteria. Press coverage is to minor and running for mayor, even in NYC, does not qualify one under WP:BIO.--Isotope23 12:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see nothing to suggest he's worth an article. Perhaps (s)merge per Calton. — Haeleth Talk 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither a "Major local political figure who receives significant press coverage" or a "Political figure holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office." He doesn't meet many, if any, of the alternative tests at WP:BIO. If I ran for mayor of Seattle on a "ban clothing/nudity for all" ticket, I would be crazy and probably receive some press. This would not, however, make me notable unless it was picked up nationally. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 19:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete a complete failed joke candidate running for a joke party. Anybody can just pay $200 or thereabouts and get their name on a ballot paper. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was glad this article was here during the election, as the Rent Is Too Damn High party line definitely piqued my interest. However, the most notable thing about Mr. McMillan (the kerfuffle about anti-semitism) is un-cited and not that notable (lots of nuts can afford websites and ballot access). --Clconway 07:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirism Revolution

I spotted this map up for a very poorly done mass AFD and also noted that it has been voted on before with an outcome of no consensus. We see arguments in the previous AFD such as "notable warcraft map", I'm sure it was made in good faith, I do however, call bullshits. Another mass AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De dust resulted in no consensus, yet each of those maps has unique google links in the hundreds or thousands. This doesn't, at all with a paltry 18 Google links for "Vampirism Revolution". This is not a notable or popular warcraft map, at all. - Hahnch e n 00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nice work. Yanksox 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see evidence of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, there are untold numbers of warcraft maps Markeer 01:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn, etc. Adambiswanger1 03:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to um...something I dunno, Warcraft III World Editor maybe? I'm not sure which page is best.--SeizureDog 03:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable Warcraft map. JIP | Talk 08:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, NN. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable. --Coredesat 09:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom... and from the article intro: "released by a Battle.net user known as Alpha_Hacka, is a custom map". Cruft. Bye. - Motor (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Things like this are the definition of fancruft Ydam 11:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can a custom map ever be notable? Paul Carpenter 11:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would say yes, if the map became so pervasive that it was as/more popular that the original game. The criteria for custom maps/mods to be included should be extremely high due to the sheer number of customizations that exist for various games across the board.--Isotope23 12:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the comments by Isotope23 but this custom map is not a highly notable one. Appears fairly unnotable. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 17:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Inner Earth 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am myself a warcraft III player and I have never even noticed this map. --Ludvig 20:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't hurt anything. --Ephilei 02:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If "doesn't hurt anything" was reason enough for keep, Wikipedia would be chock-full with articles about random bits of paper people found in their pockets. JIP | Talk 18:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – [ælfəks] 09:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Corridors

This is another non notable custom map that should have been deleted found off of the poorly thought out mass AFD. This isn't an official Warcraft map, this is a fan made map, for a fan made modification of Warcraft which was deleted. I voted to keep on the Counter-Strike maps AFD because each official map has tens of thousands of players at any time, this does not. It generates 150 links on Google for "three corridors" warcraft, which isn't much anyway. But when you look at those links, most of them are irrelevent to this fan map. You can take a look at their website too at http://www.3corridors.com/. This is not a notable map. - Hahnch e n 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yanksox 00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a fan-made map, for god's sake! Not even a mod, just a map! -- Kicking222 02:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete Delete as per nom Bwithh 02:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this one isn't even a particularly popular map. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable Warcraft map. JIP | Talk 08:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable. --Coredesat 09:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable outside a part of the Warcraft fan community. - Motor (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet more fancruft Ydam 11:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per norm. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 17:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ludvig 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NN is not policy. The article doesn't hurt anything. --Ephilei 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as the user below thinks its a "non notable map", there are many variations of it. 3corridors.com is home to only TWO of these variations. You can argue that yes, it is a fan made map but probably still has a larger community then some of the stuff posted on wiki. -- Pei 4:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC).
Keep This map represents a form of gameplay that was unseen before. After gameplay types like melee, rpg, or tower defense this map enabled cooperative multiplayer gameplay in a 5 vs 5 team setting. The map immediately established communities on kali (worldwide), france, australia, china and was a major inspiration for the most popular warcraft creation ever: Dota. --plak 21:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC).
- Comment - How many people are playing this map right now on Battle.net? - Hahnch e n 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3corridors.com is NOT the home of the a map carrying the same name, but the home of the Kali 3c community. The community is now small and in stagnation, but was once much larger. Larger communities do exist, Warguilds has over 5000 registered members. But since when was publishing an article on Wikipedia based on popularity(even more, on current popularity)? From what I have read, this article breaks no rules. The map is however very significant to the Warcraft III mapmaking community, as it spawned countless versions of it and inspired other maps, such as the already mentioned DoTA. It is probably true that this map is dying, even most of the old sites are gone(such as the original 3 Corridors page or Ray's forum), but is that really a valid reason for deletion?

The lack of popularity on Battle.net does not diminish it's significance and can easily be explained by the nature of the game. For proper enjoyment of 3 corridors, prior knowledge of the game is needed, making it unattractive to new players. As an extreme example take RE, where several hundred plays are expected from a player to become valuable to his team, much of the Kali community consists of people playing RE/TE for several years. And Battle.net certainly isn't a place for a 3 Corridors map to thrive, where even the usual 3 minute revival time results in players quitting upon death. --Leto
- Comment - We have articles on some multiplayer maps, but they're mostly in lists like Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved and when they're seperate articles like de inferno and Wake Island 2007 (their notability still a contended point among some), I'm sure they're a lot more popular than 3C. - Hahnch e n 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Ezeu 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red sees Red

NN episode of That '70s Show - going from the list of episodes page, only notable ones have any content - either delete this or merge. I withdraw this nomination in advance if somebody undertakes to fix the article up with formatting similar to the existing episode pages. Presently it is just badly written fan synopsis with quotes. SM247 00:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would have suggested a visit to WP:CLEANUP first. But I know nothing of the show so am not going to vote. - Hahnch e n 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yes, that is probably a better idea. SM247 00:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Redirect - I'm being bold here - Hahnch e n 00:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Clone Wars & Tetris Worlds

Per previous afd which resulted in speedy delete for the obvious reason. SM247 00:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Active citizenship

I found this on RC patrol and PRODed it as a neologism, buzzword, and dictdef. PROD was contested. Erik the Rude 17:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can repeat the same arguments that I placed on the article's talk page here. I'm the creator of the article. I understand the concerns regarding this term as a buzzword, but I'm convinced that enough organizations and mission statements refer to it to warrant definition as a unique term. A Google search for the exact phrase returns over 1,100,000 appearances of the exact term on the Internet. Since the PROD, I've added external links to the most prominent organizations that consider the philosophy to be part of their mission statement, and I've referred to concerns about the term's "buzzword" status within the article. Clearly, I'm in favor of keeping the article. skeeJay 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It sounds bizzarre, but is it possible for a redirect/merge to Civic Duty (which redirects to Citizenship)?Yanksox 22:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think worth pointing out that there are 14 English-language Wikipedia articles that refer to the exact phrase, a number of which were wikilinked to an article that didn't exist. skeeJay 15:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it does seem to be a popular buzz phrase for what used to be called Civic Duty. Civic Duty should be redirected to it, since currently Civic Duty just redirects to Citizenship, which mostly describes the legal framework of being a citizen of a country. Jll 10:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally I think this should Redirect and Merge to a (yet to be written) Civic Duty article. CD is a proper subject, but AC is still a buzzword and neologism. Armon 15:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a neologism/dictdef to me. GentlemanGhost 22:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Ezeu 00:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism for sure - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too waffly. Withdrawn ~ trialsanderrors 02:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per lots of good and/or academic sources indicating widespread usage in the United Kingdom (from the last link, in Sociology the journal, by Dr Marinetto: "The notions of active citizenship and community involvement have become increasingly prominent in political discussions and policy practices within Britain in the past 15 years.") Ziggurat 03:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well do you think you could turn it into a useful article? Who coined the term, what's an authorative definition, how does it differ from related terms (aka community involvement), what's a textbook that covers the subject in detail, etc.? ~ trialsanderrors 03:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to, but don't really have the expertise. I do think it's possible, so deleting the current (incomplete) article is not the best course of action. From the evidence I can gather it seems to be a fairly well established term in the UK (and appears to have been emphasized even in curriculum documents there [1]), and if kept the article will be expanded. In the vote above I was attempting to counterpoint the claims that it is a neologism and buzzword; there seem to be sufficient sources to indicate that it is not, and I don't think there are any other grounds for deletion. Ziggurat 03:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced that this is a valid philosophical concept as the article claims, but I'm withdrawing my vote. I hope someone will expand the article though. ~ trialsanderrors 04:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so too. Pity there isn't a general Wikiproject for politics... Ziggurat 04:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ziggaurat. Kevin_b_er 04:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Erik the Rude. Most instances of the phrase don't seem to be as a specific term. It is similar to "good citizenship", which gets more Google results. -- Kjkolb 22:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this term is increasingly being used by teh british media. It may be a bit of a neogalism bit it is a widely used one and the subject has the scope for being more than just a dicdef. Ydam 11:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 17:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with skeeJay. Valid arguments and appears to be substantiated by increasing use in the media. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 17:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as proposal - doesn't seem to be much more than a dictionary definition here. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This concept is definitely notable in the UK. I have added some information, unfortunately unsourced as I don't have the time to dig around for references in a topic I'm not particularly interested in. CaptainJ^{(t | c | e)} 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not? --Ephilei 03:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is one of three key themes of Scottish Executive policy (para 13), with lifelong learning and social inclusion. I'll try and update the page soon, but i don't want to do this if its going to be deleted. whether or not it is a buzzword is kinda irrelevant if governments are using it, as far as i know its a european policy concept, but might be known as different names event when written in English, sidenote, i found the page by doing a direct search for it on wikipedia, as although Scottish exec documents reference the term, they don't seem to define it!! I'm sure Scotland isn't alone in this. --Gavinski

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (article userfied to User:Sullivanharvard). Sango 123 02:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Sullivan

Subject of the article doesn't meet WP:BIO and the article appears to have been written by the suject. Originally prodded, but it was removed by an anonymous editor without comment. Delete--Ed (Edgar181) 00:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't really appear to be that notable, and there might be a little crystal ball here. Yanksox 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT should include "not a place to post your resume". Opabinia regalis 02:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio, self promotion, Wikipedia is not MySpace or Friendster. --Ter e nc e Ong 02:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for helping his job application. Kevin_b_er 04:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotion Artw 05:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotion —M e ts501^talk 06:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn academic Computerjoe 's talk 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userify, I've left the welcome note on his talk page and pointed him to WP:AUTO. Go easy on him, it's not like it is a hagiography and he may have just been trying to create a user page to id himself to other Wikipedians. - Motor (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K.P. System

The article has insufficient context or references to establish notability. Prod removed by creator without comment, and without addressing these concerns. Delete--Ed (Edgar181) 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per one of my all-time favorite essays WP:HOLE BigDT 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this was intended as nonsense, but nevertheless, it is. Opabinia regalis 02:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per now my favorite essay WP:HOLE —M e ts501^talk 06:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 08:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete astrology... urge to kill... rising. I'm a bit biased on this subject, but there's nothing in this article to suggest notablity. Google just throws up some mentions on misc astrology sites. I suppose if he really was a "pioneer of modern stellar astrology" he might (spit) deserve an article given that astrology is a notable (spit) subject. But as it stands... just delete it. - Motor (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Motor - astrology branch promoted by The Astrology Center of America. Peripitus (Talk) 12:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per parallel article on same subject, Advanced Stellar System --JennyRad 15:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 – Gurch 15:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Dyack

Notability of a small game development company executive Kickstart70-T-C 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Denis has been one of the few game company presidents that actually likes to interact with gamers via the IGN forums and IGN's Silicon Knights blog. He's also worked closely with other video game developers such as Shigeru Miyamoto and Hideo Kojima. Why aren't they being considered for deletion? What about David Jaffe, Peter Molyneux, Will Wright or Cliff Bleszinski (CliffyB)? HGLatinBoy 05:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't about them, this is about proving Denis Dyack's notability and validity under WP:BIO. Further, this has nothing to do with how decent a fellow he is or how many other game developers chat with him. --Kickstart70-T-C 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable game executive Bwithh 02:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only marginally notable, but there are much smaller (bigger?) nonentities to be deleted. Opabinia regalis 02:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, hardcore gamer keep Dennis Dyack is a pretty big name in videogaming. If you think Silicon Knights is a small developer, then you've never played Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem (which won tons of awards), or seen the massive hype for Too Human, which was just the cover article in Electronic Gaming Monthly, or read the dozens of news stories about what a big deal it is that SK is now an Xbox 360-exclusive developer after only making games for the Nintendo GameCube for years (in addition to Eternal Darkness and MGS: Twin Snakes, Too Human also started out as a Cube game). Dyack is no John Carmack, but he certainly deserves his own article. -- Kicking222 02:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the above, I agree that Silicon Knights is well notable enough for having its own page, but those things are SK things, not Dyack things. What is notable about him in particular that makes him notable enough for his own page? I refer you to the living person section of WP:BIO. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; frankly, I very much doubt that even players of this game know anything more of the fellow than his name, and the vast majority of those probably don't give a tinker's damn. Of all the inventors of computer games I've played, only Sid Meyer's name comes to me (and the name's in the title of everything). Ravenswing 18:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP criteria, non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, with potential to change to keep if more independent sources showing notability can be produced. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm familiar with this guy and his name returns about 40,000 Google hits. That seems reasonably notable. Ace of Sevens 08:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Ace of Sevens. --Coredesat 09:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO and being a fan of a game made by the company he works for isn't justification for keeping it. - Motor (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep[47K google hits], Article in [CNN] and mentioned everywhere I'd expect a notable person in the computer games industry to be mentioned - Peripitus (Talk) 12:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a particularly notable individual even within the gaming world, in my opinion. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 17:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand: Thier are very few developers that are notable outside of thier respective comapnys, However Denis Dyak is indeed notable. Deathawk 20:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Henifin --Kickstart70-T-C 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hope he gets the resume posted elsewhere. Tychocat 05:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expandMr. Dyack is a fairly notable face in the industry, at least worth wikifying.--Aresef 13:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 expand. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-philosophy

Orphaned article, same couple of sentences years later and still no corresponding French article. Nothing links here either. It seems like a non-notable-philosophy. 2nd vote (see Talk:Non-philosophy) - Rudykog 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename~~ to François Laruelle and add some biographical detail; the author appears notable (see Google Scholar) but there's no evidence that the theory is. Ziggurat 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to delete without prejudice. There's a topic, but this is a copyvio (well spotted, Angus!), so the best course of action would be to remove it and allow for an untainted article to be written (should someone choose to later). Ziggurat 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Ezeu 00:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep - Googling [2], it appears that there are plenty of academic resources from which to create an article. The topic is unquestionably of suitable academic value. HOWEVER - take a look at the history. Nobody has tried to modify the article in two years. Having a stub that absolutely nobody is interested in expanding isn't helpful. If someone wanted to take this on, it would be an obvious keep, but as it is, it isn't doing anyone any good. BigDT 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-starter and not a valid topic. Article about Laruelle's essay. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate with actual content if there's interest. Seems fitting that a non-philosophy should have a non-article. Opabinia regalis 02:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per BigDT. The subject of the article is notable, but considering the article hasn't been changed since it was originally created two years ago, there's a good chance it never will be. -- Kicking222 02:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand... a veeeeeeeeery rare going-against-the-grain keep and vote from me. Appears to be notable philosophical position Bwithh 02:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand I learned something interesting from the short stub there. Learning is good. --SeizureDog 03:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above Computerjoe 's talk 07:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This has the potential to be an interesting article, and the subject seems notable enough. The article's just been neglected over time. --Coredesat 09:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unless my eyes deceive me, the current content appears to come from this page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely unknown in the Anglophone academy - two years with no movement tells me it's largely unknown everywhere. We can't document things that cannot be verifyed and expanded. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio as pointed out by Angus (nice work there A)... text was lifted from the link he posted above. I've tagged listed this as a copyright violation and it should be treated as such. As a subject, this might be worthy of an article if anyone cares to research and write a new article with verifiable sources...--Isotope23 13:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite as it is a Copyvio as pointed out by Isotope23 and Angus. Article is still valid but it may be hard-pressed to find more material and external sources for this. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per Coredesat. --209.89.123.231 18:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand per Coredesat. --Ephilei 03:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand I rewrote a stub, but it lacks context and I could only explain n-P by quoting the originator because it's just word salad to me in English and French; needs expert attention. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen King

delete or at least boost notability, possible vanity page Chris 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough notability is established, and the article- between being filled with POV and being created by an anon user (IP address, no username) which has never edited another article- is almost certainly vanity. -- Kicking222 02:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is the responsibility of the author to establish notability (without lying). Adambiswanger1 03:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If art was baseball she'd be batting in AA. ~ trialsanderrors 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because article doesn't assert notability —M e ts501^talk 06:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 09:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy CS A7. Certainly fails WP:BIO. - Motor (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Garrett

NN actor. He is credited with appearing in a Barney & Friends video but IMDB only give him one credit in a film in post production. Fails WP:BIO and besides his one, or possibly two credits, there is no other biographical information available. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Peta 04:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —M e ts501^talk 06:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Coredesat 09:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete including all of the following: Jessica Zucha, Susannah Wetzel, Hayden Tweedie, Becky Swonke, Katherine Pully, Fernando Moguel, Pia Manalo, Demi Lovato, Corey Lopez, Kayla S. Levels, Marisa Kuers, Lauren King, Adrienne Kangas, Alexander Jhin, Jeffrey Hood, Hayley Greenbauer, Trent Gentry, Blake Garrett, Alyssa Franks, Dylan Crowley, John David Bennett plus two that were missed from the original Leah Gloria, Brian Eppes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon High School JROTC

Not notable as a specific high school organization (as opposed to the general JROTC, see here. Crystallina 01:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn--Jusjih 01:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one group at one high school would only be notable in a very boring world. Opabinia regalis 02:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even in a very boring world in which the entire population consisted of students at one high school, this article would still be of marginal (at best) notability. -- Kicking222 02:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn organisation. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student organizations at a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 03:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. SM247 05:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above —M e ts501^talk 06:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Ace of Sevens 08:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete specific branches of JTROC aren't generally notable. and there nothing in this article to suggest that this one is. No help from google either. - Motor (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Isotope23 13:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to History of Birmingham. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham transport history

This page appears to have been born out of an edit war on the History of Birmingham page about 2 years ago, which led someone to fork off this article. All the useful content appears to be duplicated in articles about specific inventors or companies. There appears to be no particular reason to group this content in this way; "unrelated people and companies who worked in vaguely related fields in the same city over the space of several centuries" strikes me as much too loose an association for an article, and that's more or less what this boils down to. (Note: This was debated and kept in June 2004. See the talk page. Cleanup tagged since June '05.) --Robth^Talk 19:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, essay/OR. Stifle (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Ezeu 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep maybe merge it back in? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of Birmingham. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Peta 04:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Terence Computerjoe 's talk 07:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --Coredesat 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - though maybe some of it might be better in Transport in Birmingham. -- Inner Earth 17:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Ephilei 03:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gurrie

Seems there are at least two other editors who would disagree with me that this article fails WP:BIO by a longshot, so I humbly nominate this article for AFD to decide. hateless 01:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE!!! I can vouch for the authenticity of this man who is a leading member of the LSE student body and deserves representation on this website. Others voting for "delete" simply do not appreciate the great impact this man has had on the students of LSE. This article is certainly not a "joke" or pure "vanity" and I am shocked that it could be misconstrued as a hoax! Please keep this entry!
DO NOT DELETE this is a serious article about a hugely popular activist at the LSE. Maybe the 'vanity' actually stems from the rest of you because you don't have your own article whereas Mike does. This is a serious article that a lot of time and effort has been offered by me and another editor. Tír Eoghain abú 14:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't get less notable with a vanishing machine. If this wasn't written by the subject or his friend I'll eat the first hat I find. Opabinia regalis 02:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanihoaxty. ~ trialsanderrors
Delete, nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity/hoax —M e ts501^talk 07:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, vanity article. --Coredesat 09:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability threshold of WP:BIO; Aquilina 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and hit author on the head with a large, heavy object. Rob 15:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet notable. Come back when he's in the cabinet. ;)
(What is it with "do not delete" votes? They seem to be a sure-fire way of recognising when an article needs to be deleted...) — Haeleth Talk 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally I don't bother to vote on these obvious vanity pages that will be deleted anyway, but that first "Do not delete" comment made me have to. Stev0 17:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Inner Earth 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as failing WP:BIO and WP:VAIN as well as WP:STONED LOSER if that criterion existed. Quite aside from the unsourced assertions that are just this side of hoaxing, what element of WP:BIO does this unremarkable kid remotely come close to fulfilling? RGTraynor 18:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked I would guess WP:PORN BIO. ~ trialsanderrors 18:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fact, why was this not speedied? Mr. L e fty _{Talk to me!} 19:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No real grounds upon which to do so, really. The article asserts notability. RGTraynor 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:N. Nothing to show for it on Google. --Slgrandson 22:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete, mediocre attempt to get on Wikipedia. Vanity. Not even close to being notable. —EdGl 22:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mike Gurrie is a renowned figure in student politics at the London School of Economics. His election campaign and involvement in issues pertinent to students means he has a high level of name recognition (the vast majority of a student body of 8,000 know him by both name and face). The transient nature of student politics, and the poor documentation of them due to the logistical limitations of student media, means that it is important that this individual, who made a significant contribution to local politics and wellbeing, should be remembered. Mike Gurrie satisfies the requirements of WP:BIO as he has both made a widely recognised contribution to his specific field (which requires enduring historical record) and is a major local political figure who received significant press coverage. Surely the purpose of Wikipedia is not just to include information which is contained elsewhere, but to incorporate and preserve unique articles which would otherwise be forgotten. Mike Gurrie has no connection to the article, which was in fact envisaged and written by a senior reporter at The Beaver, the student newspaper at the LSE (which is itself worthy of an article). Consequently, the article is not convoluted by vanity. May I add that "detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance). Please, preserve the article- it is inoffensive and will bring laughter to those from the LSE from years to come as they recollect events otherwise forgotten. Chriswarnock 00:38, 8 June
Delete. Oh wow I've never seen a worse vanity page. Pictures of his parents? Gimme a break... (Have they seen this atrocity?) Fails WP:BIO and WP:STONED LOSER per RGTraynor. Grand master ka 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mango juice^talk 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, oh, meat puppet alert. OK, buddies of Mike Gurrie, here is what you can do to preserve your friend's entry for all eternity:

Steal it. WP is free documentation, just go to File > Save As... > Webpage complete and post it on the LSE student website.
Get Mike to create an account and turn it into his user page. Don't forget the {{user page}} tag.
Petition for an entry in WP:BJAODN. I would even support it.

Mildy amusing it is. Encyclopedic it's not. ~ trialsanderrors 01:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren King

NN actress. IMDB gives her three credits. Two minor roles in TV shows and a straight to video film. Someone provided some biographical details which were moved to the talk page as they are un-referenced. Google provides no more biographical information. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every one of these minor Barney actors Just go ahead and add my vote to any else you find from now on. --SeizureDog 03:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same thing as above —M e ts501^talk 07:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perSeizureDog Computerjoe 's talk 07:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 08:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not notable. --Coredesat 09:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what everyone else just said. - Motor (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete including all of the following: Jessica Zucha, Susannah Wetzel, Hayden Tweedie, Becky Swonke, Katherine Pully, Fernando Moguel, Pia Manalo, Demi Lovato, Corey Lopez, Kayla S. Levels, Marisa Kuers, Lauren King, Adrienne Kangas, Alexander Jhin, Jeffrey Hood, Hayley Greenbauer, Trent Gentry, Blake Garrett, Alyssa Franks, Dylan Crowley, John David Bennett plus two that were missed from the original Leah Gloria, Brian Eppes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A couple of generations of Barney watchers will want to know who these people are/were and if they had lives after Barney. Not major actors but important niche. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Ellis (talk • contribs) 22:09, 9 June 2006.

Some of the info could be merged into Barney & Friends cast. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. Maybe it would be better to have them all in one place. I'm a big fan of "whatever happened to" stories, especially if they drown in their own vomit after a string of drugstore holdups.Arthur Ellis 21:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I like a "where are they now?" as much as the next person, Barney kids are far less notable than the actress you're referring to (Dana Plato, Kimberly Drummond from Diff'rent Strokes). Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla S. Levels

NN actress. Appeared in one TV show. Fails WP:BIO and besides her acting credit, there is no biographical information available. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't aware of all the Barney actors and actresses that had wiki pages. Not-notable. Yanksox 03:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not all Barney casts are notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN —M e ts501^talk 07:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 08:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. --Coredesat 09:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Who created articles for Barney actors? You misguided little person, you. - Motor (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete including all of the following: Jessica Zucha, Susannah Wetzel, Hayden Tweedie, Becky Swonke, Katherine Pully, Fernando Moguel, Pia Manalo, Demi Lovato, Corey Lopez, Kayla S. Levels, Marisa Kuers, Lauren King, Adrienne Kangas, Alexander Jhin, Jeffrey Hood, Hayley Greenbauer, Trent Gentry, Blake Garrett, Alyssa Franks, Dylan Crowley, John David Bennett plus two that were missed from the original Leah Gloria, Brian Eppes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realitydreamship

This is an advertisement for the Realitydreamship site. The creator of this article has repetedly removed the AfD templates from the page before the problem was resolved. Vaniac 01:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomProfessorPlumNY 01:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Adambiswanger1 03:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom SM247 05:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —M e ts501^talk 07:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. What a waste of everyone's time. It's an embarrassment! Moreschi 09:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. Spam. Advert. - Motor (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Molerat 17:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this complete spamvertising. Not notable. Grand master ka 04:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Lopez

NN actor. Only has two TV credits to his name and no biographical information available. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN —M e ts501^talk 07:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Coredesat 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete including all of the following: Jessica Zucha, Susannah Wetzel, Hayden Tweedie, Becky Swonke, Katherine Pully, Fernando Moguel, Pia Manalo, Demi Lovato, Corey Lopez, Kayla S. Levels, Marisa Kuers, Lauren King, Adrienne Kangas, Alexander Jhin, Jeffrey Hood, Hayley Greenbauer, Trent Gentry, Blake Garrett, Alyssa Franks, Dylan Crowley, John David Bennett plus two that were missed from the original Leah Gloria, Brian Eppes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Hyrule

Delete Not notable. Nertz 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, probale vanity Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Broken links to MySpace pages, how lovely.--SeizureDog 02:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Broken links to MySpace pages might actually be better than working links to MySpace pages. Obviously, this guy is non-notable, but I respect his choice of DJ names (and I'm not even a Zelda fan). -- Kicking222 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, self promotion, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Coredesat 09:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC and google gives absolutely nothing other than his myspace page. - Motor (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and it is also a vanity page. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We meet the following WP:Music standard: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

We are the most popular hip hop group in Midlothian, Virginia. And the myspace page has been fixed.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Manalo

NN actress. This article was previously deleted as a copyvio. It has since been re-written. The subject is still, however, non-notable as she only has a single credit in a TV show to her name. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn actress. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there some kind of weird Wiki-Barney group now? I'm a bit scared...--SeizureDog 03:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know, so many of these articles existed that I had no idea about —M e ts501^talk 07:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable. --Coredesat 09:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Another Barney actor (sob). - Motor (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete including all of the following: Jessica Zucha, Susannah Wetzel, Hayden Tweedie, Becky Swonke, Katherine Pully, Fernando Moguel, Pia Manalo, Demi Lovato, Corey Lopez, Kayla S. Levels, Marisa Kuers, Lauren King, Adrienne Kangas, Alexander Jhin, Jeffrey Hood, Hayley Greenbauer, Trent Gentry, Blake Garrett, Alyssa Franks, Dylan Crowley, John David Bennett plus two that were missed from the original Leah Gloria, Brian Eppes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Moguel

NN actor. Appeared in a Barney & Friends concert tour. No other biographical information available. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That is quite non-notable. -- Kicking222 02:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN —M e ts501^talk 07:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable. --Coredesat 09:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete including all of the following: Jessica Zucha, Susannah Wetzel, Hayden Tweedie, Becky Swonke, Katherine Pully, Fernando Moguel, Pia Manalo, Demi Lovato, Corey Lopez, Kayla S. Levels, Marisa Kuers, Lauren King, Adrienne Kangas, Alexander Jhin, Jeffrey Hood, Hayley Greenbauer, Trent Gentry, Blake Garrett, Alyssa Franks, Dylan Crowley, John David Bennett plus two that were missed from the original Leah Gloria, Brian Eppes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Caplan

Bio page for a NN author, and minor patent holder and (of all things) car park owner. No indication or citation that these are the same people at all. unsigned nomination by User:Ch'marr.

Delete appears to be a vanity page. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. HIS NAME IS BRUCE M.CAPLAN. CAN YOU SEE WHY HIS FRIENDS CALL HIM 'BM? --Coredesat 09:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a very odd and weirdly enjoyable article that reads like a hoax, but isn't (at least not completely since Amazon backs it up)... but it does fail WP:BIO and the guy doesn't justify an article based on the information provided and that I've found. - Motor (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Pully

A cute and adorable, but alas, non-notable child actress with a single TV credit. No other biographical information available. Fails:WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many Barney & Friends actors are there for deletion? Could we put them all in one pot? ~ trialsanderrors 02:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try doing that. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it fails WP:BIO, it fails me. Adambiswanger1 03:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scary thing is someone must have decided once that we needed an article on every little kid who ever sang "I love you, you love me..." Fan1967 03:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- STOP IT! STOP IT! MAKE IT STOP! AIEEE! --Calton | Talk 07:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, nn actress. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have to bundle these all together —M e ts501^talk 07:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if I am being mean to a cute widdle kid. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Please consolidate all the Barney actor nominations into one section. --Coredesat 09:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. - Motor (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete including all of the following: Jessica Zucha, Susannah Wetzel, Hayden Tweedie, Becky Swonke, Katherine Pully, Fernando Moguel, Pia Manalo, Demi Lovato, Corey Lopez, Kayla S. Levels, Marisa Kuers, Lauren King, Adrienne Kangas, Alexander Jhin, Jeffrey Hood, Hayley Greenbauer, Trent Gentry, Blake Garrett, Alyssa Franks, Dylan Crowley, John David Bennett plus two that were missed from the original Leah Gloria, Brian Eppes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. bainer (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Canada

There are thousands of schools in Canada. It would be better to use List of schools in <province or territory>, some of which already exist. Usgnus 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because is a subpage:[reply]

List of schools in Canada: A
- Delete per nom. Listcruft. Ardenn 02:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the master list to include exactly thirteen items (not unmaintainable); namely List of schools in New Brunswick and equivalents for the other provinces or territories. Delete the A list; less useful categorization, overbroad, many names of schools will probably overlap, etc. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Category:Schools in Canada can work as a master, but I like CanadianCaesar's suggestion as well. -- Usgnus 02:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories work beautifully for this. List of schools in Canada: A (etc...) is really unmaintainable. List of schools in Nunavut might work, but List of schools in Ontario wouldn't, so let's not do the 13-list approach either. Lots of people like making these lists, but few bother to verify their accuracy over time. --Rob 03:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certain types of lists like this don't belong on Wikipedia OTAKU 04:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Canada is not Singapore. In Canada, there are thousands of schools, a list will not make sense. But in Singapore, there are less than 500, so a list will make sense. This will be better as a category. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it would simply be impossible to maintain this to encyclopedic standards. Ydam 11:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only as a parent list and the thing needs some heavy restructuring. Trying to sort these list alphabetically is a bad idea, as it is redundant with categories. However, trying to sort the schools by location (e.g. sublists like List of schools in Alberta, List of schools in New Brunswick and List of schools in Newfoundland) should work and those lists are no more unmaintainable than the list we have at List of schools in Norway. The fact that we have some "list of schools by country" entries, indicates that we should not present the readers with a redlink at this title. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, List of schools in Canada: A can be safely deleted as a category-type alphabetical list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only as a list of links to the provincial lists (of which more exist than just Alberta and NB) per Canadian Caesar. Kirjtc2 15:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per CanadianCaesar. As a master list, it needs touch up and perhaps better organization into seperate lists. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a parent list to other provinces for maintainability. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ephilei
Delete In my experience, lists like this start off with great fanfare and are kept up-to-date with the latest changes. Then after awhile the list author loses interest and the list slowly decays until it is so out of date it is no longer useful. Categorization, although it doesn't show the non-articled list entries is still a better way to go. While the hierarchical structure is a little cumbersome, the dynamic nature is a major strength. --Atrian 16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no knowledge will be lost as a result of the removal of this article. --Suttungr 14:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as list cruft better covered by categories. Equendil Talk 19:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep as a master list as per CanadianCaesar. Silensor 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all schools are notable see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. ALKIVAR™ 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Remember Wikipedia:Schools is not a policy or guideline or anything, just a summary of prior debates. Besides, the article is not about a school but a list thereof. Equendil Talk 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alkivar. --Myles Long 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada to which it could be argued this list belongs, I support deleting. It would be a waste of effort to somehow try and keep these lists up-to-date. --Stephane Charette 22:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything to distinguish this list. Isn't there a category already? --Bombycil 15:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is useful, cannot be replaced by a category, and is hardly "list cruft". Bahn Mi 00:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Fails related notablity guidelines. LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Picard Song

Every so often, I'll search for links to the YTMND article or external YTMND links and delete them from irrelevent pages. And then I found this. This is not a notable recording, there are no decent sources for this meme. The List of YTMND fads was deleted for a good reason, this should be too. - Hahnch e n 02:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Darkmateria: Of course, Darkmateria will need to be created first. The exception is if it was released as a single, in which I vote Keep. --SeizureDog 02:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fluit 02:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- GWO
Delete, non-notable YTMND fan song. JIP | Talk 08:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per... per... natural justice and good sense. More? Ok, it also fails WP:MUSIC. - Motor (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable as an Internet phenomena or indeed a song; acheived brief prominence...and was really too obscure and brief, unlike related phenomenae. - D-Katana 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's re-pluralisation (hevosioita, hästrar, horseses). There is one phenomenon, and many phenomena. It's a Greek, not a Latin word. JIP | Talk 11:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to see it kept and improved, but for nothing more than personal preference. However, when/if it is deleted, the link to it needs to be removed from the Jean-Luc Picard article under 'Cultural references'. -tigerattack--- 21:31, 10 June 2006 (EST)
Keep it: The Picard Song is famous among the WoW community; it spawned a series of threads in the offical forums titled "CAPTAIN JEAN-LUC PICARD OF THE USS ENTERPRISE." To delete this would be a shame. - User:Cielomobile
Delete: catchy, but non-notable. :'( --M e rovingian {T C @} 08:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Weak delete - This song has propagated outside the YTMND community. A google search reveals Picard Song-related flash animations at Newgrounds, as well as Ifilm. But regardless, it fails WP:MUSIC and it might fail WP:MEME depending on whether its appearence on IFilm and Newgrounds counts as a reliable sources. Picard Song only seems to be covered in forums and blogs. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 19:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (Updated 00:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Categorise is an action to be taken after the Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Game Gear multiplayer games

Useless list. SeizureDog 02:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Too narrow Adambiswanger1 02:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit and Expand If this list were to be put as one and has more information added. OTAKU 04:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Useless" doesn't mean nothing.--Pokipsy76 09:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Double negatives don't mean much, neither. Listcruft of no valid encyclopedic worth or value. doktorb | words 09:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's Category:Game Gear games. - Motor (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: does not distinguish between single- and multi-player games

Comment, commenter didn't care about the difference and doesn't consider it worth noting. - Motor (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft that we have categories to manage - Peripitus (Talk) 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but preferably convert to new category (subcat of Category:Game Gear games). AvB ÷ talk 14:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uselessness is not criteria for deletion. Besides, it IS useful. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise per AvB; this would be far more useful as a category than a list, and the subcategory system would work perfectly to distinguish single-player and multi-player games if, as it appears, there are people who care about the distinction. — Haeleth Talk 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise Hohenberg 18:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize- why have a list when a category could do the job so much better? Reyk _YO! 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise per above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise Niao. --03:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
'Categorize. --maru (talk) contribs 17:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Park School

Non-notable elementary school that is now defunct. Metros232 02:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I believe schools are not inherently notable, moreso a school that no longer exists and has no particular claim to fame. Fluit 02:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I'm on board with Fluit regarding schools, but this one isn't even debatable. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yanksox 03:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete (no doubt about it) Not only is this an elementary school, but it no longer exists! OTAKU 04:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete nn + defunct = never any chance of becoming Wikiworthy. SM247 05:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, defunct school and is non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. --Coredesat 09:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is well established that schools are notable. Just because it's now closed it doesn't cease to be notable, or are you all in favour of deleting indivudual's entries once they die? Markb 10:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Ydam 11:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't think that deleting a school because it's defunct makes any more sense than deleting a biography because the subject is dead. Nonetheless, I cannot bring myself to vote keep on a one-liner article which is so devoid of content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being defunct doesn't rule it out of an article. Having been a school with absolutely no notablity does. - Motor (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, actually, the myth that "it is well established that schools are notable" is just as pervasive as stories about Bigfoot... and just as unfounded in the case of elementary and primary schools. Defunct school + no evidence of of any lasting, meaningful, historical or societal impact... I say this is a clear delete.--Isotope23 13:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing is inherently notable. --Strothra 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even independent states? Which articles about independent states would you vote to delete?
Delete, it's only "established" that schools are notable within the minds of a small (but not small enough) group of extremist inclusionists. Each article should be considered on its own merits, not block-voted according to some ideological obsession, and this substub simply does not have any merits to justify its inclusion. — Haeleth Talk 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure that's as civil as the editors you're describing would like it to be? Thanks, --William Pietri 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- School deletionists are very often uncivil. That is one of the reasons why they lost out so totally on high schools: people who are sneered at and demeaned often fight back. One of the objectionable traits shared by many deletionists is that no matter how many times they lose, and the number of different users who vote against them, they declare their opponents to be a small minority. (While they are part of a purported majority, the existence of which we have are expected to take on faith). CalJW 21:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above. It doesn't even assert notability...—EdGl 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable school. Closure is irrelevant: Wikipedia is not an old newspaper. CalJW 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per CalJW with regards to verifiability and per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 17:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, BJAODN. Sango 123 02:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer games featuring ants

Um...yeah. This shouldn't even be merged. Short list and completely inane. SeizureDog 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hahnch e n 02:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Inane" is the perfect word. -- Kicking222 03:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. LOL! I hope this person's tongue was firmly planted in their cheek. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have said merge, but many of these games have only passing references to ants. SM247 05:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wonder how someone got the idea for something like that —M e ts501^talk 07:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the same fellow who got bent out of shape over the mass Trekcruft nominations. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Contrary to popular belief, the games Zool and Zool 2 do not feature ants." Um, okay. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN funny MLA 07:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to List of computer and video games by genre. You'd be amazed how many games have ants in them. JIP | Talk 08:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN per MLA. --Coredesat 09:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, listcruft. I wouldn't be amazed at how many games have ants in them, I'd likely yawn and go back to counting wall tiles. - Motor (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak Keep It might be useful to people with Myrmecophobia (ant-phobia). Don't laugh, this is disastrously serious for some in terms of money and frustration - for a year or so, one of my kids could not continue any game beyond the point where a spider appeared. Then again, no-one thought of looking it up in Wikipedia ;-) AvB ÷ talk 15:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AvB may have a point but the likelihood of such a perspective is not seriously significant enough to warrant a special page in an encyclopedia. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too arbitrary. Aren't I Obscure? 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A firm BJAODN... which includes the D part because, well, it's almost like listing all real-world holiday resorts featuring ants. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vodrey Nebula

Article about a non-notable nebula that was mentioned in passing in one episode and could never be more than just a stub. How did this one get missed in the mass Star Trek nominations last night? BigDT 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - TrekCruft:The Next Generation. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- GWO
Merge to the article about the episode or delete. Not worth its own article. JIP | Talk 08:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Motor (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hohenberg 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vango Adventure Farm

NN theme park that isn't even open yet. User has been adding several articles for NN places and people. Dismas|^(talk) 02:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystal ball gazing of questionably nn WP:CORP. Fluit 03:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, nn theme park, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Ter e nc e Ong 07:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ballism and NN —M e ts501^talk 07:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Censorship

POV fork of History of Google#Criticism and controversy. waffle iron ^talk 02:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Strong keep I remember Time had an entire article devoted to this very topic. Good enough for Time = good enough for Wikipedia.--SeizureDog 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read through the article completely, but it seems well-sourced and not OR. Some POV work could be done, but not enough to warrant deletion. Keep. Adambiswanger1 03:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Google censorship is definitely an important and worthwhile topic. That it happens is a matter of record. I'm sure the article could be improved, but that's really no reason to delete it. -- Captain Disdain 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Compare the article to History of Google#Criticism and controversy and you'll find this article is much shorter and fixated on Islam and right leaning sites. --waffle iron ^talk 03:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important topic, more likely to be searched for than "history of Google". Could do with broadening, but that's more likely to happen in a non-merged article. Espresso Addict 03:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong Keep Well sourced and documented article--CltFn 04:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though probably should be moved to Google censorship. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. --Peta 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, good article, no POV. MaxSem 06:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually the article just contains duplicated sections from History of Google. I don't really see the point of hosting near-identical material in two separate articles. --Madchester 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep fascinating notable article —M e ts501^talk 07:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way too much detail for an enecyclopedia. There should be a paragraph or two summarizing the topic in the main article. -- Kjkolb 07:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probelms with the article are a reason for clean-up, not deletion. Ace of Sevens 08:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well referenced and factual. I don't understand how it can be interpreted as POV. Ydam 11:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generalise. It's POV because there's no Yahoo Censorship or MSN Censorship, or even Baidu Censorship; singling out Google for something every search engine does is clearly biased. However, a general article on Search Engine Censorship, discussing the censorship practices of other search engines as well as those of Google, would not be biased. — Haeleth Talk 17:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is an issue for cleanup or revision, not a wholesale deletion! Haeleth has a valid point but until then, there is no requirement for deletion and I fail to see how it even came to be brought up as such. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 17:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reaks of POV; a future article on "Search engine censorship" would likely be focused on Google, since it is the most popular service of its kind today. The History of Google already provides sufficient information on the company's controversies. --Madchester 18:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of Google or Search Engine Censorship. --William Pietri 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The practice is notable and well documented, so no issue there. The only issue I see is regarding merging into other articles, such as mentioned above by William Pietri, but I think Google's prominence and the wealth of sourced info here justify the independent article. As far as POV accusations, to make that claim one would have to argue that the censorship does not exist, and I think Google freely admits it. Overall the article seems fairly factual, IMO. Crum375 23:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We're not here so that people can attack Google.. full of POV. -- 9 cds^(talk) 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name one specific POV you see in it? Crum375 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and list as the main article from History of Google#Criticism and controversy --Ephilei
Keep The bigger a company, the more criticism it gets. That is another thing than a POV fork.--Donar Reiskoffer 11:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to optimise the material so it is unbiased. Then why don't we let people edit it to rid of the biasness instead of just deleting the article as a whole. NeoDeGenero 12:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a good and unbiased article that only needs a bit of cleaning up, NOT DELETING. Mrchickenn 15:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is not a POV fork in any sense, just a spinoff article. Very notable subject. Deleuze 14:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Can't merge and delete, so I've just redirected. Someone else can merge if wanted, that doesn't need afd. Petros471 12:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long Point Provincial Park (camping)

NN campground Dismas|^(talk) 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect into Long Point Provincial Park. Fluit 02:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per Fluit —M e ts501^talk 07:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Ephilei 03:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then Delete & Redirect NN to stand by itself. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 04:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Scheffler

Non-notable. Maybe ad or vanity Nv8200p talk 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Not every newscaster is notable Dismas|^(talk) 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:BIO Adambiswanger1 03:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO —M e ts501^talk 07:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BIO. --Ter e nc e Ong 07:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN and fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 09:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Eluchil404 04:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia

There is a larger article on the same subject: Sporting Shooters Association of Australia. The SSAA have said there is no apostrophe in their name, and it seems redundant to have an article stub with a mis-spelt title when there is a larger article on the same topic- with the correct title- on Wikipedia.--Commander Zulu 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete if the information is identical, Merge if different. Adambiswanger1 03:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Fan1967 03:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is an appropriate course of action here as it is a plausible search term. Capitalistroadster 03:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Ans e ll 04:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Capitalistroadster. SM247 05:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --Ter e nc e Ong 08:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Why is this on AfD? -- GWO
Speedy redirect --Peta 23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just redirected it. Delete does not fit as the contribution history is important for the redirect page as Commander Zulu copied the content over recently. Someone should possibly close this, or undo my action in the event it was wrong. Ansell 23:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also should not be deleted as it is the version of their name that they officially use, they have the apostrophe on their website name Ans e ll 23:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18-5.com

This website does not meet the criteria for notability outlined in WP:WEB. Kershner 03:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 03:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Adambiswanger1 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB —M e ts501^talk 07:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not much you can write about a football clubs forum, nothing very encyclopedic anyway.--Andeh 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gblaz 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Staylefish

Artist Clearly do not fit the notability policy for wikipedia. Albums aren't listed at Amazon.com or any major online shops. Deletion needed. Fistofphury 18:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. Completely lacks notability.

Firegirl223 23:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never listed properly, listing now. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:MUSIC--blue520 03:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm bringing this[3] in to the discussion, I'm staying at no-vote. Yanksox 03:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notable musicians do not have just a $5 door cover charge - fails WP:MUSIC - Peripitus (Talk) 12:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Richardcavell 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine and Newspaper Designing

Based on the text of the uploader's user page, I'm going to say this looks like original research. I've left a note on the user's talk page requesting sources. cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete uncommon term, straight from a textbook Adambiswanger1 03:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR Essay. Article appears unsalvagable - Peripitus (Talk) 12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how this would be turned into an article. - DavidWBrooks 21:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Still no word from the article creator. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 17:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7734 (number)

Non-notable number according to these guidelines. (Strange that I found this one on 6/6/6...) Crystallina 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote Somehow I have a feeling that there are enough culteral references out there to make it work...--SeizureDog 03:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet logical restricions set by above link. Adambiswanger1 03:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I admit that I find most of these articles on number kind of baffling, but I'm willing to accept that a lot of them have some kind of a point to them. That said, when when the content is just "7734 is the number that comes before 7735 and comes after 7733" and some pointless "caculator fun", it looks entirely clear-cut to me... -- Captain Disdain 03:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. But, I'm gonna use this number the next time I play the lottery! Wish me luck! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. I fail to see the connection with 666. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I did actually know about that number :) —M e ts501^talk 07:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. original research, nn number. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The connection with 666 is simply that when typed into a calculator and turned upside down, it spells hELL. Slightly amusing, but not notable. JIP | Talk 08:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really a connection, though; fun with calculators vs. a number of Biblical significance. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, but it's the closest thing the article gets to a connection. JIP | Talk 05:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 09:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one fun fact which is more to do with how we choose to write the number, rather than any real mathematical or cultural propery. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn-numbercruft. (Note that I didn't call 230, 240, or 270 that.) One (marginally) culturally interesting property. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — But I got a chuckle out of "caculator". — RJH (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stupid calculator tricks, along with 58008 132.205.45.148 19:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet the guidlines for number articles. Eluchil404 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Swonke

NN actress. Appeared in a single TV show, though Wikipedia provides an 8 item "filmography" which appears, upon further examination, to be a listing of episode titles. Besides a DOB and credits there is no biographical information available. Fails WP:BIO.

I'm also nominating the remaider of the Barney & Friends kids here. None of these kids has more than a handful of credits, all of which are not notable. Like the other, there is little or no biographical information available. They all also fail WP:BIO.

*Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given by nominator. DVD+ R/W 03:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yay! They're all together. But still delete. —M e ts501^talk 07:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nom. Not my idea of notable, and even if you exclude THAT, you've got nothing. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, are this Barney kids notable? Non-notable child stars. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all, none of them are notable. --Coredesat 09:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Punkmorten 11:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, good luck to them all, but goodbye. - Motor (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete including all of the following: Jessica Zucha, Susannah Wetzel, Hayden Tweedie, Becky Swonke, Katherine Pully, Fernando Moguel, Pia Manalo, Demi Lovato, Corey Lopez, Kayla S. Levels, Marisa Kuers, Lauren King, Adrienne Kangas, Alexander Jhin, Jeffrey Hood, Hayley Greenbauer, Trent Gentry, Blake Garrett, Alyssa Franks, Dylan Crowley, John David Bennett plus two that were missed from the original Leah Gloria, Brian Eppes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletathon including all of the above ~ trialsanderrors 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all. While you all are at it, I'd take a look at the articles on babies who acted on soap operas, with very other little claim to notability. The articles are out there. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 11:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Soft Shelled Turtle, Wattle Necked Soft Shelled

No opinion. I caught both of these on CSD and rescued them. I'm not sure if they're notable within the animal world, but I figured it at least deserved some input. Ral315 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have a soft spot for taxonomy, so as long as it has the template filled out I'm fine with them. No animal article should ever be deleted IMO. --SeizureDog 03:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SeizureDog. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I nominated it for speedy deletion - at the time the whole content was like four words. They have been improved greatly, and I see no reason to delete it. -zappa.jak e (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- although they are stubby, the animals must be of some interest.--Peta 04:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they're real animals, so they can have an article. —M e ts501^talk 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all real animals are notable, expand the article. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all genuine species are notable. Ace of Sevens 08:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Coredesat 09:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Kalmbach

Fails WP:BIO. Being married to a small-town mayor does not impart notability. Fluit 03:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Super weak keep that shouldn't really even be considered As it's the first time I've ever seen the term "First Gentleman" used.--SeizureDog 03:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The term "first gentleman" is used, though it is not common. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the whole article just seems novel to me :) Changed my vote to what I was really thinking.--SeizureDog 03:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's his wife that's notable not him, also everything that needs to be said is in his wife's article (which needs cleaning up). Yanksox 03:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 04:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —M e ts501^talk 07:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being connected with someone notable doesn't make that person notable themselves Ydam 11:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and Delete Rita Kalmbach too. ~ trialsanderrors 17:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Masuda

NN child actor. Has appeared in a bit part in one film. Fails WP:BIO and there is no biographical information available. Note, this child has NOT appeared on Barney & Friends. :-) *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was probably an extra in a Barney episode though :P --SeizureDog 03:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Garrett has only had one role per IDMB [4]. - Kukini 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I'm sure there must be a Barney connection somewhere. --Calton | Talk 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —M e ts501^talk 07:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn actor. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango 123 18:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T-Shirt Hell

Just an online T-shirt shop. Same as every other T-shirt shop out there Phileas 04:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known, notable, has been featured on ABC TV. Crystallina 04:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability.--Peta 05:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough even though it has a news mention (good cite, though). -- Kjkolb 07:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my limited message board experience, this is popular as a humor site as well as a t-shirt site. It's well-known enough to be notable. Ace of Sevens 09:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn website. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Bwithh 10:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable website even without the media mentions in Melbourne's The Age, a segment on a CNN broadcast, and Philadelphia Weekly, among others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I don't like T-Shirt Hell, but it passes WP:WEB. The site has, as shown above, many media references. Its Alexa rank is in the top 5,000 [5], which is certainly high enough for an article, and a huge number of other sites (over 1,600) link to it. The article simply explains what the site is, and does not read like advertising. "T-Shirt Hell" (in quotes) gets 236 thousand Google hits, and if you just Google "t-shirt"- a word that gets over 87 million hits- T-Shirt Hell is the very first link [6]. -- Kicking222 11:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:WEB per pertinent arguments from Kicking222. definately notable, and verifyable from independant sources. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kicking222. Tevildo 12:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All indications are that this site meets WP:WEB.--208.215.25.131 13:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kicking222. Voice of Treason 13:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable site among t-shirt collectors (I happen to be one) Stev0 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kicking2222. Rob 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kicking222. Reluctantly, it does pass the criteria for such. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very notable. I'm pretty sure it made the news (at least once) when the owner received a number of death threats last year. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for an article. Deathawk 20:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable website, also was in the news over the past few years. The main reason i beleive that this article should be kept is because Wiki is supposed to be a network of unbiased facts, so naturally even if you do not agree with the t shirt hell, you should still allow for free information to be circulated user:ryan123004 20:13, 7 June 2006
Keep per excellent argument raised by badlydrawnjeff and Kicking222 -- Samir धर्म 00:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No doubt notable, and I want to jump on the voting bandwagon here ;-) --Kickstart70-T-C 00:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-notable my ass. XM 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blade of Awe

Fancruft. Artw 04:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor component of a game does not need its own article. Add a mention to the appropriate game article if need be, but, from my outsider's perspective, this one doesn't even have any useful content to be merged. GassyGuy 04:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GassyGuy. Kukini 05:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gamecruft, individual weapons don't need their own articles. JIP | Talk 08:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please people this is so much cruft. Wikipedia is not a game guide Ydam 11:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cruft, it has no notability outside of the game. - Motor (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This blade inflicts painful spelling, alas. — RJH (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the game --Ephilei
Delete Individual video game weapons don't deserve articles unless they're well known, unique, influential (e.g. BFG 9000) or iconic to the series or even genre (e.g. Master Sword). Failing those, I think they should at least appear in more than one games of series, or risk being merged to main article and/or "List of weapons in Foo". And at very least you should be able to tell something interesting about the weapon, not just how many billion points of damage it does. As it stands, the article seems a bit poorly written and too GameFAQsy and it's unlikely it will grow beyond that. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie Woogie Blues Rock

This single was only sold at a school band's concert. Google has zero hits for the artist. Completely non notable. Crystallina 04:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination Phileas 04:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. Kukini 04:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kalani ^[talk] 05:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like articles about individual songs, but seriously, this one doesn't even pretend to be notable. GassyGuy 05:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable single. Afonso Silva 11:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Singles shouldn't even be considered for articles if the artist doesn't have an article yet. --Metropolitan90 13:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Coronation of King Ferdinand I and Queen Maria in 1922

The event itself is covered n as much detail in the article Ferdinand I of Romania and the ungainly title is not likely to be used as an entry point. If the article were larger or was linked to a similar article on the Romanian wiki I could see keeping it, but neither is the case. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if already covered in Ferdinand I of Romania —M e ts501^talk 07:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if its redundant as the main article. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete event only deserves its own article if needs to be spun out from the Ferdinand I of Romania article Ydam 11:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Ephilei

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney World Campus Representative and Walt Disney World College Program Roles

More unencyclopedic, POV material about the Walt Disney World College Program. Survived a previous AFD though lack of interest. Wikipedia is not an almanac about this institution, delete --Peta 04:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect back to Walt Disney World College Program. Wikipedia is not the Disney corporation's employee handbook. -- GWO
Redirect per GWO. -- Kicking222 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GWO --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per GWO. --Metropolitan90 13:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information.--208.215.25.131 13:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Walt Disney World College Program. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk ʘ contribs} 21:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wargame Developments

Non notable wargaming orgaization, delete --Peta 04:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears NN —M e ts501^talk 07:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I used to be a member, I still have copies of the Nugget,none the less, this is cruft. Anything worth saying could be said in Kriegspiel (wargame) or in Unconventional wargames, or the like. And there isn't half a lot of deleteworthy cruft in Category:Wargames. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it seems like someone might have an interest in looking up this article, although point taken about wargame cruft. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk ʘ contribs} 21:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binc

Non-notable, appears to be advert. Artw 04:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN Spam. Kukini 04:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Kukini. Kalani ^[talk] 05:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Phileas 05:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete pure spam.--Andeh 06:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM —M e ts501^talk 07:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 08:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:SPAM. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear spamisment Ydam 11:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:SPAM. --Charlesknight 12:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CliqueBlogs

WP:WEB WP:VAIN Self promotion of non-notable web site. John Nagle 05:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 13 hits in Google including the site itself. --John Nagle 05:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. This article is not even a day old, so I think he needs some time to fix it up to make it look like an encyclopedia article. Also, Echidna Enclave exists, so why can't this? --real_decimic 06:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I appreciate the effort put into the article, but the website is not notable enough, yet. I suppose it could be userfied if it isn't considered overly promotional. On this article, I am confident in my decision and don't think more time will help. However, in general, I'm reluctant to wait a while and renominate, since many people seem to reflexively recommend keep after the first nomination fails. -- Kjkolb 07:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Better than wikipedia's worst article" is not a criteria for retention. -- GWO
Comment Requested deletion of Echidna Enclave, per above. --John Nagle 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN site —M e ts501^talk 07:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; if and when it's successful and noteworthy we can include it, but not until then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn website, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's currently nn. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk ʘ contribs} 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - CliqueBlogs isn't notable enough yet, and it may be added on in the future when it becomes more notable. --real_decimic 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. --Nlu (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - CliqueBlogs is hardly notable. I know the owner and I too think it's too small of a service to be on Wikipedia. --adamb10 - June 11th 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark_Forums

Non-notable. Spent a very brief time in February in top 100,000 websites hasn't been there since[7] only 59 hits on google, most of which seem to be junk links. A 126 member forum isn't exactly notable, especially since it doesn't seem to have any claim to fame. Crossmr 05:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry to those 126 people, but this is not notable —M e ts501^talk 07:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't come close to WP:WEB standards of notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviuos failure of WP:WEB Ydam 11:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Deli nk 12:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry guys, but we were down for a LONG time, which is why we dropped in rankings. We get about 200+ posts daily, but ok, let's just wait until we get back up into the higher rankings, :)

Feel free to delete, I totally understand. ^_^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.207.202 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 7 June 2006.

Comment That was Mark, the site owner - he doesn't know the proper posting format. Matt 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Markforums is brilliant, and it was very notable until it unfortunately got hacked. Matt 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-

Brilliant or not, there is no google evidence that anyone else considered it brilliant and thus had no notability. Were it that it was notable at some past point, the evidence of such would still be around. --Crossmr 22:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was notable enough to targeted by hackers? Matt 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to read this WP:WEB it doesn't satisfy the criteria to be considered notable. --Crossmr 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK. I agree, as Mark said - he can write it later when it is notable. Matt 15:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Someone can creat a neutral article at World Peace Forum if they want. Petros471 12:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Peace Forum 2006

Future event of questionable notability, content as stands is completely unencyclopedic, delete --Peta 05:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to say merge to World Peace Forum, but since that doesn't exist it's delete for me. —M e ts501^talk 07:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - someone can write the article after the Forum. Peripitus (Talk) 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it sounds notable. Better yet, rename World Peace Forum and include past events. However, needs to be brought in line with WP:NPOV and WP:MOS. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk ʘ contribs} 21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Petros471 12:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line of Succession to President of Pakistan

There doesn't appear to be a "line of succession to the President of Pakistan": the President is elected for a five-year term by the electoral college. Rather, the article only mentions that if the President dies, the President of the Senate takes over. This is more to do with the role of the president than a "line of succession". If this deletion is passed, then the information should be moved to Politics of Pakistan. Neonumbers 05:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant parts with either Politics of Pakistan or President of Pakistan. SM247 05:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Line of succession, in this case, isn't referring to how the head of state comes to power (as in a monarchy). Instead it's what happens when the president is no longer able to serve for whatever reason (legal, health, etc.). See United_States_presidential_line_of_succession for a comparable example. ScottW 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SM247. There's not enough content for this to be a separate article. --Metropolitan90 13:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to President of Pakistan unless it's expanded. There are a number of articles on lines of succession, but as it stands this is a line one person long, and doesn't have sufficient detail to be a separate article. Ziggurat 01:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walken (band)

I don't think they pass WP:MUSIC, delete --Peta 05:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:MUSIC, albums appear NN —M e ts501^talk 07:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat 09:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC guidelines. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convelo

Clearly spam, doesn't seem notable Artw 05:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete against WP:CORP SM247 05:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP obvious spamercial Ydam 11:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deli nk 12:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Molerat 17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Bilow

NN person, article says they worked on one game and worked for one small company which is no longer in business. Only 133 Google hits for "Chuck Bilow". Dismas|^(talk) 05:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that there is something wrong with your brain Dismas? Check out how much information is on the Chuck Bilow page (like you SHOULD of done to start off). You can be the person you are here on Wikipedia Dimas, WE ALL LOVE YOU (sarcasm). Whatever helps you sleep at night sweetheart. Let's continue this debate on the discussion page, shall we? Hucz 06:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you "should of" checked your spelling. The correct way to say this is "should've" or "should have". Why so many people fail to get this right is beyond me...- Mgm|^(talk) 12:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - There's about 811 Google hits ;)...

Response on the discussion page since that's where Hucz wants my response... Dismas|^(talk) 07:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 811 Google hots of the guy posting to messageboards... Artw 06:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohhh, Google hots... --Calton | Talk 07:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Calton | Talk 07:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, I only get 133 hits, not 811. Silensor 07:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dismas. Also, only about 40 of those 133 are unique results. -- Kjkolb 07:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —M e ts501^talk 07:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. fel64 12:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deli nk 12:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valleyschwag

Non notable internet neologism, delete --Peta 05:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. SM247 05:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not a neologism - it is a website. So we should be talking WP:WEB. Computerjoe 's talk 06:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable as a neologism or a webiste. Google turns up a lot of bloggers mentioning it and then seemingly instantly forgeting it, probably as a result of an unsuccessful "viral marketing" attempt. Whatever the cause it doesn't seem to have taken. Artw 06:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I blogged about this service, but ATM it fails WP:WEB Computerjoe 's talk 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN neologism —M e ts501^talk 07:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Artw Deli nk 12:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as a normal cleanup edit. Jkelly 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her Majesty Queen Sirikit

Already covered here. Artw 05:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So make it a redirect page; why bring it up here? --Lambiam ^Talk 05:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge (never said that before :-) —M e ts501^talk 07:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per Lambiam. --Metropolitan90 13:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous theorem of arithmetic

This article was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Frivolous Theorem of Arithmetic. That VfD attracted many IP votes and, for some reason, it was never properly closed. I'm nominating the article again so that the discussion can be brought to completion.

I don't think this "theorem" is in fact being used in mathematics. As the nominator said on the VfD page, it seems to be a "pretty feeble math joke". The article lists four references. The first reference is a one-liner in another online encyclopaedia (and we all know how reliable online encyclopaedia are, don't we?). The second reference is in fact copied from the first reference; I didn't check the book. The third and fourth reference do not mention "frivolous theorem of arithmetic". I don't think that's enough, so delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a "theorem", not theorem. MaxSem 07:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passably amusing joke. -- GWO
Delete fel64 12:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deli nk 12:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In-joke for mathemaholics - Peripitus (Talk) 12:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and add a mention into Almost all as an amusing example. flowersofnight (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The on-line encyclopedia mentioned in the nomination is Mathworld, which is sponsored by Wolfram Research (publisher of the well-regarded software Mathematica). While Mathworld accepts articles from readers, the site claims to review submitted articles before publishing them. Also, the [citesteer] site indicates that Mathworld articles have been cited in peer-reviewed publications. (On the other hand, I am not enough of a mathematician to say if this theorem is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia). Gerry Ashton 16:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was refering to MathWorld. However, their review is pretty minimal as errors slip through occasionally. As mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive11#MathWorld, MathWorld's articles are therefore viewed with healthy scepticism. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Almost all Delete what's left, not BJAODN worthy. ~ trialsanderrors 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN - (frivolously) copy it to WP:BJAODN BigDT 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. (It's also wrong, in that it does apply to the reals, if you append "in magnitude". μ(R) = ∞; μ([−k,k]) = 2k, so almost all reals are not in the interval from −k to k). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This is an offense to Professor Frivolous. — RJH (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've added this as an example of usage in almost all. It doesn't merit its own article. Gandalf61 09:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Write Law of small numbers, as a separate article, mention there, and delete. Septentrionalis 21:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango 123 18:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scenario building

Existing page Scenario analysis is already better developed and has a more logical title - no unique content on this page. Merge/redirect? SM247 05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redunant Nearly Headless Nick 09:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WP:BOLD, can this be closed? SM247 01:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Plastic

Non-notable, probable spam. Artw 05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM —M e ts501^talk 07:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. MLA 07:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. and WP:SPAM Nearly Headless Nick 08:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Deli nk 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jews in the media

Non-maintainable and not highly useful list (what is the media and to what locale if any is this restricted?) SM247 05:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not even a very good list of Jews in the Media. Artw 05:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The history indicates it is a recreate and may therefore be eligible for speedy deletion (though I couldn't find it in the log). In any case, it could be used as a vehicle for anti-semitism, I suppose. --Chaser T 06:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The obviously necessary and desirable objective of keeping WP free of anti-Semitism isn't even what I had in mind - this is just a poor list. But seconded. SM247 06:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:List of Jews in the media for the deletion, contrary to the page creators belief it was not deleted but moved to List of Jews in literature and journalism see [8] for the first edit. Redirect to List of Jews in literature and journalism.--blue520 06:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge I'd like to respond to some of these comments if I may... it is maintainable and it is very useful, given the emphasis on Israel in American foreign policy. I agree it is not as exhaustive a list as I would like but it is a beginning, it would help if organizations like The New York Times (as an example) would release the names and ethnicity of their editors, for instance. Whether or not something is potentially a vehicle for anti-Semitism isn't relevant, unless you can cite official Wikipedia policy on this for me. Moreover, anti-Semitism isn't as clear cut a topic as many of you would like it to be. As for the list being moved previously, this appears to be false, it appears to have been recreated from scratch and now excludes all of those names which actually control these many news organizations, which of course is the more interesting aspect of the list. I think that if you delete you will call more attention to this issue than if you just leave it alone. Kirkswig 06:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is list being moved previously false? Compare this [9] as provided by you on Talk:List of Jews in the media to this [10] the first edit of List of Jews in literature and journalism in relation to literature_and_journalism, what information has been deleted.--blue520 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was looking at the current page that is hosting the list, which is here [11]. It does appear that the previous list was simply deleted (without a vote I might add) and reconstituted with fewer, less important names. Kirkswig 07:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Here's the only relevant AfD discussion I could find (result: keep). I guess I mentioned potential for anti-semitism b/c I see it as a good reason to delete this article, though not valid under any wikipedia policy that I know of. Actually, IMO, none of the above are valid reasons for deletion. In light of the comment at the other AfD that this list should be carefully watched and maintained instead of deleted (I'm paraphrasing), I vote to keep and merge. --Chaser T 06:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Makes about as much sense as "List of Caucasians in the NBA". -- GWO
Delete as per SM247. Also, I don't think a list of people in the media by ethnicity or religion, the article doesn't not indicate which, is encyclopedic. Another problem is the disagreement over who should be considered Jews, which has caused endless squabbles on other articles. -- Kjkolb 07:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SM247. --Coredesat 09:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Jews in U.S. Media. Markb 10:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as silly or bad faith list Bwithh 11:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic topic. Deli nk 12:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SM247. --Metropolitan90 13:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is exactly the kind of totally arbitrary, unsourced, & unverified listcruft that should not be featured on Wikipedia. Ignoring any potential for this becoming anti-semitic flamebait, this article has severe verifiability issues. What are the criteria for inclusion? How are we verifying that these people are Jewish? Where are the citations/sources showing that they are either practising Jewish religion or are Jewish by descent? What is our definition and cut-off for being considered part of the "Media" for purposes of this article? This just lists news personalities and CEOs. Where are the musicians, actors, directors, painters, poets, & authors who could all be considered part of the mass media? I can find at least 4 sources that claim I am a member of the so-called "Jewish Media", do I get added (even though I am not a member of the media... or Jewish)? There are just to many problems with this type of list for it to ever be encyclopedic... and compare it to a list that is actually done right, with sourcing and verification: List of Jewish American journalists.--Isotope23 13:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issues raised here are no different from those affecting any other list of individuals by religion or ethnicity. Previous AfD have concluded however that despite these concerns the lists should stay. If we delete this list on baseless grounds then we should delete them all, should we not? Kirkswig 20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment any arbitrary list that does not WP:V it's claims from reliable sources should be deleted, whether it is about ethnicity, religion, physical attributes, etc. This isn't baseless; this is policy. I again point you to List of Jewish American journalists, which is an example of how a list should be done: defined scope and exhaustive citations sourcing every entry.--Isotope23 17:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was correct. The issues you raise here are baseless, one only need to observe how you are now deleting the entries I am making into the list that you proposed I move these entries to. Kirkswig 21:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the argument directly above. --Strothra 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep information is power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.32.76 (talk • contribs)
Delete Isotope persuaded me. None of this is verified. --Chaser T 17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again it seems we are applying a different standard to this list than we do other such lists, unless of course the vote is that we delete ALL of these lists, but since we've already had that AfD vote... Kirkswig 20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this other list didn't exist, I might not say delete, but this is a subject of obvious and high potential for controversy. That there is another list with verifying sources persuades me that there is no point in having this list, and strict enforcement of WP:V is warranted. --Chaser T 19:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to tune in and watch as I try to move these entries over, complete with sources. Kirkswig 06:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you would do such a thing since the consensus here seems to be delete, not merge. It seems like a good way to start a fight.--Chaser T 17:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Surely I am not to be prevented from contributing content to a page. So what if some of the content comes from this page? The content *was* wrongly deleted after all. Kirkswig 20:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Apparently my brain didn't process the "complete with sources" part. As long as you're meeting the definitional restrictions of the list for "Jew" and whatever profession, you'd probably be fine.--Chaser T 21:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do take a look at the new list. Please note how I am following Isotopes recommendations _to the letter_, sourcing each entry (despite the fact that no other list of Jews I can find is held to such a standard) and still it is not good enough. Kirkswig 21:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Isotope23 and SM247. Strong arguments for action. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 17:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, et al. --William Pietri 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope23. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Normally an AfD of this nature would be raising red flags for me, but in this case the title is a poor categorization. So it makes sense to delete (or at least subdivided into a more sensible organization). Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per RJH. I also have some question as how one would define "media" -- aren't actors/singers/artists, etc. media. It seems that the list is geared toward "news or pseudo news" which seems consistent with a questionable POV, but I won't go there (too far). Carlossuarez46 00:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is "the media"? For that matter, what is a "Jew" in the context of this list? (A religious practitioner? To what extent? Or just a certain ancestry?) Lots of problems, and this is a magnet for the whole "Zionist conspiracy" thing as well. Grand master ka 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list should be reformatted and edited, but is otherwise useful and encyclopedic. As an Italian-American, I would be proud to be on a list of famous Italian-Americans. --66.139.221.232 05:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CTM (Internet slang)

This phrase, as a pair ("Chuckling to myself" +CTM) garners around 24 Google hits. It doesn't appear to be notable enough to justify so much as a redirect, so I've brought it here for dele-- er, discussion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, until the phrase is widespread and notable it doesn't deserve an article.--Andeh 06:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never heard of it (although it would be useful when you start using LOL too much) —M e ts501^talk 08:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nearly Headless Nick 08:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 24 hits on Google does not make something notable. --Coredesat 09:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google hits or no, where's term's usage (beyond the guy who coined it)? --Piet Delport 10:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge

Doesn't seem to be an encyclopedia article. But instead seems to be promotional material. Probably something that only Richard Clark knows or cares about. Rob 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The test is a historic event which is known to and discussed by thousands of people at a minimum. Entering "Richard Clark" "Amp Challenge" into google returns 367 bonafide and mostly unique hits. As the author of the article, I do not know Richard Clark nor have I had any communications with him. I posted the article as a service because many people are confused about just what the challenge was and what it meant. Sprexumn 06:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Googling confirms Sprexums take on this. Artw 06:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as probably unverifiable, but the article is new and so is the author, so who knows? To me, this appears to be strictly a webforum discussion topic which has yet to penetrate into even the trade magazine level. I very much doubt that a reliable source will be found to verify any part of it. Melchoir 07:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified and that evidence can be found that the Challenge gets Amps all the way to 11. MLA 07:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete looks promotional and unverifiable. Nearly Headless Nick 08:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks promotional to me. --CapitalR 09:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on getting this more verifiable. As far as "promotional", can anyone point me to the wiki policy on what is promotional and what isn't. The deletion policy page does not mention the word "promotional" at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy so it's not clear to me that promotional is a valid grounds for deletion, but I'm a newbie and want to learn. Sprexumn 17:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant policy is WP:NPOV, which requires content be neutral (by nature, that which is promotional is not neutral). Being promotional, alone, does not require deletion if it can be fixed. The only way to provide neutrality, is to have multiple independent reliable sources discuss the topic. I don't see that, and don't see how this article is fixable. Also, message boards, blogs, and personal web pages, are not adequate secondary sources, you'll need to find some reliable publications that have written about this, which may be difficult. --Rob 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I was writing the article I attempted to take the neutral POV. I attribute assertions to others. I present a range of points of view, both woven through the article and in 4.18. I am having trouble seeing how the article diverges from neutral POV. I do understand that the NPOV issue is secondary to the NV issue but I'd like to know what about this article violates NPOV if just for my learning. --Sprexumn 18:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't read the article in detail, but for future reference, FAQs aren't a good idea. They lend an unencyclopedic tone of voice to an article, and that generally implies some kind of POV. There's a brief note at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Melchoir 22:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete. (See any difference?) Doesn't look promotional, but does look unverifiable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CT Madness

The subject does not seem to be notable. Dancter 06:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, would need a hedge-trimmer taken to it even if it was kept. Artw 06:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Nearly Headless Nick 08:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Artw said. Stev0 15:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 redirected. Jkelly 21:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Politics

This page was created a month and a half ago and yet still contains almost no content. The statement at the beginning of the article is entirely POV, and as I said on the discussion page, is an idea with which a great many people would disagree. Regardless, he has had ample time to expand and improve the article, and has not done so. I propose its deletion. Charles 06:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Redirect to Progressivism?. Artw 06:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Artw. Nearly Headless Nick 08:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Progressivism per Artw. --Coredesat 09:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deli nk 12:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- perfectly reasonable search string, no real need to delete the content. Jkelly 18:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no problem with a redirect. But, I have to ask, what content are you suggesting we not delete? The content, as it were, amounts to one sentence. ---Charles 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment -- I'm suggesting that there is no need to delete the article. Just turn it into a redirect as an editorial decision. Jkelly 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment -- Your point is taken. The redirect is done. This AfD can be closed. ---Charles 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larbage

Neologism from Family Guy episode Blind Ambition that is not notable in its own right --DLand ^TALK 06:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly non-notable GassyGuy 06:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though there's an article on doh, looks like this phrase has only be used in a single episode of Family Guy thus deeming it non-notable.--Andeh 06:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's no doh. Artw 06:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely non-notable part of the WP Family Guy sprawl. MLA 11:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deli nk 12:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doh-lete. Doh has found it's way into everyday conversation by people who aren't fans of the show. Larbage has no such status and is still a neologism. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give a larticle, delete this article SM247 23:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: LOL --DLand ^TALK 00:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Smallest People in the World

It is believed that this article was created to perpetrate a hoax, that a video game was in production for the TLC documentary. While the documentary itself is real, it isn't particularly notable. Dancter 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

The Girl Who Turned to Stone
Delete Non-notable & both aricles created by suspected sockpupet of Krabs502 [12]]. Also see past AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Girl Who Turned to Stone and the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Smallest People in the World (video game).--blue520 07:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Weregerbil 08:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nearly Headless Nick 08:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete Wooooah there, people! Yeah, that sockpuppet is an idiot, and the stuff he was making up was idiotic. But we should be judging this article as a one-sentence stub, and not as a false video game. I saw this doc twice, and it is not just real, but incredibly interesting. However, a quick Google test will show that not many people saw/cared about/talked about it, and it's not listed on IMDb, so I'm still voting delete. -- Kicking222 11:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yeah, it's the notability. By a quick count Discovery Channel alone has 14 channels that show documentaries. Stubs for every non-notable program they show is not terribly useful. Articles about series are much better (List of programs broadcast by Discovery Channel), or if there is a particularly famous single program that would be different. Weregerbil 13:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Why not? It seems like several Wikipedians (including me) have seen it, so it's not like some obscure amatuer film. Zagalejo 00:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, it's not deleted yet. Maybe you can demonstrate the notability of the documentary before the vote is finalized. And don't forget about The Girl Who Turned to Stone. That's also part of the nomination. Dancter 00:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well... I'm not really familiar with The Girl Who Turned to Stone, so I guess my vote only applies to The Smallest People in the World. I'll add whatever I can add to the latter, when I have some time. Zagalejo 01:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little bit, although, admittedly, there's not much information available. We'll see what other people think. I still say we should keep it; maybe more information will surface eventually. Zagalejo 03:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realm of High Knights

Fairly obvious hoax. (Does anyone not in junior high think that Richard I had a companion named "Sir William the Arcane?") Choess 07:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant hoax though much funnier than most BJAODN nominations MLA 07:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Nearly Headless Nick 08:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verifiable sources are produced. Ace of Sevens 09:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Google returns no hits. Kalani ^[talk] 09:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deli nk 12:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Little is known about this article, but it is rumoured that it will be deleted soon. — Haeleth Talk 19:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above SM247 23:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mookhey

nn person, does not meet WP:BIO, very few google hits Fluit 07:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google returns 24 results, fails WP:BIO. Kalani ^[talk] 07:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nearly Headless Nick 08:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have encountered this fellow personally and he is definitely not notable. SM247 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walk To Emmaus

Completely non notable. Ben W Bell talk 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —M e ts501^talk 08:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Nearly Headless Nick 08:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, even if it has a pretty picture. SM247 23:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cursillo or Expand. The article doesn't do much to assert notability but it is actually a very popular retreat held in many parts of the country by local chapters.[13] 50K Google hits with a retrictive search terms. Eluchil404 05:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of populistic pieces

Delete - there is no useful or objective definition of "populistic pieces". I noticed this because it was very near the top of the Special page - Oldest articles (Special:Ancientpages): it has not been edited since 17 July, 2004, and it shows - no-one is remotely interested in it. Mais oui! 07:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The associated "main article" is the redlink Populist music, which causes the template it appears on to be listed at Wikipedia:Templates with red links/2006jan25-2. --Mais oui! 07:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is "populistic" even a word? -- GWO

The phrase "populistic music" gets exactly one ghit. "Populist music" gets around three hundred, many of which are just malaprops for "popular music". Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's a granddaddy of an article, but with no context and no objective definition of the title it's POV-by-implication. Ziggurat 22:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Stephanos

nn person, fails WP:BIO Kcordina ^Talk 08:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —M e ts501^talk 08:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kalani ^[talk] 09:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not worth an article on Wikipedia. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She passes the "professor" test, as well as the "Google" test. However, she fails the rest of the tests.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TunaHAKI Foundation

NN charitable foundation. Just founded in '06 so it would be hard for it to have done anything notable but the article also doesn't state how it is any more notable than other charity in that area of the world. Dismas|^(talk) 08:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep looks notable enough. Nearly Headless Nick 08:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google turns up no reliable sources, just blogs, Factiva doesn't give me anything either. No incoming links, no assertion of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as per nom Bwithh 10:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. A google search shows some web campaigning, some links from charitable index sites but currently little else. Whilst I don't see that the Foundation would need to be any more notable than any other, it does need to establish its notability in the article. Right now I can't find any evidence of activity outside its own self-promotion. I could be persuaded to change my recommendation if references were provided to demonstrate notability. Author, please see Wikipedia:Notability for guidelines regarding the issue this article has been challenged on. — Es tarriol ^talk 11:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sam. No notability asserted. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. TunaHAKI has been a registered charity in Tanzania since 1998 and it has rescued over 100 orphans from the streets which may not be notable in Wikepedia world, but is quite notable in the real world? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfifer (talk • contribs) 2006-06-07 16:46:52.
- I'm confused — the article says that the Foundation was founded in 2006. Are there two different entities called TunaHAKI? If you can provide verifiable references for the 100+ orphans claim, that may cause some reconsideration for some editors on this list. — Estarriol ^talk 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Taking a quick look around on google they do appear to be two separate, but loosely connected, organisations. The original TunaHAKI (based in Tanzania) was founded in 1998 and its official website can be found here. The TunaHAKI foundation (based in California) was founded in 2006 and though it says it supports the original TunaHAKI, it appears to be an entirely separate entity. Would it be worth moving the article to TunaHAKI and having an article for the both of them there? Road Wizard 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been searching through Google for about an hour now and whilst I believe the original charity at least is notable, I can't find anything verifiable. Road Wizard 18:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would certainly support an article for TunaHAKI, which could have a section on the new foundation. That would require a TunaHAKI article to merge into though. With respect though, I don't yet think the Foundation is notable enough on its own. — Estarriol ^talk 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have now created the alternative article with the Foundation as the child section. Road Wizard 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ with the new article TunaHAKI. The Foundation should be a sub-section of that article until it achieves enough to become notable in its own right. Road Wizard 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge target has now been deleted through AfD consensus, so there is nowhere for this page to merge with. Changing vote to Delete. Road Wizard 22:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have nominated TunaHAKI for deletion as well, as it isn't notable enough for an encyclopaedia article either. So my opinion remains unchanged. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ with TunaHAKI. Borderline notability but I'm OK with it in this case. — Es tarriol ^talk 10:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Road Wizard. — Es tarriol ^talk 23:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Rooter

Non-notable company (fails WP:CORP). Contested prod and remarkably similar (same editor, also part of the Dwyer Group) to the recently unanimously deleted Rainbow International --Pak21 08:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator --Pak21 08:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nearly Headless Nick 08:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kalani ^[talk] 09:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although page name passes WP:PORN -- GWO
- What the hell does this have to do with porn. --CharlotteWebb 10:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a joke. -- GWO
Speedy Keep, second largest plumbing company in the U.S., 521,000 google hits [14]. --CharlotteWebb 10:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: all which but approximately 168 are basically ignored by Google (hopefully that link gives the same results for others...) for being "very similar to the 168 already displayed". I'm not as convinced as I was by its non-notability, but I'd like to see some verifiable evidence here. Cheers --Pak21 11:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:CORP as the second largest pluming company in the US. Google search turns up all kinds of mentions in business magazines. For example, "Mr. Rooter® Plumbing is the second largest full-service plumbing and drain cleaning company in the U.S. Recognized by Entrepreneur magazine among its “Franchise 500” and Franchise Times Top 200"[15]. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heavily advertised on radio and television in the United States (those commercials with the annoying female home improvement expert saying stuff like "I'm a good plumber, but Mr. Rooter is an expert"). Notable via wp:corp (per citation given by Edgar181), but it needs cleanup and expansion for sure. I'm not sure if the Google test is the best fit here, since a chain of plumbers is not likely to have broken down the barriers of cyberspace quite yet. youngamerican (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added the citation above and cut down some of the pov language. What is left should be a relatively workable stub. youngamerican (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Edgar181. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough to stay after later clarification. Voice of Treason 13:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable company. 23skidoo 13:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable company with franchises around the world. Ben W Bell talk 14:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. I see their damned commercials ten times a day. Notable enough, although it certainly needs cleanup and expansion to better assert notability. Kafziel 15:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edgar181. Crystallina 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see their trucks all over the place. If Roto-Rooter has an article, so should these people. Clearly notable. Fan1967 15:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to parent company The_Dwyer_Group. If the parent company's article gets too big, we can break it out then. --William Pietri 20:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Carlossuarez46 00:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Yeast

Delete: Non-notable rapper with pretty much nothing on Google. "Notable fame" from a whole 6,000 albums? Sounds a little like a joke page. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wknight fel64 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see evidence of notability or meeting WP:BAND. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find anything to support the claims either.[16]. PJM 12:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No supporting reference of seemingly over the roof claims which are prima facie un-substantiated by google search. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete They have a website, www.icedouteskimoz.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.252.112.102 (talk • contribs)

Please read Wikipedia:reliable sources and WP:V. Thanks. PJM 16:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. If having a website is enough to get you a Wikipedia article, we're going to be pretty busy... — Haeleth Talk 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anticompilation movie

Neologism, possibly OR. Also, after reading this a few times, I'm not sure exactly what an anticompilation film is. Ace of Sevens 11:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's unsourced and violates WP:NOR, as it stands. PJM 11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No useful Google hits outside Wikipedia and mirrors; no Google Groups hits at all. --Metropolitan90 13:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be provided. I've had a quick go at tracking down possible Japanese usages, since this claims to be an anime term, but none of the likely Japanese forms produce any relevant results. Of course, I might just not have guessed the right abbreviation. — Haeleth Talk 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verified, my opinion stands unless it is made so. SM247 23:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:MONGO (See [17]) BigDT 11:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Letran-Manila employees get recognition through the service awards

non notable press release, regardless of company involved Tychocat 07:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Probable copyvio. -- RHaworth 10:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio from [18]. --Pak21 11:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, copyvio. PJM 11:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge with Sports film. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball movie

This should be merged to Sports film (which badly needs a rewrite about conventions, etc as it's basically a list right now). Baseball isn't really a genre in and of itself. No other sports have pages like this. I don't see what makes baseball special in this regard. Ace of Sevens 11:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sports film per nom, delete content and leave as redirect to Sports film. PJM 11:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Please visit Wikipedia:Merge and Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to discuss mergers. We can simply overwrite the text with a redirect without deleting it, we need that article history for GFDL compliance if we are to merge it anyway. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merging seems to be the acceptable thing to do. Leave a redirect in place per WP:MM. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, I would also go so far as to suggest merging Cricket in film and television into sports films as well for the sake of consistency. SM247 23:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This belongs in category:Baseball films and category:Baseball culture, but the more general articles does not. CalJW 21:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lodden dritt

Notability of this band is asserted, but I could not find evidence that what is reported is true [19] - Liberatore(T) 11:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beginning of article is exact copy of here, but I can't find where the rest of it came from. One of the links in the article also has the beginning of the article, which then links here as the source of the bio. So either delete for WP:NOR or as a copyvio, depending which came first. (Oh, and yeah, don't appear notable as 3rd strike - can't find anyone else referring to them, selling their cds, etc.) -Goldom (t) (Review) 11:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above...unable to verify. PJM 11:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable band per google search. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bug hunt

Neologism and probably not really a genre anyway. A google ssearch for "bug hunt" - "starship troopers" returned only result about software bugs and entymology. I found no evidence of people using the term as presented here outside Starship Troopers. Ace of Sevens 11:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not properly sourced and scrapes WP:NOR. PJM 11:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with above. fel64 11:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The phrase was used in the movie Aliens before becoming a primary point of the Starship Troopers movie (which differed greatly from the novel that, I think, didn't use the phrase at all). So it is at least evident in two films, rather than one. However, the article doesn't provide compelling enough evidence of there being enough films, books, comics or videogames in existence that could qualify it as a genre. I certainly don't think that three is a large enough number! Seb Patrick 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it originally was a mere passing comment in Aliens. Just another fragment of popular film that people try to attach legs to. PJM 13:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not original research, but again not notable enough to be an encyclopedia entry. -Ambuj Saxena(talk) 13:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without proper sources, how could one say it is not OR? We all know the term 'bug hunt' has been used before, but that doesn't lend support to the crux of the article. From WP:NOR: "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources". PJM 14:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 13:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kafziel 15:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Beech Cottage

According to its 2 Google hits, the site is actually some kind of guesthouse. Article is vain and laughably POV. Moreover, there is no such thing as 'Frequently Visited Landmark' status in the UK, nor does the National Trust give awards to private dwellings. AlexTiefling 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is blatant advertising. otocan

Delete fel64 11:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - need to expand CSD a7 to include the house they live in - Peripitus (Talk) 12:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising of non-notable guesthouse. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chickenkissers

Vanity page about non-notable site, created by owner. On the talk page, he even said: don't delete this e is pretty small. fel64 11:43, 7User June 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. PJM 11:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete Talk page sums it up. This is an ad. Ace of Sevens 11:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per talk page and WP:WEB. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per being an obvious advertiplease, I am in desperate need of people to look at my site! Google gives 48 hits for the article title, and the forum [20] they havsement and admitted hit-seeking. Voice of Treason 13:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Documation

NN Neologism. Dictionary.com doesn't list this word and a google search only turned up hits about a document-processing company in the UK. Ace of Sevens 11:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. fel64 12:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per google search. Definitely not notable. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saxena. Kukini 14:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move and refocus to Pearl, Florrie and the Bull, seeing as this is apparently the only film to use the (neologistic) term. Ziggurat 22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twistedplay

Promotional of a non-notable website with an Alexa rank of over two million. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't be considered notable per Alexa rank (above), and only 60 unique google hits. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mike Rosoft, appears to be made by one of their ~~minions~~ members.--Andeh 15:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still partly copyvio and not notable. ww2censor 15:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 action taken. This belongs at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, not AfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Docu-fiction

Needs to be merged into Docudrama. They are the same thing and docudrama is by far the more common term. Ace of Sevens 12:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it needs to be merged, please go to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. No deletion required.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking delete and re-direct, though merge is probably more appropriate. Ace of Sevens 12:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cha'ouw Empire

Makes no claims to notability, unranked by Alexa, unable to obtain membership numbers and none in article, Google results show no sign of notability or recognition and not verifiable. Does not meet WP:WEB standards; possible CSD A7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not exactly notable. 21 unique google hits. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I will try to ask the leadership of the empire for more input on both this and Beach Bash,--Hawk 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 12:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warehouse Nightclub (Preston)

2-line entry on obscure nightclub with no assertion of notability StuartF 12:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not asserted and I can't find any either Ydam 12:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mark as stub and expand Google reveals 44,000 hits for this well known nightclub. Very notable. --manchesterstudent 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentActually skipping to through to the end of that list reveals only 787 matches and searching for the more specfic preston "warehouse nightclub" gives only 103 Ydam 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mano Markovic

Hoax. No google hits for "Mano Markovic". I doubt anyone was abbreviated to "Vagina", and of course, there are no google hits for "Deutsch Vagin Klub". The picture labelled "Mano throwing the wayward javelin in warm-up" is of Steve Backley (he is in an England shirt, similar picture here). Et ceter, et cetera. Mr Stephen 13:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Hoax. Also has a attack page feeling to it. BTW the B&W photo is of the 1956 Melbourne, Australia Olympics and was copied from the National Library of Australia [21].--blue520 13:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, you sir are a moron. I am insulted that you have not heard of "Deutsch Vagin Club". It is a fairly small organisation started by this great man Mano..and still today helps underprivledged children walk to school every morning. Mano is a great man. Sure, the picture may not be of him exactly, but it is the vibe that is given off that is important. There was no opportunity for photos when Mano enterd the olympics. Do not insult Mano by removing this page.

I agree whole-heartedly with the above comment. If you people cannot simply accept the magnitude of Mano's character, and try to bring him down with false claims then that is just proposterous. I am dissappointed with the ignorance of viewers of this website. How one can not be aware of the Deutsch Vagin Klub is just beyond my comprehension. If this article is taken down, it will be read as no less than a personal prejudiced attack. Mano is a vengeful character, I urge careful consideration to take place.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 12:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kovalysko

Non-notable name, no important people with Kowalysko, and other names are more common Chipka 13:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The article basically says it's the Ukranian equivelant of Smithson. Smithson doesn't have its own article. Ace of Sevens 13:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Smithson disambiguation page 11kowrom 14:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Only less than 30 google hits[22], many of which are to the same person. This is not a common surname, at least in Ukraine. The article needs either to be modified, or deleted. And, btw, it should be Kovalysko then. And it is much less common that Kovalenko, Koval, and Kovalchuk. --Irpen 20:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I moved Kowalysko to Kovalysko Lorty 13:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Subject barely passes WP:BIO, with no compelling reasons to keep, request respected.. Shell ^babelfish 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryll Barron

Subject requests deletion. Feels that she doesn't meet criteria under WP:BIO. No opinion on the matter, just bringing it here as requested for a community decision. Shell ^babelfish 13:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete With a published book from a major publisher, she does pass my inclusion criteria. However, I feel we should respect subjects' wishes when they don't want to have an article (though obviously only in borderline cases). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep With the unreferenced bit about her opinions on people from another nation removed, now a very flattering biography of a notable author and writiter. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Anti-vanity just swings it. -- GWO
Keep - Err ... where does the subject request deletion? The Talk page references inaccuracies, but the article now seems quite well sourced. Even given that, her publishing credits pass the WP:BIO bar. Ravenswing 19:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She wrote to m:OTRS to request deletion in addition to emailing Jimbo. Shell ^babelfish 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject does seem to meet inclusion criteria; article is well-referenced and there's sufficient information already available to the general public elsewhere. If there is another reason for wishing to be deleted (such as a legal issue) I would suggest requesting an office action. Ziggurat 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. She isn't too notable (just 75 Googles), so we should respect her request for it to be deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Close but just not notable enough GassyGuy 08:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An orphan, to boot. Bare notability is necessary but not sufficient to keep an article. +sj + 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the subject requests deletion, it's a matter of courtesy to delete. Anyway, people who want to know about her can go to Google. Wikipedia is not the only source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.1.244 (talk • contribs)
Week keep Same opinions as above but I also share Ravenswing's view on this one. --Pilo t|guy ^{(roger that)} 14:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1997 three points deduction

Not notable enough to deserve it's own article, and already has adequete coverage in the Middlesbrough F.C. and FA Premier League 1996-97 pages. --DaveJB 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no real need for this badly-titled (it's just not specific enough) article, so delete per the part of the nom about its coverage in other articles. I'd take issue with the suggestion that it's not notable, since it's the only time it's happened in the history of the EPL and caused the relegation of a club, to boot; but as mentioned, all the information is in the other articles, and the title is poor and misleading. Seb Patrick 15:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Covered in Boro article. -- GWO
Delete, I agree. Conscious 19:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A milestone in MFC's history, it belongs just on the MFC page. SLUMGUM yap stalk 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Bolivia

Couldn't find anything to back notability per WP:BIO cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very likely hoax. Reasoning (1) article mentions a "film career" but subject has no IMDB entry that I could find. (2) her "greatest work" described as "a milestone for all female writers" is a couple lines of Livejournal-quality poetry. (3) Supposed husband's name is nonsensical-sounding, probably an anagram. (4) No sources (of course!) (5) No Google hits besides the article itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Voice of Treason 13:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew Lenahan. Gw e rnol 14:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I find the inclusion of "pedia" in the husband's name interesting; was the author, casting around for a Latin name, perhaps inspired by our logo? ;) — Haeleth Talk 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 04:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 04:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of British ska bands

Completing a nomination started by Spylab. Rationale was given in the talk page: "I don't see the point of this entry. There's already an article on Two Tone. Are there going to be entries listing ska bands from every single country? Spylab 21:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)spylab" - Liberatore(T) 13:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of Ska bands and continue on from there. --Kickstart70-T-C 14:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorise. -- GWO
Delete and categorise. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft and categorise. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is this determination to get rid of useful lists? British bands were clearly notable in the history of ska music. Capitalistroadster 21:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of ska musicians or (as suggested above) List of ska bands. The information is plausible, just not enough for a separate article. Ziggurat 22:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories work just fine for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equendil (talk • contribs)
keep please this list is useful erasing it makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 01:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. TigerShark 10:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Van

Delete - Violates WP:BIO (no widely recognized contribution to any field) and WP:VAIN (current article was written by the subject). The latter creates intractable issues of NPOV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivana Humpalot (talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 14:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, should the nominator be invited to change his/her username? - Liberatore(T) 14:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't this survive deletion recently? Keep Sorry but when you get coverage like this[23] you deserve an article. I know there are sources, I just can't find them. This guy is actually somwhat of a quasi-big deal. Yanksox 15:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable in Boston and in Mission of Burma circles. BoojiBoy 15:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Disagreement For Keeping. While the individual in question may be notable within Mission of Burma circle, he hardly is within Boston -- or even the Boston music scene for that matter. He wrote for a handful of fanzines, as well as did freelance work for The Boston Phoenix. Are we about to let the countless other individuals who have done the same have their own Wikipedia pages as well?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.65.233.3 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No verifiable assertion of notability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per fascinating verification. Music criticism isn't the most relevant aspect of this article, but sabermetrics certainly is. Ziggurat 22:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, I am from Boston, and he's still being mentioned around. If you mention his name, people will know who you're talking about. Yanksox 22:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable baseball statistician. -- No Guru 19:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Vulliez

Flash animator. Fails WP:BIO with a venegeance. In addition, there are no reliable sources for any of the information in the article. See also David Firth, Jazza. Delete, or at least merge into The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny - Motor (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He's on the cusp of notability thanks to The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny. --Billpg 18:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Ghits for "Shaun Vulliez"... 70. No sources, not even the notoriously internet biased ghits... there is just no way this guy justifies a bio article on the basis of a barely notable flash animation. - Motor (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; nn-bio-cruft, with additional stigma of unverified (and apparently unverifiable?) KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Billpg. --FlyingPenguins 04:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's tons of articles about internet animators. Sources will come, leave it be for now. --Liface 18:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Relevant to the EBaum's World article and ebaumsworldsucks.com. --M414
- Comment... so? I continue to ask a simple quesion on these biographical articles and get no answer. Where is the reliable information for this person, per WP:BLP? This man is clearly not notable, since he has virtually no Ghits (which given that he's an "internet personality" should be flattering him) and played a role in a very minor internet WP:MEME. There is absolutely nothing here that could possibly justify or fill an biographical article... and yet people still vote keep without a single worthwhile argument to back it up. - Motor (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional universes

Delete per nom (me). I stated my opinion concerning the usefulness of this article on its talk page first, and received only agreement on the matter. Cut and paste follows.

I hate to rain on this obsessive-compulsive parade, but couldn't this article include every work of fiction ever produced, in some form or another, especially speculative/science fiction and fantasy? It took me a moment to even think of one useful purpose such an article might serve, but there is one: to simply outline the conceptual differences between such fictions, as this does to some degree by detailing the different categories of fictional universes that can exist. There is absolutely no function served by creating a repository in which everyone can note their favorite fictional universe. Examples are useful, sure, but I think some limits should be in place. I put my opinion out tentatively--clearly someone is interested, if so much has been done here, but I think this is more a case of interest on the part of the creators than on the part of potential readers. No one can really gain any kind of knowledge from these "shout outs" to our favorite works of fiction. Fearwig 03:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am confident that this article can serve no worthwhile purpose, and should be considered a good reminder that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article seems to me the very definition of indiscriminate. Fearwig 22:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. (Please note - Fearwig "received only agreement" from one user, Peter S.) Fearwig mentions one purpose the article may serve: "to simply outline the conceptual differences between such fictions, as this does to some degree by detailing the different categories of fictional universes that can exist." Please remember that everything here is a work in progress, and per the talk page of the article in question, there are many hands and brains pondering how to make the article accessible and informative. I take exception, also, to the claim that "no one can really gain any kind of knowledge" from something, simply because one person (or two) doesn't see its wor th. As you may have already guessed, I have learned something from the article and think it should be kept. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly does the list portion of the article achieve, other than to catalogue what could conceivably be every single piece of fiction ever produced by mankind? Being that the article is a list, this should be the matter in question. Fearwig 22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. (Please note - Fearwig "received only agreement" from one user, Peter S.) agree with pegship the everything here is a work in progress and that there is no need to delete something that could be cleaned up. --Kev62nesl 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not pretend that agreement was in abundance--only that no one cared about the article in that period of time save the one individual who agreed in its worthlessness. I am not sure why a "strong keep" would be the immediate result of the consideration that "not enough people have agreed with the deletion yet". You simply can't clean up something so conceptually flawed as a list of every fictional universe ever imagined. Fearwig 22:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not pretend that my "strong keep" was the "immediate result" of the number of people agreeing on deletion. (That was just a report of the facts.) It was the immediate result of believing that the article is informative and worth keeping. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment and keep I've added a "dynamic list" template at the top. Seems sufficient to me. --Quiddity 23:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion between fearwig and myself at the talkpage here, and Her Pegship has very recently been cleaning up the list. -Quiddity 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this list (and it analysis) does provide a useful purpose. Firstly it provises a place to review the various fictional universes (and yes that will mainly mean SF and Fantasy). Secondly it provides a grouping of types, particularly for anyone wanting a read of a similar kind to one previously enjoyed or one of a dissimilar kind (for variety). This is not just a listing. All I would say is that it does need work to improve this information. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 14:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the information into fictional universe. Expand that article and include some of the examples from "list of" in there. I can't really see much of a point to this article. "List of" articles are almost always bad, and this is a pretty good example of Wikipedia turning into an indiscriminate collection of information. While you're at it, put Index of fictional places up for AFD too. - Motor (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Listcruft. Artw 15:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Listcruft? I can't find an explanation of this term, though I think I get it by context. Fearwig 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. --Rehcsif 16:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, indiscriminate and neverending list; Motor's merge proposal has some merit but I don't think it is necessary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and cleanup ... I could go either way on this one. It may as well be called List of Works of Fiction because any work of fiction by definition presupposes facts that didn't happen in our universe. Still, it could be made into a meaningful article if someone wanted to work on it. BigDT 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Going back to Fearwig's original observation, "couldn't this article include every work of fiction ever produced": yes, it could. I see your point, F, and I removed the section referencing "Earth as we know it"; such a list would be ridiculous indeed. Perhaps clarifying the parameters of the list would help -- List of alternative universes? As in, alternative = "existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems" ([Webster]. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that a more... moderate list would be within the approrpiate purpose of WP. I also agree that (if this article is deleted, as I still must believe it should be) this material should be re-used elsewhere, in producing a new but similar line of article. Fearwig 20:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it is terribly organized (and woefully incomplete) and desperately in need of cleanup. I see nothing "indiscriminate" about such a list, however. bikeable (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that it is incomplete is its only saving grace. That's the problem--lack of discrimination in the topic. Fearwig 01:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the existing information seems in desperate need of pruning and reorganising, the talk page suggests that efforts are ongoing to make it more useful, and what is there is interesting. Merging with Fictional universe would make the latter unwieldly. Espresso Addict 20:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft, unmaintainable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename/Cleanup into "List of Alternate Universes" per Webster, link it from fictional universe as a reference page (since being merged in toto would make fictional universe too long and unwieldy). Treat it as a sub-article to the fictional universe main by way of examples, otherwise it really is just listcruft -Markeer 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: and for the user who asked what listcruft meant, here you go: Wikipedia:Listcruft -Markeer 21:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Wonderful, thanks. This is something of a "List of people who have ears", I must agree. Fearwig 01:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Seems a decent start. More information than in a simple category — RJH (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is what categories are for. SM247 23:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is an argument for having an article on the types of fictional universe that can exist. That is, the current section organization of the article is itself of interest, though I think the list is potentially infinite and that is a serious problem. Unless the infinitude of the list is fixed I can't see a way out of deleting this article. But if the list is restricted to notable examples, and the article reviews the types and gives early and important examples, that could be worthwhile. However, I'd then suggest it be merged with the Fictional universes article. The category already exists, after all; either the list duplicates it or it supplies analysis, and I'm not sure why that analysis wouldn't belong in the Fictional universes article. Mike Christie 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree completely, I think the analysis (if it is in fact not OR--I'm not sure whether it's taken from secondaries) should be retained. I only suggest that this page be deleted, not the Fictional universes article (though that should perhaps be changed to Fictional universe, to meet naming conventions, if I'm not mistaken).
Keep. This is more than just a category, although I believe the list should be restricted to notable universes only. --Bruce1ee 07:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Who would arbitrate that? Apparently some people think the Bernstein Bears series is set in a "notable universe". Also, are you using Wiki standards of notability, because Wikipedia does have well over a million articles, a great number of which are based on works of fiction (and thus set in fictional universes). Fearwig 14:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep—We'd started a lazy process of organizing a consensual method of tackling what is admittedly a daunting task, and had a general agreement on how to make the thing better. Splitting it was one initial thought, then Peg came up with the table. Agreed the scope of the beast needs narrowed, but the telling point to me is not what 'use' the article may have to someone like Ferwig, but that there had been a lot of people that put their valuable spare time into building it in the first place. That also shows a certain amount of love and care to take the effort of putting up the data in the first place; D'ya hear a winsom echo of Jimbo here—that's somewhat like the answer he gave the interviewer about what surprised him most about the encyclopedia. In sum, you need not help, but do respect the time others devoted to putting this nascent seed together. There is a fun factor to remember as well, not everything in a e-publication need be limited like a dead tree publication. Sneer at it as listcruft if you like, as I do when people go ga-ga over so called celebrity entertainers who are just doing their jobs in something they love. But you can blame those same entertainers for the population of this list. Deleting it is only consistent with a vow to be a lifelong ascetic and never ever enjoy anyform of entertainment. The converse is also true, if you are a fan of anything at all in the realm of entertainment, integrity and respect for others, and especially perhaps, respect for others donated volunteer time clearly demands it be kept — least you know yourself for a hypocrite and insensitive uncaring person. I'd rather you didn't inflict that wound on your psyche, and thought about why the list came to be in the first place! Is love and affection so unworthy so as to be unnotable on it's very existance? No, they are the most precious commodity of all. (danged edit conflict! Ferwig!)// FrankB 14:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have some sympathy with this view; I understand that this can be a labour of love for many editors. I'm not suggesting that the work be destroyed, but it does have to be consistent with Wikipedia goals. It has to be encyclopaedic. My criticism is not of the idea of documenting fictional universes within Wikipedia -- that's clearly within Wikipedia's scope. The problem is that the article, in its current form, is absolutely unmaintainable. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a key problem for several who have voted Delete here; and it has not been addressed by the responses or the Keep votes. If this can be corrected I would be likely to vote Keep. Mike Christie 15:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe it was mentioned that several of us were addressing that... albeit on the back burner, but it wasn't undergoing consistant neglect (Consider the old saw: 'Failing to plan is a plan to fail', which goes a long way in life, and matters complicated!), as any fair reading of the talk page indicates for the last month.

Pegship, Quiddity, Heretohelp, myself, and even (the traitorous <g>) Peter S had all begun to look at it. But we all have other wikiTasks that kept us from getting down to brass tacks here[24] or in the commons[25]... that's gotta be something over 1000 such just this last month. So I agree the thing has big problems, but I started the ball on improving it by looking for ideas on how to procede... such is in the talk page. (Specifically: See the Motion to Revise section below for details. --FrankB 14:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC), just a month back when I went to make an add to the thing.) Being disorganized, simply by trying to parse it's organization (which seemed inconsistant), I don't believe I ever did edit in it then. Shrug... I yelled for some help and advice; we just haven't gotten to it fast enough for y'all. Shrug (<g> Care to guess 'why'??? <g>)

Now some of ya'll want to kill the item instead of improving it. Shrug. 'twould be better if we all just pitched in a half-hour a week morphing it into the table format suggested by Pegship... That cuts the redundancy to a mininum, cross references the occurences across media, and keeps what is a fair archival tool. Some of us get strangely inspired by such cross-fertilizations, and if one is browsing (translation playing) stumbling across such can be a fun read. Last time I looked, the foundation and such were delighted when we got accessed for any reason. Any text containing 'keywords' increases our hit count and exposure on the various search engines, and I'm quite sure the foundation wants those as high as possible. A everything but the kitchen sink article like this helps achieve that, as does all the 'Pop culture' stuff I care less than a plugged-penny for personally, save as an editor of this project. That requires a professional hat that looks at such pop factors, search engine factors, etc.

<g>Haven't ever really seen much of a guideline citing Wikiworthy, an iteresting idea of an IdeaL, but not one shared much by Jimbo and the foundation board, nor evident in any of the pop culture articles which are daily created herein; this one just needs a bit of 'managed care' and top-down organization. 'Nuff said.

WP:Notability, though even that is not a hard guideline. Same idea, more entertaining word. In this case we are talking about something so general as to be non-notable, rather than so specific--I am not, for instance, going to create lists Things that can be made wet or People whose first names begin with R, because, well, it would be quite stupid. And while two or three people might enjoy seeing essentially random articles on R-named people, absolutely nothing beneficial would come of the article itself. While this article outlines several hundred "universes" (potentially including say, the Smurfs "universe" or the Friends "universe"), the list doesn't actually say anything or provide any new information at all. "'Nuff said,"--not quite. (And the smarm is unnecessary). Fearwig 14:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to address this Ferwig note found on the talk:If you believe there are more actors in IMDB than fictional universes ever invented, you are sorely, sorely mistaken. I believe we've had discussion on limiting the article to Series sorts of universes... which would be the criteria for inclusion. 'One-of' novel milieus or films sans sequels would be in their own article. Best regards. // FrankB 07:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you limit the article in this way, you are changing the article's subject and thus (if you are going to do it properly) its title. As such, you aren't really keeping it, are you? Fearwig 14:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the limitation agreed upon elsewhere, was that we're only listing complete "Universes" as opposed to local/regional fictional settings. See Index of fictional places. Which narrows the inclusion criteria massively. (and the smarm is fairly integral to frankb. that's like fighting the tide ;) -Quiddity 18:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- "Kill your darlings." That's what they say to writers about self-editing. I respect immensely that work was put into this article, but that does not in itself make it Wikiworthy. Fearwig 21:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How else would we organize pages dealing with specific fictional universes? User:Dimadick

Through the category, which does already exist. Mike Christie 15:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The categories all should have a 'Main' Article giving them scope. This is the one for that useful category. I do tend to think of it as Alternat(iv)e Universes, especially for written and screen fiction, both 'Arts'.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that main article be Fictional universe, not List of fictional universes? Mike Christie 12:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But here's a news flash for those that think this category name is too long. Get used to it. The common category naming scheme from metawiki via the commons uses A LOT OF LONGISH technically specific category names. (e.g. Category:Middle Ages has categories like these shorties:

Comment: Adding nowiki tags below because the code broke up the AfD, and I can't be bothered fixing it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:{{see also|<noinclude>:Category:Maps showing the history of the Early Middle Ages</noinclude>|:Category:Maps showing the history of the High Middle Ages|:Category:Maps showing the history of the Late Middle Ages|:Category:Maps showing the history of the Middle Ages|:Category:Old maps of Europe|:Category:Maps of the history of Europe}} just for starters, and similar names by period, country, region, etc. Most short confusing category names will soon be tagged with {{tl|category redirect}}, and the sisterproject wide categories will be taking over. The good news is many of our basic article categories of a technical nature are a-Okay, but poorly worded ones that are more 'idiomatic' thus translating badly are being kicked out in favor of those that cross into the other language projects. Best regards! // <B>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</B><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font> 07:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 'Keep' - It's good to have them all in one place. Keep the list. PeregrineV 22:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you read the discussion? It's good to have... all works of fiction ever written in one place? Isn't that called the library card catalogue? Fearwig 00:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect the only fictional universes to go in there would be the ones put in by someone who cares enough to do it. And for it to be a fictional universe and not just a fictional setting it would have to have criteria in place. PeregrineV 00:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your first point means that it is in the nature of the list to be incomplete, which is the other big complaint about it. The second point means (I expect) that criteria should be put in place... but even then, the nature (and thus the name) of the article would have to be changed, or else, again, it's an incomplete article. Really it's just a bad idea all around, the perfect example of listcruft. Fearwig 03:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per Mike Christie: Instead of a list, I think the way to do this would be to translate this information: (1) categories and subcategories, plus maybe (2) an article explaining what fictional universes are and linking to the categories and subcategories. (I'm not sure if that counts as a "merge" - if so, then I guess I mean "merge").TheronJ 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More like split, I think. Fearwig 14:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Norris, Tom Nobleman

Creator of a non-notable show, also nominating the production company, which apparently consists of his 10th grade class. No google hits/sources for "Tom Nobleman". Wickethewok 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom -Goldom (t) (Review) 14:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. non-notable and unverifiable. Gw e rnol 14:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both.--Alabamaboy 14:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and gwernol. Kukini 14:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both If you have a sense of humour —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.10.237.136 (talk • contribs) .
Delete per nom. Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, keep by default. Richardcavell 00:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lance_Thomas

Non-notable, per the precedent set by deleting Mouhammad Faye's page today Rambler14 14:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - though I really don't like the WP:POINT nomination. Just being giving a verbal commitment to a D1 school doesn't make you notable. Once he actually does something at Duke, recreate the article then. BigDT 15:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also don't like the reason for the nomination, but high school sports do not qualify athletes for inclusion. Kafziel 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup the article he's being mentioned[26], and is being covered by major sources (NY Times, CBS Sportsline, Sports Illustrated)[27]. Revamp, but a keeper. Yanksox 15:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recreate if he starts for Duke. -- GWO
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep; seems to be getting pretty good coverage in mainstream news outlets. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Normally I would vote to delete as per BigDT and Kafziel, but someone blatantly and admittedly violating WP:POINT sticks in my craw. RGTraynor 19:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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). TigerShark 10:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Brock

non-notable. Where is this station? Why is this person notable? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ditto.--KJPurscell 04:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article does not make a case for notability. --Lockley 07:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T Delete -- I added some info. Google her name to find more. Kalmia 05:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is almost ready to be listed, isn't it? - Liberatore(T) 14:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question I cannot decide how to vote on this one, but would merging her info into WLS-TV be appropriate? GassyGuy 20:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have free-standing articles on other Chicago news figures, like Walter Jacobson. Zagalejo 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-known anchorwoman in a metropolitan area (Chicago) with 9 million+ people (including the suburbs) Zagalejo 00:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg_Paulus

Non-notable, insignificant athlete Rambler14 14:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to WP:BIO, college-level starters in the United States rate articles. Duke basketball is one of the most notable college sports teams in the country, so I'd say he qualifies. Kafziel 15:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a starting player for a Division 1 sport, I think that's notable. Yanksox 15:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Starter for a well-known and accomplished basketball team, notable. Crystallina 15:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as WP:POINT per the nominator's other AFD description. Greg Paulus is a starter for Duke. My blood boils every time Duke wins a game ... but that doesn't change the fact that he's obviously notable. BigDT 15:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A starter for Bunker Hill Community College might be non-notable. A starter for Duke is big-time collegiate sport. I confess to being baffled by the nomination. RGTraynor 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, anyone who watches college basketball will be familiar with this guy. Zagalejo 00:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Greg Paulus is an extremely noteworthy individual, with an incredible future at Duke. I must say I agree entirely with Kafziel and RGTraynor. Shoughto 07:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katabami Ryu Ju-Jitsu

Delete - Does not seem noteable, reads like an advert - Lazydaisy 03:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 14:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reading the text it has to be a copyviolation from somewhere as well, no one typed that out it had to have been copied and pasted. Ben W Bell talk 14:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyvio from various pages of ajjif.org. Kafziel 15:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyviolation. Voice of Treason 19:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Corley

The following has been copied from the talk page:

He's not a public figure, and he told me personally that the article is inaccurate. --Uncle Ed 14:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on the article, and reverted your blanking. Notability is established in this article, and thus it may not be deleted under our speedy deletion criteria. If you wish to nominate the article for deletion since you dispute the assertion of notability, then add the prod tag to the article, or list it on WP:AFD. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 14:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Corley is a member of the Unification Church personally known to me (User:Ed Poor). He disputes the statements made by Ed as "inaccurate" (source: personal conversation, 4/25/2006). He specifically objected to being called a leader and to having the picture of him and Arafat - and how this info spread to the Russian Wikipedia.

I'm not going to go "3RR" on this, but I'm removing the information at his request, one last time. --Uncle Ed 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion

Delete. No source information. Really Spooky 13:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 14:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability appears to be "once met Yasser Arafat". Pass. -- GWO
Delete. '"Jack Corley" + Arafat' gets 21 Ghits (mostly from Wikipedia mirrors) and even '"Jack Corley" + Unification' only gets 82. Can't see how notability is established. Also see Joon Ho Seuk. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Once met Yasser Arafat is not a claim to notability, and since there are not other claims a speedy deletion of this article is, I believe, appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainj (talk • contribs)
Delete, looking through the history of the page... lots of statements (with not much notability)... and no references at all. Biographical articles with no references given AT ALL should be speediable, IMO. - Motor (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced and does not establish notability; so far as I can see his position is broadly comparable to that of a deacon in the Church of England who once attended a garden party at Buckingham Palace, and that would simply not be enough to justify an entry in an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Saffar Harandi

Delete - non-notable. Barely a few google hits-- not related to a doctor. No hits on Pubmed. Nephron 05:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
delete Agree with the above. Nigelthefish 19:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Vanity. Cool3 19:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. -AED 08:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 14:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8th Birmingham Boys' Brigade

The article is not notable and appears to be a vanity article. I'd also propose deleting all the associated images. Alabamaboy 14:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Alabamaboy 14:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any notable content to Boys' Brigade and delete. Kafziel 14:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing of importance to be seen here. Dr Zak 16:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AfD at Brandon High School JROTC - individual units of a greater youth entity like the various scout, guide, cadet or nippers organisations are not likely to be notable, and this is the case here. SM247 23:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Scout Troops, a BB Company has to be very notable to have an article, such as oldest or largest in the country. This is not notable enough. However, why delete images. They might be usefull (not all - some) on Boys' Brigade, where there are no photographs at present, or other BB articles. Leave images, merge part of article including 1 or 2 images to Boys' Brigade, and delete. --Bduke 23:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ok with merging the images into Boys' Brigade. The problem is that none of the images have any source info with them. If the editor who uploaded the images corrects this, then the best of th eimages can be kept.--Alabamaboy 23:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Knowles

Completing a nomination by GillsMan, who is also the original creator of the article. See the rationale in the talk page. See also the first AfD of this article. - Liberatore(T) 15:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has never played a professional match, and is unlikely to do so in the future. Oldelpaso 18:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he's been released, he isn't a pro any more, and was never one really. SLUMGUM yap stalk 21:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Givern 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 00:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Kenneally

Few Google hits, film producer that doesn't seem to be notable in the least. Also nominating associated articles:

Wickethewok 15:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. --ForbiddenWord 15:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Tell him to come back when he's made a something really important, such as a Star Trek fan movie. -- GWO
Speedy Delete CSD A7. Maybe next year. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think he's a speedy candidate unfortunately (award... however obscure). <sarcasm>He should try knocking out a few lame flash animations. That seems to be a cast iron guarantee of getting a Wikipedia article and keeping it.</sarcasm> - Motor (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per all of the above. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Being a producer of six films is not to be sneezed at. -- TruthbringerToronto 04:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Achoo! Wickethewok 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was irrelevant: article correctly speedily deleted by Fang Aili. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua sarran

This page just appears to be a childish insult. Fyver528 15:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as pure vandalism. Mr Stephen 15:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD G3 --blue520 15:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, and also block User:Jsarran whom created the page and insults.--Andeh 15:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Serbanescu

Contested {{prod}}. Article had been blanked when I found it. Seems a story of a young career gone unfortunately wrong, but not material for an encyclopedia. RobertG ♬ talk 15:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic trivia. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely A7 - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (nomination withdrawn). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Massoud Tofangsazan

~~A smalltime Ebay criminal and an internet vigilante who both have their three days of fame. Take it to Wikinews if you must. Dr Zak 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn. Dr Zak 17:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a prime example of an Internet memeand Internet Vigilantism. This is a growing trend, ranging from women catching indecent exposure situations on subways[28], to Scam bait through projects such as P-P-P-Powerbook.

This is a very real phenomenon, with online users baiting and/or conning scamers such as Nigerian scammers.

This example in question attracted over 3 million unique visitors, and made headlines. Of some note, I would say. Sfacets 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article recently merged with Amir Tofangsazan which was already considered for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Tofangsazan, the result was no consensus at 13:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC). There has not been a sufficient period to revist this.GameKeeper 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as AfD on merged article has just closed, per GameKeeper. bikeable (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Normally, only having two delete votes is grounds for relisting, but this article actually qualifies for a speedy delete per WP:CSD A7 (Unremarkable people or groups). Deathphoenix ʕ 14:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The July Pattern

This would have fallen under {{db-repost}}[29], but since the content is different, I am bringing it to AfD. A quick search shows that this group is non-notable and fails WP:BAND. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Entwistle, Rachel Entwistle, Lillian Entwistle

An inconsequential murder that made headlines half a year ago. Not particularly iconic or gruesome or anything; the case is quite forgotten now. Dr Zak 16:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on Rachel and Lilian were nominated for deletion in February. It was argued then that they should be kept because it was a major story. Well, it was a major story then, but now the hubbub has died down. Dr Zak 16:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the exception of the baby article Lillian Entwistle. Definitely notable with huge press coverage (not being in the headlines now doesn't change that). Another alternative would be a single article on the murders and merge/redirect them all into it. - Motor (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'd keep the articles for historical reasons. Just because the murder case hasn't been talked about for awhile, doesn't mean it is forgotten. Neil Entwistle hasn't even had a major trial yet, as far as I know. - Fanficgurl (talk) 2:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per Motor. This case is hardly inconsequential; a family was torn apart and a man is up for trial on charges of murder. Yes, the case isn't making headlines now, but the "hubbub" is likey to begin when his trial begins. — EagleOne\^Talk 18:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one article maybe? ~ trialsanderrors 19:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's still a major story, and these article's still should stay. Notability doesn't disappear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep newsworthiness is not the criteria. These will be "newsy" again during the trial. Just like the long litany of articles about every executed person in the US during the last few years. Their fleeting fame has now gone but there is some value to the proposition that someone is notable if the state cares so little/so much about that person it puts them to death. If the perps stay, I suppose in fairness the victims should as well. Carlossuarez46 00:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree that when trial comes around new facts will emerge and the mystery factor combined with the (transatlantic) family story will make the the story an international curiosity. For that reason it should be kept in as a point of reference Dick G 08:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons above. Certainly more notable than porn ~~props~~ "stars". CalJW 21:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 15:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiloquad

Delete. WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information, and I believe that this could adequately be merged into another Star Trek article, such as, for example Treknobabble. — Mike • 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT (yes, it could be related to quantum computing, but a source would be nice). Without the OR it is a (Star Trek fandom) dicdef. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the worst kind of crufty treknobabble. - Motor (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this term is used frequently throughout the series, unlike some of the other stuff up for deletion today. BigDT 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be used a lot, but I rarely watched the show and I bet I could figure out that a kiloquad = 1000 quads. Not notable enough for its own article. Mention it in an appropriate episode description where it plays a major part (if there is one) if there need be an explanation somewhere. GassyGuy 21:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GassyGuy, or Merge and Redir to Treknobabble. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to treknobabble 132.205.45.148 19:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the term was never defined precisely because Sternbach and Okuda didn't want to be outstripped by real technological advances. Basically fancruft. Thatcher131 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Whether this article is kept, merged, or redirected is a debate that can be done outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cochrane (unit)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and I believe that this could adequately be merged into a separate article, such as, for example, Treknobabble. — Mike • 16:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and redirect to Treknobabble (or Zephram Cochrane if preferred). Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to Zephram Cochrane. Fictional units. yuk. - Motor (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this term is used frequently throughout the series, unlike some of the other stuff up for deletion today. BigDT 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what is this, Trektionary? Redir to Treknobabble per Angus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with similar reasoning to kiloquad deletion. Zephram Cochrane seems like a fine place to mention this if it must be somewhere. GassyGuy 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zephram Cochrane. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to treknobabble or perhaps Star Trek Warp Drive. 132.205.45.148 19:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep it's used commonly on Star Trek as well as in the fan community. Eluchil404 05:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge somewhere I guess. The current warp drive article doesn't have much on this. Thatcher131 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The unit is clearly merged with SI Units in the Star Trek Universe. Its importance is explicit with the idea of warp.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 00:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close parking orbit

Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and I believe that this could adequately be merged into a separate article, such as, for example, Treknobabble. — Mike • 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT as (trekkie) dicdef. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cruft cruft cruft. out out out. per Angus McLellan. - Motor (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable term that could never be more than just a stub. BigDT 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even worth a redir to Treknobabble. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no suggestion for mentioning it anywhere; insignificant to the max. GassyGuy 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the term was even used consistently in that way in Star Trek. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Shhh. There are people whose life would collapse at the thought that Star Trek was not an internally self-consistent alternative reality. By God, they've devalued the perfectly good word Canon just talking about it.-- GWO
  - The Baker Street Irregulars shot that canon a long time ago.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this belongs anywhere (I'm not sure), it's Memory Alpha not Wikipedia. Eluchil404 05:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 00:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotectic therapy

Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and I believe that this could adequately be merged into a separate article, such as, for example, Treknobabble. — Mike • 16:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fictional therapies only mentioned in one episode of a television series. How about aversion therapy for people who create articles like this? Seriously, Memory Alpha was created for cruft like this. - Motor (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as proposal. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with Motor, why are these people not at Memory Alhpa? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GassyGuy 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the episode; suggest to Memory Alpha. (I think the cruftiness above shows bad faith, even though I don't think the article should be here, either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) .
- Sorry about that, it was me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Motor; a stubby, unexpandable, fancrufty dicdef. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really anything worth merging or sending to Memory Alpha, IMHO. Eluchil404 05:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Motor. Thatcher131 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Ruette

Contested prod. He appears to be a minor league hockey player. I'm unfamiliar with the subject, but it's currently unverified. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as hoax and possible WP:VAIN. I am familiar with the subject, and no player by that name (or anything close) has played for any of the teams cited. The article is the only contribution of its creator. Ravenswing 18:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as above. I inadvertently prodded it a 2nd time. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delvok

Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Furthermore, this one-sentence stub article provides no reference whatsoever to where one might locate the character in question within the Trek canon, making a strong case for non-notability. — Mike • 16:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, hopeless cruftstub without even the hope of filling out. - Motor (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously ... the episode is Melora (DS9 episode) if anyone thinks it's worth a redirect. (I don't ... but I just thought I'd throw that out there.) BigDT 21:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more trekcruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom GassyGuy 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge to the episode). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Motor. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Eluchil404 05:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge with The Immunity Syndrome (TOS episode). Deathphoenix ʕ 14:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amoeba (Star Trek)

Delete. Or, alternatively, merge into The Immunity Syndrome (TOS episode). I believe it is not notable enough to deserve its own article (and, also, the aforementioned "indiscriminate collector of information" clause comes into play), and that adequate coverage of the fictional entity can be done within the Wikipedia article on the episode in question. — Mike • 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Molerat 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Immunity Syndrome (TOS episode), and please Delete the redirect once done. - Motor (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to epsiode, copy history to talk page of the episode, and Delete. (This seems allowable under the GFDL.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Motor and Arthur Rubin above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'd rather leae a redirect than delete the page but it's not a big deal. Eluchil404 05:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plexing

Delete. Once again, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. This one sentence of information can adequately be merged into Wikipedia's article on Betazoids. — Mike • 16:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... I'm in favor of Star Trek articles. HOWEVER, at a minimum, more than a passing mention is necessary. Basically, if the word was used exactly once in the entire Star Trek saga and everything we know about it can be said in two sentences, it doesn't warrant an article here. BigDT 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I remember this episode. Please kill this article. It is pure fancruftstub with not the slighest potential. - Motor (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the episode or to Betazoid. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in Betazoid and delete. Eluchil404 05:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BigDT. Thatcher131 21:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiron

Delete. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and this one-sentence article offers no context as to any information on the character or the location of the character within Trek canon. Assumably, his performance is also covered in the Wikipedia article of whichever episode he appeared in. — Mike • 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cruftstub. - Motor (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jeffrey Combs (the actor who played Tiron, according to the article). BigDT 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BigDT. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Motor, redirect seems like overkill. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor characters should be covered in the episodes where they appear. Eluchil404 05:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Oglesby

Delete. WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information, and it does not appear to meet the notability guidelines suggested in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I assume the actor's performances in question are adequately covered in the Wikipedia articles about the episodes he appeared in. — Mike • 16:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should be expanded, But he has appeard as an important charcter in a major TV show. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 16:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Substantial acting history appearing on X Files, Ally McBeal, Dharma & Greg, L.A. Law and many, many more. See imdb profile at [30]. --Durin 16:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment If that's the case, then probably some of that needs to be incorporated in the article to assist the article in passing notability standards, especially by fans of the various shows who would understand the significance of the various parts listed on IMdB. As it stands, at first look the gentleman to me looks like a rather busy extra, but I'm not familiar with every single character listed in that filmography. — Mike • 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but the path here isn't to delete; there's enough meat to go with here to further improve the article and it provides sufficient context to identify who and what this person is. Yes, the article needs more content. No, it should not be deleted because it doesn't have that content yet. Else, we'd be deleting huge numbers of articles. We start articles somewhere. I prefer starting articles with far more content; others choose other paths. --Durin 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if this was a brand-spanking new article, I'd have no problems with giving it time to grow and would agree that an AfD is premature. However, it was created last June. It's had a year to have been expanded by anyone. — Mike • 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe in the power of m:Eventualism. :) --Durin 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Mike. A year is more than enough. It's a cruftstub. Let me know if it becomes anything else before the final day before this AFD closes and I might change my vote. I call this Realeventualism, and it's my Wiki version of Realpolitik. - Motor (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go one step further. If this article is significantly expanded, and I'm not available, and we're about to hit the AfD deadline, I grant authority to the individual doing the expansion to withdraw the AfD on my behalf. — Mike • 01:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded. (Concur with Motor. If it's significantly changed, let me know on my talk page.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People, we have thousands upon thousands of stubs here on Wikipedia. There is no criteria for deletion of stubs if the subject in question is verifiable and notable. Given the IMDB profile for this actor, his status is clearly verifiable. Given the fact that he has appeared in a dizzying array of major network and cable television drama and comdedy series, his notability is not in question either. If this entry should go because it's too short, then you'd better fire up your delete buttons and prepare to use them tens of thousands of times over the next few weeks to make sure you delete every other stub that is short in length and not recently worked on. --Durin 01:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be an assertion of notability in the article. It's not there, yet. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. You just apparently disagree that his role as Degra and having an IMDB profile makes him notable. --Durin 21:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously since he played Degra on Star Trek + long, impressive series of credits per IMDB. --JJay 02:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand Eluchil404 05:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this personal is notable it can be expanded Yuckfoo 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. A note to Frank6783: if there are other articles you feel are also non-notable, you can also start AfDs on them, but read this first. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Fun

Delete as nn-game. Alexa rank for pcpuzzles.com where this game is hosted is >1,000,000. Alexa rank for Amok Entertainment (creator of the game) is >400,000. Google hits for the game tied to Amok Entertainment number 28 [31]. This is just one of millions of flash games out there. Article as it stands makes no claim of any kind to notability and why this game stands out as notable from the millions of other flash games. I previously speedy deleted this article, but the creator re-created it again. Running AfD now as a means to definitely clarify the status. --Durin 16:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kukini 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Frank6783

I think this game deserves to be listed because it has a unique game concept. Take a look at these reviews:

http://www.pcpuzzles.com/bubblefun-highscore

"I've seen this gametype for the first time and I think it's very innovative." Overall Score: 8 The_Hidden on Newgrounds.com

"It's an amazing work of beauty, from the layout, to the actual game... it's one in a million." Overall Score: 10 Poop4brains on Newgrounds.com

Bubble Fun is the Michael Jordan of flash puzzles. Its beyond awesome. Overall Score: 10 Hard-kore on Newgrounds.com

'This game is a great mind-bender. Even beyond game playing it's addicting to watch the permutations of chain reactions as control of the board changes between the players. Avi Muchnick (aka JaxomLOTUS) of Worth1000.com

Also, it's shareware which means the game is available on dozens of websites, not just the PCpuzzles site. Here are some examples:

http://www.addictinggames.com/bubblefun.html http://www.ugotgames.com/bubblefun.php (among the top 5 most popular games) http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=172233 (silver medal award) http://www.gtds.net/Bubble-Fun/ http://www.funflashgames.com/bubblefun.htm http://www.milkandcookies.com/article/2935/

Alexa traffic rank for Newgrounds.com: 596 Alexa traffic rank for Addictinggames.com: 1224 Alexa traffic rank for Milkandcookies.com: 5736

Delete as non-notable. Wait. Does a review by someone called Poop4brains count as notable? No, it does not. Gw e rnol 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn game Stev0 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do not Delete~~ (already voted)Frank6783

Just because someone has a silly username doesn't mean their opinion doesn't count. Try actually playing the game before blindly deleting it. It's a very unique game concept.

"Something totally original and fun." Overall Score: 9 Master1n0 on Newgrounds.com

"That's like nothing I've ever seen before! I'd say it's a lot better than old games. It's really addictive." Overall Score: 9 InvaderHaanzi on Newgrounds.com

This game is absolute genius! Horribly addicting! Overall Score: 10 The_Mad_Prophet on Newgrounds.com

"Very original and well presented." Overall Score: 9 over_clock on Newgrounds.com

"Simply amazing. Thanks for the new fun game." Overall Score: 9 -Krossroads- on Newgrounds.com

"Awesome game, and awesome idea." Overall Score: 10 Pink_Floyd on Newgrounds.com

Best puzzle game ever made! Overall Score: 10 Cheesycake on Newgrounds.com

"I didn't think it could be done but you actually made a non-violent game that's fun!" Overall Score: 10 Xtama on Newgrounds.com

Comment My point was not that the username was silly (though it is) but that user opinions on open forums don't make the case for notability. You need to provide verifiable sources and you need to add them to the article, not here. For example, has the game had been reviewed by one of the leading reputable game magazines? If so, provide a link to the review. As far as I can tell none of the links above is that, so none of them show this game is notable in the Wikipedia sense. Gw e rnol 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a few reviews by random people do not make this flash game notable. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frank6783

But isn't the whole idea behind Wikipedia that the opinions and contributions of unpaid volunteers and regular citizens are of equal, if not greater, value than that of some paid editor? Case in point: how many of you who voted for deletion actually played the game? Shouldn't the opinions of people who did play it hold some value?

And shouldn't the fact that Bubble Fun is available on many popular high-traffic game sites and the fact that so many users gave it rave reviews account for something and lift it above the countless pacman, space invaders, and tetris clones you usually find on game sites?

How about if I add this to the entry:

"Bubble Fun is noteworthy for its unique concept and being the first game to combine the satisfaction of popping virtual bubble wrap with a strategic element."

Speedy Delete per nom as recreated SD'd article; how about if I add that a list of alleged reviews from anonymous reviewers doesn't establish, and has no bearing upon, notability? Nor is notability established by us playing the game, or any other irrelevant factor. Ravenswing 18:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frank6783

Being the first of its kind doesn't make it notable? Wasn't Tetris notable for being the first of its kind?

And I find these comments trying to disqualify the opinions of those people who actually played the game and gave it positive reviews a bit elitist. How are your opinions more valuable than their opinions? Isn't this the type of attitute Wikipedia is faced with so often, when people dismiss Wikipedia as nothing more than a bunch of unqualified volunteers? Isn't that exactly what you're doing when you dismiss the opinions of dozens of Newsgrounds users and webmasters who reviewed the game? If all those Newgrounds users became editors at Wikipedia, would that suddenly make their opinions more valuable?

Take a look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_puzzle_games How do any of these games qualify to be listed in Wikipedia as "noteworthy" but Bubble Fun doesn't? Bubble Fun has a unique game concept. Most of the games on that list do not. They're mostly clones of each other or of older game concepts.

Delete Non-notable game. Sorry, I haven't seen anything in the arguments above to say this one's special, even if "Cheesycake" really, really liked it. Fan1967 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frank6783

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatris Hatris gameplay is similar to Tetris

Hatris is a Tetris clone. How is that "noteworthy"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_%28game%29 The gameplay is a mixture between SameGame and Tetris.

How is Collapse noteworthy?

What makes the games on this list noteworthy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_puzzle_games

They're almost all clones of each other, yet they're listed in Wikipedia. By the same standard Bubble Fun should be listed. In fact it has more merit to be listed than a bunch of Tetris and Bejeweled clones, because it is not a clone but an original. But I guess presenting a logical argument for the inclusion of Bubble Fun is a lost cause, because you guys have made up your mind without ever even looking at the game.

Comment It would really help if you actually looked at Wikipedia's standards before posting the same argument over and over and over again. It would also help if you would actually read what people write before replying. Originality is not a standard for an article to be retained. Notability is. You could have the most original game in the world, played by six people, and it would not qualify for an article. Can you provide evidence on the number of people playing this game that would make it comparable to the other listed games? Fan1967 19:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frank6783 I listed a bunch of high traffic websites with very high Alexa ratings who all feature this game. Those sites get millions of visitors. The site Newgrounds.com is the source of the reviews I quoted, and it's listed as #596 in Alexa. How much higher do you want to set the standard for notability? And do all those other puzzle game clones listed in Wikipedia meet that standard?

Comment but these Alexa rankings provide notability for the sites, not for the game hosted on them. I could upload software to download.com (which is one of the highest traffic websites there is) and 3 people might download it. Does that mean my software is notable? No. Please read Wikipedia's notability guidelines and in particular look at the criteria for including websites. Can you provide sources that show that Bubble Fun meets any of these criteria? Has it for example "... been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." or has it "won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation."? If you can show it meeting one or more of the notability criteria then people will change their opinion. By the way, insulting the very people whose mind you seek to change is a highly ineffective approach to getting what you want... Good luck, Gw e rnol 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frank6783 been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

The game has been published on dozens of popular websites. You say the high Alexa rankings provide notability for those sites, correct? So we established that numerous notable sources have published the game.

I understand your analogy about uploading a file on Download.com, which is not downloaded by anyone, but the many player reviews prove that a lot of people have played the game. And the fact that many different webmasters commented on the game or published the game also shows that this is not just a file downloaded by only 3 people.

Comment I provided you the link to the web notability guidelines and a summary of the specific criterion that you quote. Please read it carefully. Appearing on a website like Newgrounds.com does not count as being "...the subject of a non-trivial published work" (emphasis mine). The criterion "includes newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations". In other words it is referring to reviews of work published in reputable non-web sources. Again, go back to what I said before: if your game had been reviewed in a major print magazine or on TV it would be notable. Simply appearing on a high-traffic website that is an indescriminate collection of web games does not provide notability for the game. Sorry, Gw e rnol 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question to continue the analagy of download.com, that site provides statistics on how many people download a particular piece of software. I get the impression that many of these sites, again like download.com, pretty much include any game that's offered to them, so merely being offered on a site isn't, in itself, an endorsement. Do any of these sites provide statistics on how many people play each game? Fan1967 19:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete, there isn't anything notable (that's the Wikipedia definition of notable) about this game. Blogs/web forum reviews count for nothing. - Motor (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn game, go have fun playing it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable GassyGuy 21:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also AfD Amok Entertainment as a non-notable creator of Flash games. My regards to Frank6783, who has obviously put a lot of effort into trying to keep this article, but the fact remains that the game (and the company which created it) are insufficiently important for WP articles. -- Kicking222 02:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frank6783

Please explain to me how this game is more "notable" than Bubble Fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniax

And please explain to me how this game is more "notable" than Bubble Fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOXit

Then please explain to me how this game is more notable than Bubble Fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrickShooter

We can go through the entire list on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_puzzle_games

Tetris (the game that started the genre) Bejeweled (aka Diamond Mine) Biniax BOXit BrickShooter Bubble Burst by Zango Bubble Fun by Amok Entertainment Chainz Collapse Columns Devet Diamond Crush Dr. Mario Gorby's Pipeline (for MSX and NES) Hatris Magic Jewelry (Columns-clone for NES) Klax Lines (aka ColorLines) Lumines Magical Drop Meteos Money Puzzle Exchanger (aka Money Idol Exchanger) Panel de Pon (aka Tetris Attack and Pokémon Puzzle League) Puzzle Bobble (aka Bust-a-Move) Puyo Puyo (aka Kirby's Avalanche or Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine) SameGame Sega Swirl Snood Squarez Squarez Deluxe Picross Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo Tetris 2 (aka Tetris Flash) Uo Poko Wario's Woods Welltris Wordtris Yoshi Yoshi's Cookie Zoop [edit] Maze/obstacle course navigation Abashera Atomix (for C64, Amiga, PC etc.) Bomberman ChuChu Rocket! Kuru Kuru Kururin Kururin Paradise Marble Drop Marble Madness Mercury Oxyd Pac-Man series (Ms. Pac-Man et al.) Polarium Puzznic Road Blocks Rush Hour SnakeSlider Sokoban Theseus and the Minotaur Kye [edit] Hidden object Black Box (game) Minesweeper MineSweeper3D [edit] Single character control Bombuzal Eggerland series Krusty's Fun House Oddworld series Professor Fizzwizzle Pushover Repton Deadly Rooms of Death [edit] Multiple character control Gobliiins! Lemmings The Lost Vikings Pingus Pitman (aka Power Paws) for the GameBoy [edit] Construction Bridge Builder The Incredible Machine Picross (aka Mario's Picross) Pipe Mania [edit] Multiple puzzle types Are we There Yet? The Fool's Errand WarioWare, Inc. [edit] Collections 1001 Lines Microsoft Entertainment Pack Zillions of Games Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection [edit] Interactive Word Games Word Sandwich [edit] Other Cuyo Mr Driller Seven Seas Shanghai solitaire Snakes

There is absolutely nothing "notable" about any of the games listed there, with the exception of Tetris and Lemmings. Yet, somehow those hurdles, hoops and strict interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines you impose on Bubble Fun don't seem to apply to any of the other Flash puzzle games listed in Wikipedia.

Now, if I were to strictly apply Wikipedia "notability guidelines" to all the games on that list, and deleted 95% of the games on that list, that would be considered vandalism, not proper editing, right? I have to admit, the logic here escapes me. I guess that's why I'm just a "newbie" and you guys are the "experts."

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otis the flow fraser

Non-notable, nonsense, etc. See WP:BIO Adambiswanger1 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--Alabamaboy 17:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete using {{nn-band}}, fails WP:MUSIC & WP:BIO with no claim of notability. -- Scientizzle 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Chaser T 06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autogynephilia

This article is redundant. The article on Transvestetic Fetismism is in fact about the same exact topic and is more reasoned and rational. Hence I propose this page be deleted and pointers to it redirected to Transvestic fetishism Smartgirl62 17:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I already said on the talk page: I don't think this is a very good idea, because it confuses this humbug-diagnosis of autogynephilia with one that is indeed in the DSM. Both are completely different things, one dealing with an (admittely nutcase) theory, which encompasses more than just autogynephila, the other dealing with a current diagnosis; hence there is no redundancy whatsoever. The fact that the BBL theory is not exactly rational hardly is a reason to delete the article about it. -- John Smythe 19:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a notable theory however distasteful people may find it. Would border on censorship to delete Ac@osr 20:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If transvestitic fetishism were indeed the exact same topic, then merge and redirect. But a quick perusal of both articles suggests that they're not, since one's about transvestitism and the other's about transsexuality. Bryan 23:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They look different to me also, especially as regards motivation and self-perception. Shenme 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Look at the talk page. Much good discussion and becomes very obvious not the same thing at all being discussed. Keep! Shenme 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons I stated above. Plus autogynephillia seems to me to be the exact same thing as transvestetic fethisism. The argument that TV.f is different is not really a good one. I present to you the DSM IV's entry on GID.[32]. Very importantly "The paraphiliac focus of Transvestic Fetishism involves cross-dressing. Usually the male with Transvestic Fetishism keeps a collection of female clothes that he intermittently uses to cross-dress. While cross dressed, he usually masturbates, imagining himself to be both the male and the female object of his sexual fantasy. This disorder has been described only in heterosexual males. Transvestic Fetishism is to be diagnosed when cross-dressing occurs exclusively during the course of Gender Identity Disorder.DSM IV Gender Identity Disorder ]" Diagnostic code 302.3 Transvestetic fetisism is listed as a paraphllia related to GID. What you are seeing in the DSM is that the real theory behind autogynephillia is more complex than was is presented in a book intended for a general audience. --Smartgirl62 02:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is useful to explain the differences between psychiatric and sociological definitions of a phenomenon. (That DOES make sense if you read it carefully. I'm not just blowing smoke up your, OK, I'm out of time.) Danny Lilithborne 05:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sociological? The theory of Autogynephillia is psyhcological not sociological. Just as the diagnosis of transvestetic fetisism is. As a matter of fact I can settle this with the following link. The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism (2003), page 169, third paragraph. The people who came up with autogynephillia are psychologist. If a transsexual is diagnosed with transvestetic fetishism then they are being diagnosed with autogynephillia. The link I provieded gives it to you straight from the lions mouth (discalimer: I do not by any means agree with all that is said in that book.)--Smartgirl62 09:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would suggest that "transvestetic fetishism" is less a psychological diagnosis and more a sociological phenomenon, as described in its respective article. It is simply someone who is aroused by wearing clothes of the opposite gender. Autogynephilia would be the diagnosis in this case, and while there's overlap for sure, I'd say the term has a negative connotation, whereas the former is more neutral. Danny Lilithborne 10:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am a principal critic of this diagnosis, but I feel it merits a separate article. Both tranvestic fetishism and "autogynephilia" are attempts to pathologize socially unacceptable behavior. "Autogynephilia" does not necessarily involve clothing, according to those who promulgate the concept. The concept appeals to a few people who previously would have been rejected via medical gatekeepers as pseudotranssexuals or non-transsexuals. They see this term as a step up socially from "just a crossdresser" to "more than a crossdresser." The people promoting the concept are probably going to push very hard to get their ideas codified in the DSM-V. We have articles on phlogiston and hystero-epilepsy, so we should have something on this pseudoscience as well. Jokestress 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Eloquently said. Those are my reasons for keeping the article, too, but you hit it. Danny Lilithborne 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Transvestic Fetishism" deals with a clothing fetish, "autogynephilia" deals with a body fetish. -- Tall Girl 03:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very well. It seems the people have spoken and they want two different articles. (Thanks to whomever cleaned up my comments. I have little VFD experience.) But I will try to convince you all one more time. I have written up what I think the combined Transvestic fetishism/Autogynephillia article should look like. Here Talk:Transvestic fetishism#Transvestic fetishism. I think the article could do without the picture. Either way I really do not like the way the Autogynephillia article now reads. It's like more of an arguement than an encylopdic article. The argument against this theory will have to be done my other clinical psychology PhD's in peer reiewed journals. Not in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartgirl62 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 9 June 2006
- As I already said on the talk pages, bad proposal -- you are effectively deleting 99% of the article, which is not exactly an improvement. Oh, and there is absolutely nothing in WP policy that says hypothesis cannot be be refused on article pages, on the contrary. You might want to check out a few, like aether theory and similar outdated and/or nutcase crap. So you might actually stop your vendetta against this article, because, you know, you don't exactly have much in the way of arguments, and already quite a few people (and the WP policy) who disagree with you. Why don't your spend your time with improving other articles, maybe some you don't feel so strongly about? -- John Smythe 19:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree about the diagnosis, but the subject merits its own article, also, per Tall Girl, a transvestite gets aroused by dressing as the opposite gender, an autogynephile gets aroused by the thought of being the opposite gender. The reason for deletion is faulty. 惑乱分からん 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those who might be slightly confused regarding the differences between autogynephilia and transvestic fetishism, see [33] -- John Smythe 15:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AG and TVF are clearly completely separate topics. Re. to Jokestress comment, I agree that AG, bogus science that it may be, merits its own article - Ali-oops ^✍ 20:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old coach lane

Non-notable Nv8200p talk 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible speedy as an attack. Yanksox 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SM247 23:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. This was a tough one to close, and the decision was hard to make. I read every comment and !vote here in detail and weighed all the arguments. There was much more of a consensus to delete this article than to keep it, and the arguments to delete were more convincing than the ones to keep it. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violent crime and suicide at Ivy League universities

This is, at its heart, an indiscriminate list of information. There are no connections between any of these crimes, no research has been done about crimes specifically on these campuses, and, lacking sources, even making a statement like "crimes periodically occur on Ivy-League campuses" is original research. This is about as useful an article as, say, Pastries sold in Ivy-League dining halls, except that, because it's about crime, it's more sensational, which is why I imagine it's stayed around as long as it has. Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information that aspires to be original reseach. JDoorj a m Talk 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it stands, as original research. However, the topic of "Ivy League suicide" can probably be better substantiated by cited sources, as something that gets a peculiar brand of media attention at least from time to time. An actual article on this topic would, to me, justify retaining the list of crimes, as it would no longer seem like an arbitrary collection of facts. If better substantiation of the topic as encyclopedic is provided, I'd consider the article rescued from AfD-worthiness. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This does not look like original research in the WP:NOR sense--every statement cites an external, verifiable reference to a news story or similar source. If that's "original research" then isn't everything else in Wikipedia too? OTOH, it nothing more than a list of said entries, but lists-of-things pages aren't by their nature prohibited on Wikipedia. The page seems to need some editing to fit the WP list-page standards and/or some text to explain why this material is interesting or documented here or whatever (but it's already tagged as needing work in that direction). The only AfD issue is whether it's just an indiscriminant collection of facts, an issue only recently brought up on its Talk page and via the addition of {{importance}} and {{globalize}} tags. At worst, the proposal to merge into Ivy League should be an alternative to simple Delete. DMacks 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NOR requires more than mere source citations, which this article provides. As I said on the article's Talk page, it appears to be an original (novel, idiosyncratic, unsupported) synthesis of existing facts. My concern is that nothing has been done to establish "violent crime and suicide in the Ivy League" as a topic as non-original research. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crime and suicide are not original topics of research. Nor even crime and suicide at universities. Even so, I don't think there's a need to establish the topic of an article as non-original; just the content itself. I doubt List of fictional characters missing an appendage or List of fictional worms were "non-original" topics when they were created either.-Bindingtheory 19:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DMacks makes a fine case (although I'd likely disagree with him as to whether the topic is sufficiently notable as to merit an article, and, concomitantly, to whether it is, by its nature, an indiscrimate collection of information or otherwise exorbitantly crufty), but it should be said that WP:LIST, even as it commands the support of most editors, is a guideline and not policy, such that there are some (amongst which number I generally count myself) who comport their editing with the guideline but feel free, at AfD and the like, to support the deletion of lists that conform to WP:LIST (for various reasons, typically that lists aren't the best way to disseminate information encyclopedically). Joe 18:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Besides, my alma mater, MIT, has lots of suicides! And much better suicides than Harvard has! Why shouldn't it be included? If the truth were known, MIT is just as good if not better than the Ivy League schools. Well, I mean just as bad if not worse then them. Well, not that violent crime and suicide are necessarily bad, they're just neutral facts, right? Oh, dear me, this is so confusing... (Do I need an image:ironyalert.gif here?) Dpbsmith (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page is no different than a list of famous alumni of a given university or members of an organization (except that every fact on the crime/suicide page actually has a cited source, whereas the alumni pages generally give no sources whatsoever, and would therefore be justifiably deleted). (see List of University of Pennsylvania people of List_of_Cornell_University_people for examples.)

I can't find anything on this page that constitutes original research. There is no synthesis of new information here. No conclusions are being drawn. It simply chronicles crimes and suicides of the Ivy League, all of which have been previously published in reputable sources. You need to be more specific about this page containing original research if you really think it's happening.

The article is also not a list of indiscriminate information. It is a list of violent crimes and suicides of the Ivy League schools. It is no more indiscriminate than a List of unrelated songs with identical titles or a List of people who became famous through being terminally ill or a list of Nobel Prize laureates by university affiliation.

The reason this article has been nominated for deletion is that people don't like having facts perceived as negative published about their schools. If this were an article called "Lottery winners from Ivy League universities," or "U.S. Mayors who are graduates of Ivy League schools," this page never would have been commented on, let alone been nominated for deletion. -Bindingtheory 18:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't agree. I mean, I agree with you that academic boosterism is a perennial problem. (I have attempted occasionally to mention in the MIT article that MIT's library is quite notably poor in relation to MIT's reputation, and it has never lasted for more than a day). But the problem is that this article groups things that are utterly unrelated. To rephrase seriously what I stated above as a joke, what, exactly, do suicides at Harvard have to do with suicides at Columbia, and why don't suicides at MIT belong in the same article (MIT and Harvard sharing a locale, a high-pressure milieu, and a sanguinary school color?) What's the point of this article? Either it is implying that there's something about the Ivy League that encourages violent crime and suicide... in which case it is both original research and an attack... or it is a miscellaneous collection of unrelated information. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Really? The Ivies have a shared reputation, and the schools are often thought of collectively rather than individially. People often say, for example, "he has an Ivy League education" rather than "He graduated from Columbia". There's nothing unusual about considering them or people affiliated with them as a group. We in fact have an entire article about the Ivy League, where we list Harvard with Columbia, but don't mention MIT even once.

Suicides and murders (see List of suicides, which has been on WP for 4 years, and List of murdered people, which has been around for 3 years) are encyclopedic. The Ivy League is encyclopedic. And lists are encyclopedic. Combining those topics does not make them any less so.

P.S. I certainly have no arguments against an article that lists suicides of schools with a shade of red as their school color, given some of the other strange lists that exist on the Wikipedia. :) -Bindingtheory 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those reasons also support having Date rape in the Pac 10, and similar articles. Will you be working on those next, or should we start a WikiProject? --C S (Talk) 02:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to disagree there. I'd also object to "Lottery winners from Ivy League universities" or "U.S. Mayors who are graduates of Ivy League schools" and say they make much more sense if they include all universities. Hence, {{globalize}} -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A random collection of news clippings is not remotely encyclopedic. Fan1967 18:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ ~~Keep,~~ Comment. The existence of this article seems to suggest that the Ivy League has some sort of crime-fighting competition. I suggested the merge into Ivy League, because I don't think this material is necessarily unencyclopedic, although definitely hinging on 'no original research.' Better than a merge would be a move/expansion to List of violent crimes and suicides at colleges and universities in the United States or similar, which doesn't inherently make original research suggestions of a correlation between these schools and crime. See Dpbsmith's MIT comment above. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of people/events that share the commonality of an affiliation with an Ivy League university. No rational person reading this article is going to think that there is any inherent connection between the Ivies and crime, any more than someone reading List of people who died in the bathroom will think that there is an inherent connection between bathrooms and death. -Bindingtheory 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example. There is an inherent connection between bathrooms and death. Statistics have repeatedly shown it's the most dangerous room in the house. And I think any rational person reading this article would at least get the impression that the author is trying to show a connection between the Ivies and crime/suicide. Fan1967 19:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. -Bindingtheory 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ivy commonality is trivial in this case. Expanding to include all universities fixes the problem, presents a more global view, and makes more sense from an informational standpoint. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 19:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I honestly believe that the majority of the people who oppose this article are doing so purely because of their own emotional investment in the articles about their favorite school(s), that the person who nominated this for deletion (and I don't even know who that was) wouldn't have said a thing if this had been an article called "Crime and Suicide at Jesuit Colleges." That being said, I also admit I am emotionally invested in this article because i've spent so much freaking time researching it, so I very well may not be seeing things as clearly as I should (especially given my lack of coffee this afternoon). I stand by the statements that this article is encyclopedic, that it is not original research, and that it is not "a random collection of news clippings" or "an indiscriminate collection of information". But I am willing to compromise, per mercuryboard's (and someone else's?) suggestion that it be expanded to include all U.S. colleges and universities if that's amenable to everyone else, too. -Bindingtheory 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You may honestly believe that, but by doing so, you are not assuming good faith. Plenty of reasons have been given here, and I think you ought to realize they are the typical reasons that are given for deleting this kind of list. Please do not persist in ascribing ulterior motives to people. --C S (Talk) 00:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose it because it mentions my university, I just know about it because it mentions my university. I think it's important information, if it's accurate and complete. The way to make it complete is remove the restriction to Ivies. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 20:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why haven't you researched crime and suicide at Jesuit schools? Why not research crime and sucide at state schools? How about teachers colleges? Seminaries? Engineering schools? Why put so much freaking time into this one? Fan1967 22:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of a weird question. Why does anyone edit anything? Because I find it interesting. I'm also more familiar with the Ivies than with other schools. -Bindingtheory 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's a very relavent question, per wiki-guildlines [34], notably the passage marked "The right way for things..." etc. No one has a problem with you researching a variety of crimes related to the Ivies, they have a problem with you deciding to publish your list on wikipedia. Markeer 23:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscrimate collection. What about Violent crime and suicide at shopping malls, Violent crime and suicide in back alleys, Violent crime and suicide in Podunk, AL? No no, a random collection of violence and death in Ivy league schools, or grouped by any location type, is merely crime voyeurism. Remove this essay before it tarnishes Wikipedia's reputation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the individual school entries to their specific school article (e.g. events from Columbia University sent to Columbia University). I have no problem with data that violence happened at a school I am looking up in the encyclopedia -- it's important reference information -- but a generalized list of crimes grouped together by a naming convention? "Violence at Big Ten Schools" would be a rediculous topic since those schools have nothing in common besides the football division they are in, so there's no objective linkage regarding criminal activity. Same goes for here, although I grant the items themselves may have historical or informational value Markeer 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see with this is that a few isolated incidents aren't significant enough to warrant sections or mention in the main articles of these schools. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 21:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And as the lists become longer and more complete, they'll overwhelm the main content of the article. -Bindingtheory 22:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that will depend on the editors of those school articles, as they decide what's relevent and important information. If a well documented group of recent crimes at, say, Yale starts to grow lengthy, it could be split off from the Yale University article as a sub-article...if that is, the editors of that page believe that information has encyclopedic value. The problem with the list as it exists, is that there's no meaning or purpose to it beyond making a list of crimes that are not particularly noteworthy except to the families of those involved (I don't mean that to sound cold or heartless)...but given an air of prestige because those crimes happened at the 'top schools'. As people have said, a similar list of 40 crimes from the last 3 decades at shopping malls would hardly excite this level of debate. It would just be deleted as listcruft. Comment All of that in mind, I *do* feel there is some encyclopedic value in knowing crime/suicide information about a school, as that is a determining factor in attendence for a student, hence the suggestion of merging to those school articles. Without the context of information about a school, this is a list of random events and should be deleted. Markeer 22:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for three reasons:
- Firstly, smells like listcruft;
- Secondly, smells like OR;
- Thirdly, many of the events detailed are not events which occurred at the supposedly connected institution, but merely involved alumni or current staff and students at other locations unrelated to their capacity as members of the institution. Do we have such a page for every group of universities which has produced people who went and offed themseles or their families and friends in incidents unrelated to their alma mater? No, and nor should we. SM247 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a list, not an article. The intro says only what the conditions are to list something here. They are basically meaningless conditions, as employees killed at their off campus homes qualify. If we said to merge by school, the school editors would rightly say that everything has to go. The typical Ivy League school has a few thousand students, a few thousand staff and faculty. Among that many randomly chosen Americans over as many , statistics would say that there ought to be more murders and suicides than are recorded. This data could be a basis for OR saying that really, no, there isn't a problem, but until someone does that research and gets it published elsewhere, we can't use it. GRBerry 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the Ivy League universities promote themselves as places of learning rather than places where violent crime and suicide intrude. It is the unexpected or contrary to the promotion that makes them notable. Like airplane crashes are noteworthy, planes that take off and land safely, or merely cause loss of luggage aren't for the same reason. Carlossuarez46 00:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't all universities promote themselves as places of learning? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read the article again. A large number of these events didn't even happen at the universities. Dartmouth professors get murdered by a couple teenage thugs at their home. A Harvard dean's secretary gets robbed and killed at her apartment. A Harvard student gets robbed and stabbed in the Combat Zone. A Penn student is involved in a murder in Delaware. Maybe the article should be titled Violent crime and suicide involving people in some way connected with Ivy League universities. Fan1967 02:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As pointed out by Dpsmith and SM247, this is a collection of very loosely related events. The mere existence of this article is suggestive of some relationship, where there is none. --C S (Talk) 00:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the major criticism is that the material is loosely-related primarily because it includes not just at the colleges themselves but also "anyone connected with the campus", then would removing those that are not on campus (for some definition of "campus") make the article more coherent (good for the article and readers) and resolve this AfD? DMacks 02:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're still left with a police blotter of unrelated events, decades apart. Putting them together in an article implies a connection. Fan1967 02:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (for DMacks) not really. I wouldn't even support having a list of crimes occurring at any one institution, let alone a collocation of universities, because the incidents are not systemic or related to the institution. The only (rather tenuous) common nexus is caused by the fact that the victims or perpetrators are all connected to a university. Using the same principle, there could also be one list of murders or suicides on metros in different French cities, from skyscrapers in cities on the US Eastern Seaboard, a list of people been thrown from the 18th floor of any building in Denmark etc. There really isn't much logical difference as there is no causal nexus between a) any of the incidents at a particular place, and thus neither is there one b) between a particular institution and deaths cited as being related thereto and thus c) nothing connecting a death only tenously connected to one uni to another uni by virtue of the association of the unis. Jammo (SM247) 04:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split or move? The article already is tagged to globalize and set in context, so maybe expand and refocus to Crime on college campuses is the way to go? There's often a false sense of security, a feeling of being in an idyllic bubble on campus, where local communities don't intrude ("ivory tower"). Hrm, not sure a comprehensive list is useful there. Okay, how about expand and refocus to College suicide? Is there enough material about suicide among students, its effects on the fairly tight-knit communities that are found on campus, etc. to make an article (Epidemiology and methodology of Suicide is already fairly long and not focused on effects)? There might be few enough cases that a list of them would be appropriate as part of that article. DMacks 02:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think there's a potential for a real article on College suicide, not based on anecdotes like this, but with real statistics. I know there is published research on the subject, and high-pressure schools (not just Ivy, but every top-grade school) have higher rates. As for crime, most of it (not all, but most) has little to do with the school and a lot to do with the neighborhood it's in. Fan1967 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete $SOCIAL_PROBLEM at $EXPENSIVE_EDUCATIONAL_ESTABLISHMENT is not a suitable encyclopedia article. What's next Meth abuse at Oxbridge? -- GWO
Delete per nom. (Though for a moment thought GWO wanted an article on Math abuse at Oxbridge - much more controversial...) Inner Earth 09:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even as the article makes the school from which I dropped out look quite safe--at least relative to the rest of the Ivies--is is wholly unencyclopedic, as well explained, inter al., by Jdoor, SM247, Dpsmith, Mercury, Fan, and KillerC (rarely does one find an AfD at which five cogent, succinct, and internally conistent arguments are advanced, and I think this discussion to be propitious, inasmuch as it well elucidates why lists of this sort ought to be looked upon with disfavor). I'd caution, though, that we ought to be cognizant of WP:BEANS, lest we should soon end up with Meth abuse at Oxbridge, Pastries sold in Ivy League dining halls, and Violent crime and suicide at Podunk, AL. FWIW, Rbellin is, IMHO, right to say that an article apropos of general trends w/r/to college suicides, especially at highly competitive universities (where suicides, if not violent crimes, occur with a greater frequency, statistics bare out, than they do at other schools), would likely be alright, but surely there is nothing in this list that we could properly merge into a broader article. Joe 18:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's think positive. I propose Deeds of random kindness and senseless acts of beauty at NESCAC colleges, Species of wall-climbing flora found on Ivy League buildings, and Fitness activities in colleges located in towns named Cambridge. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Last year and adjunct professor here (West Coast public university, no Ivy) was killed along with his wife by the deranged brother of the wife. Relation to campus life = zero, but it's deemed notable according to the given rules. Utter nonsense. trialsanderrors 23:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; reads like a bad tabloid television script. 100% original research. Ral315 (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the kind of list that will always reek of POV, as whatever is most readily available will be plopped onto the list without concern for accuracy or completeness. Someone obviously went to great lengths to research every sordid event in Harvard's recent history, but it seems unlikely that Yale has never had a suicide, and that Princeton has only experienced two violent crimes in its entire history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.198.239.111 (talk • contribs)
Keep, Every statement is verifiable, a notable topic that details events. Englishrose 13:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. "This page documents Violent Crimes at Ivy League Universities, ... . This is primarily a list; ..." Read as "This entry apsires to be a data dump", well, Wikipedia isn't a data dump. Dr Zak 18:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaldan

Non-notable species. In the entire series, we meet one member of this species, only one time, in a 2-minute segment of one episode. There is no potential for expansion. Basically, the Zaldan bumps into Wesley, gets upset, and interprets Wesley's apology as an insult. Wesley raises his voice. The Zaldan walks off. Wesley explains that Zaldans have webbed fingers and don't like courtesy. End of story. No non-stub article could ever come from this topic. This is already fully covered in the episode article, Coming of Age (TNG episode), so there is nothing to merge. BigDT 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trekccruft. Artw 18:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, eat flaming death cruftstub. - Motor (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ... umm ... there's no reason to be rude about it. To some of us, this is interesting stuff - it just is non-notable and has no place on Wikipedia. BigDT 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, when you've read/examined a dozen of these things and look at how many there still are hanging around, you need rely on a bit of sarcasm to get through it. - Motor (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn GassyGuy 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fictional species. (I thought we saw them again on Picard's time trip into his Academy days. Oh, well.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not just move it to the List of Star Trek races page? Cyberia23 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even if the article does get deleted, I don't imagine anyone would be prevented from putting the information on that page. It's a decent suggestion. GassyGuy 23:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I copied info over to List of Star Trek Races. Please, Delete now. Eluchil404 05:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falka

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, delete or redirect to male prostitute, Andeh 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposal. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 18:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Don't redirect, since this is the english wikipedia.--Esprit15d 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef slang term from another language. Ziggurat 22:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef, non-English, no sources, etc. Eluchil404 05:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deme (software)

There is no evidence of meeting any of the proposed criteria from WP:SOFTWARE. Though the word "deme" has a gracious plenty google hits, they are mostly unrelated. Googling for "Deme" with "online deliberation" [35] finds mostly self-gen hits and hits related to the conference mentioned in the article. There has been no news on the official website [36] since February they are currently on version 0.5, which implies that they are still in the beta stage and are not yet up to a ready for prime time release. WP is not a crystal ball. BigDT 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to better generate consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No claims of notability, none found. Wickethewok 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; SmartGuy 15:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shifters

Absence of sources prevent this from ever being more than a dictionary definition. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable, and not notable in any case. ... discospinster _talk 18:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as something made up in school one day and redirect to that webcomic that the article metions. BigDT 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Darn; I should have just redirected. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's probably not a bad idea to have the AFD ... just in case someone is able to produce evidence of notability. Occasionally, someone will find something that has been missed. BigDT 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently unverifiable stub. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some reliable sources are provided. Ziggurat 22:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN; only nine mentions between 1935 and 2005 in the Torch and Wittenberg Magazine (search here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 discussion to WP:TFD. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Denmark u21 squad

The UEFA U-21 Championship 2006 is finish ka la ha 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The competition is finished. Three days ago. I would normally advise to keep it longer, but since it's an U21 comp, and few people care about that sort of thing. It won't be missed much. Maybe the players whose page it appears on could be added to the Denmark version of Category:England under-21 international footballers. SLUMGUM yap stalk 21:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
move discussion to TFD - this doesnt belong at AFD. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 08:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 REDIRECT. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The science of selling yourself short

This article is a stub with absolutly no references about a song of a band Google doesn't seem to know. Hohenberg 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

correction: The band seems to be somewhat relevant. However, There is no need to have an article stub for every single song ever created.

I'm being WP:BOLD redirecting it to the article on the band as that is what was done with the other articles about their songs.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, nom withdrawn. Punkmorten 09:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Evans

Although I have no problems with articles on Medal of Honor recipients, this is not an article, but source text of his medal citation. As such, it should be moved to Wikisource. I have deleted this once. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've rewritten it as a stub. Ziggurat 23:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw the nomination. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, default to keep. Can be merged and and left as redirect. Petros471 12:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time tripper

appears to be nn despite the claims; no references and can't immediately find any either. deprodded with the statement that google does turn up some references; all the ones I can find only mention Time Tripper as a sequence in a larger work. Hirudo 19:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but BJAODN it first. I love the fact that this short film's one and only claim to fame is that Regis Philbin once watched it. Fan1967 20:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Time Tripper was first released as an independent short film. See Jittlov's entry in Who's Who in Show Business, 1989-1990 or the Jittlov interview in Fantastic Films Collectors Edition #11. Apparently, the short was used as part of the feature-length version of The Wizard of Speed and Time. 132.239.90.194 20:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see now that in the "Wizard" article there's a red link to this film (because of a capitalization issue) and also a link to Animato (which has a clearer explanation of the Regis connection), another short film that was also folded into "A Wizard". Both the linked articles on the shorts are basically one-line stubs. Would it make more sense to merge those two into The Wizard of Speed and Time? Fan1967 20:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We have articles on a number of early Jittlov shorts, including Animato (aka Fashionation), Time Tripper, and Swing Shift. Allegedly, these (and others) were all shown as a compilation, also called Animato. To avoid cluttering the article on The Wizard of Speed and Time, I think it would be best to merge and redirect all these shorts into the Animato article. 132.239.90.194 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (both) per Fan1967. (Unless, of course, there's another film with the same name.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Animato now (at least) is the proper merge target, rather than The Wizard of Speed and Time. (I'm sorry I missed that before. Thanks, 132.239.90.194. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, this was prodded, so two deletes are sufficient in my opinion. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Vintage Building Materials & Antiques

Prod notice removed: This company is not notable. It doesn't meet the criteria of the WP:CORP guideline. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT the yellow pages. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ1

it's just another digital camera, nothing notable about it. deprodded with we have articles on other Lumix cameras. I do not think we need an article about every single brand and type of camera Hirudo 19:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our digital cameras category contains 117 digital camera articles, and there's an SLR camera category with 93. I feel that as major consumer products from a major company, cameras are notable more often than not. In any case, picking this one out of the blue is pointless. I get 623,000 Google hits for "DMC-LZ1" in quotes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What's so special about digital cameras? Why not have a category for toasters, coffee machines and dryers as well then? I can see maybe having an article for the first digital camera, or even the first to cross the X megapixel barrier or similar, but I don't see anything that makes this one stand out.
- As for the "out of the blue" part, I just stumbled on the page through the "random article" link. -- Hirudo 19:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that article subjects have to be "special", first, best, biggest, or most amazing. WP isn't the Guiness Book or Ripley's Believe it or Not. Rutherford B. Hayes isn't very special either, but his article isn't going anywhere. Digital cameras are certainly notable to the hundreds of millions of people around the world who own and use them, and the very high Google rank shows that this is far from an obscure model. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Information on digital cameras can be very useful when doing research, e.g. making a buying decision. As to "what's so special...", what's so special about amusement parks, or TV shows, or any of the other zillions of things indexed here? --Rehcsif 20:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find it hard to see how the article can be expanded any more than it is at the moment, and the current information is quite indiscriminate as per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not the place to store information for researching buying decisions, and while wikipedia is not paper, having an article per camera model is well over the top. An article per camera line, maybe, with notes on notable ones within the range, but adding detail right down to size of the LCD display? WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Regards, MartinRe 00:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an awful lot of cameras in Category:Cameras and its subcategopries -- I doubt they're all more notable than this one... --Rehcsif 01:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt so too, but the existance of less notable articles doesn't necessarily imply that this one should be kept, it could equally mean that no one has got around to afd'ing those yet. Regards, MartinRe 01:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A single page covering all Lumix models. Similar for other brands. We don't need too much detail, a list of features will suffice. Wikipedia is not your operating manual. -- GWO

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 WP:CSD G7 - Liberatore(T) 20:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"El Ferrol" in "The Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1910–1911)"

There is no need to have copy and pasted article of the EB, if there is already a well-established and progressive original article. If someone wants the EB article, the 11th edition is widely available. I redirected the article to Ferrol, A Coruña, but the editor reverted it. -- Esprit15d 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author just blanked the page.--Esprit15d 19:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Rivers Pitt

AfD template unfinished by 198.133.105.244 RWR8189 19:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is nothing more than a blogger and his books are published through 'vanity press' sources. If Wikipedia includes every self financed author or blogger, it will be utter chaos. This is nothing more than a vanity posting by Pitt. Also Contains False Information In this site it claims Pitt was Dennis Kucinich's Press Secretary, but on Kucinich's site, it lists otherwise. (http://kucinich.house.gov) No verification can be found Pitt was Kucinich's official Press Secretary- maybe in his own mind or a title he made up because he had a blog about Kucinich http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich . Book Not Listed. The book this author claims to have written (Our Flag Too) is not listed on Amazon and the ISBN listed is not in the ISBN database. http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&y=0&isbn=1893956490&x=0—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.133.105.244 (talk • contribs) .

Delete per nom--Esprit15d 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep To rebut the points made above, he was Kucinich's Press Secretary, as you can clearly see from the following links: [37], [38]. As the article makes clear, that was only for the 2004 election,so of course he's not listed on the current website. Also, he did write those books and they were published by an independent publisher, Context Books, which has subsequently gone out of business[39], which is why you couldn't find the books on sale with your search. That doesn't change the fact that he wrote them and they received major independent reviews of them like the following: [40]. He also wrote another book with a separate independent publisher (not vanity press). He's also had articles written about him in major newspapers like the following:[41] Add all that to that his online blogging presence, including his involvement with the Jason Leopold incident, and he's pretty notable. Maximusveritas 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn blogger/civil servant. -- GWO
Keep per this AfD was by a confused anon editor trying to vote on the closed AfD. Not to mention, highly notable: he was the Press Sec, as Max shows adequately, as well as being a head writer for a prominant blog (notable enough to have its own article), and being on all number of interviews on various news channels. Also, I see no evidence that this is a "vanity posting by Pitt" - none of these edits sound as if they were written 1st person. -Goldom (t) (Review) 07:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete not convinced he's notable enough for inclusion GassyGuy 09:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again. The AfD notice on the article violates the deletion policy by failing to disclose that deletion was considered earlier this year and rejected. Furthermore, deletion was rejected by a two-to-one margin with more than 20 Wikipedians commenting, and no new arguments are presented; the only real change since the first AfD is that Pitt has become more notable because of his involvement in the truthout.org controversy, a paragraph about which has been added to the article. Therefore, a speedy Keep might well be appropriate. JamesMLane t c 09:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Pitt is a arogant punk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.223.173.78 (talk • contribs) .
- Personally disliking the subject is your basis for your vote? Where's the integrity in a vote like that? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 07:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If each Pokemon card merits an entry... Austinmayor
Delete less notable than Pokemon. Even less credibile after blogging his confidence in Jason Leopold.--Tbeatty 04:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Leopold episode may have made him less credible in your eyes, but the attention it received made him more notable than he was at the time of the previous decision to keep the article. It's unfortunate that proposed deletions so often turn into referenda on the popularity of an article subject. The real issue is notability. Are you contending that the reporting of the Leopold incident and of Pitt's role in it somehow lessened Pitt's notability? JamesMLane t c 04:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 90% of article topics are probably less well-known than Pokemon, that test really doesn't mean much, either way you use it. -Goldom (t) (Review) 04:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- George W. Bush has no credibility, but he has an article. Lost on your point. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 07:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough for inclusion. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 07:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three books in print is easily more than 5000 copies sold. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Books in print. Television appearances. Radio interviews. Obviously notable. And also obvious is that this is a bad-faith nom. BenBurch 00:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge with Raj Comics. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jadugar Shakoora

Delete this article as this does not meet WP:FICT Pixen 05:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Raj Comics--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 19:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Raj Comics without prejudice to re-creation. --Gurubrahma 05:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Wikibooks. I'm applying my admin's discretion to this, moving to Wikibooks is equivalent to "Delete", but at least the content is preserved. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Management Techniques in C++

Page consists entirely of original research and therefore violates WP:NOR Yamla 20:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... please note that it's a brand new user who submitted it. It would probably be a better idea to help the user find sources for the content than to just wipe the article. This isn't anything controversial - it's just text that needs to be wikified. With respect to WP:NOR, please see the "Expert editors" portion of the policy - as long as everything is verifiable, drawing on your own knowledge is ok. In other words, we can just work to help provide citations and references for the article - we don't need to delete it. BigDT 20:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it isn't particularly controversial, except for the bit on auto pointers (C++ programmers would almost always prefer TR1's smart pointers). I'm just not sure it is appropriate content for Wikipedia. It looks to be at least debateable but I still think it falls prey to WP:NOR and perhaps WP:NOT as well. Definitely not a clear-cut case, mind you. --Yamla 20:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although this page is not for discussing C++ but Auto pointers are a part of the ISO C++ standard published in 98. Smart pointers are not a port of the C++ standard. Pankajwillis 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep If you are well-familiar with programming, this is all common knowledge. This is certainly not original research (I wish it was). All these things are mentioned in authoritative sources on C++ - many of which are mentioned in the main topic's (C++) page. Do you want me to copy all the external links from C++ to this page? Deleting some thing is much easier than creating it. Pankajwillis 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - basically yes. Please see Help:Footnotes for help with citing references. Basically, if I want to provide a reference for this statement, after it, I put <ref>Text for the references section</ref>. Then, at the end in a references section , you put <references/>. Inside the ref tags, you can put just a straight URL or you can use one of the citation templates like Template:Cite web or Template:Cite. Please see Virginia Tech campus for an example (albeit not a spectacular one) of using the new system of adding references.
Comment - would the nominator be willing to consent to a speedy keep with a promise that it's going to be cleaned up and cited and an assurance from another programmer (me) that Pankajwillis is correct when he says that everything is common knowledge? BigDT 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would absolutely agree to this if both you and the original author believe this is appropriate under WP:NOT. I am not trying to imply that it fails WP:NOT, just that I want both of you to consider those criteria. The nomination for AfD was made in good faith but it seems to me there is a good chance this article can be improved to become an excellent Wikipedia page. I would certainly be willing to help out with that as well. --Yamla 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it would be a good idea (once the AFD is over) to take the word "Techniques" out of the title ... because yes, WP is not a how-to manual ... but memory management in C++ is certainly a very notable and important topic ... BigDT 20:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, how do I go about removing this article from AfD? You'd think I'd know how to do that by now. :) --Yamla 22:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the nominator withdraws the nomination, an admin can close it as a speedy keep. However, now that there has been another vote for deletion, a speedy keep is not permissible. It's no biggie. BigDT 22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while potentially not WP:OR, despite the missing sources, I believe it fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information as being too much like an instruction manual. Encylopediac info on notable memory management techniques specific to C++ couldl be added to Memory management. Regards, MartinRe 22:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not an encyclopedia article or topic. We don't need "Memory management in Perl" "Memory management in COBOL" "Memory management in FORTH" "Memory management in brainfuck". Kotepho 00:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a C/C++ Wikibook? -- GWO
Move to Wikibooks. It's useful, but it doesn't belong to the article namespace. --Zoz (t) 15:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikify, merge with Manual memory management (more specific than memory management)--EngineerScotty 18:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Jenga

Made-up game played by "upper sixth Parmitarians", which I think is a reference to a UK school year. Prod removed, and recent addition It was created over a few days in school, and is still played regularly appears to be a response to WP:NFT. Delete. bikeable (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, something made up in school one day. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This is an obvious hoax. Indrian 18:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the author I would like to inform Indrian that this is not a hoax and was actually played in our common room a few times until the head of our sixth form told us not to stack chairs, probably for health and safety reasons. The addition of It was created over a few days in school is indeed a light hearted response to WP:NFT. David Newman, Parmiter's class of '99

Delete. This hoax really sucks poop! -- | Page | contact 04:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Cool3 19:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete something made up in school one day. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not notable. Ace of Sevens 21:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'It was created over a few days in school, and is still played regularly' - there is even a directly relevant consensus about this, thank Grod. SM247 23:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Keep Long overwrought explanation why this article should not be kept. Danny Lilithborne 05:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Parmitarian is an pupil of Parmiters School, Bethnal Green, fact fans. -- GWO
Delete. Clarenceville High School never had any game like this. -- page | contact 00:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. I looked at all the comments, and the arguments to delete this article definitely outweigh the arguments to keep (or rename) it. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I wanted to point out that there is nothing useful here that isn't already in Prayer Book Rebellion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish Holocaust

This article is completely uncited expect for a page which itself states that it "...sets out the hypothesis that the Cornish people are being subjected to policies of genocide". There's no indication that the concept of a "Cornish Holocaust" exists in general reliably-published historical work; reiterating an original-research source still falls under No original research. It's massively non-neutral, and I honestly doubt it could ever be anything but with a title like that; an article on the "Anglo-Cornish war of 1549" (which seems to be a part of the Prayer Book Rebellion titled as a war, and is itself probably an OR-ish term) might be useful, but this article shows no sign it could ever be it. I honestly don't think Wikipedia would be improved by keeping it. Shimgray | talk | 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article completely violates WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. It's not worthy of inclusion in any encyclopaedia. --Rory096 20:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term turns up no results in Google Books or Scholar, but it's all over UK sites on Google. I think it's a legitimate term; whether or not this article accurately describes it, I don't know. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-07 20:37
Delete per nom. --Lancsalot 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep If this article can get better sourcing than one partisan website, and can be rewritten to remove POV, it might be savable. Hard slog though. More likely the few bits that are useful should be merged with Prayer Book Rebellion and a redirect left ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and because it is inherently POV. There are no reliable sources indicating that genocide of Cornish people is taking place. Capitalistroadster 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A Google search only turned up about a dozen uses of "Cornish Holocaust," so the term isn't widely used at any rate. Ace of Sevens 21:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lar's suggestion of merging with Prayer Book Rebellion, which itself struck me as rather ambitious in its claims given the total absence of sources, seems unwise. The first thing Google found me started thus: "Despite the best efforts of the County historians to deny the Cornish Holocaust ...". So that's the WP:V issue settled then. Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Ace of Sevens. The article is desperately POV, poorly written, and sad, but very earnest. Merging with Prayer Book Rebellion is pointless, because, as one can see if one reads both articles carefully, this Holocaust article was largely lifted from the older article (which is no great shakes, either, as others have pointed out here). It would be nice if there could be one decent article on the topic, but I do not believe either of these offers a very good start. ---Charles 04:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anglo-Cornish war of 1549? can anyone provide a cite for this event. I've cornish ancestry, and I've never heard of it refered like that, let alone this abuse of the word Holocaust. Does he mean the Prayer Book Rebellion? Putting down a local insurrection is not ethnic cleansing. Maybe we need an article on the Lincolnshire Genocide too. -- GWO
Delete looks like original research. Kurando | ^_^ 08:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something less POV. I did a quick google for 1549 Bodmin and from Bodmin Town council found The three main Cornish rebellions of 1483, 1497 and 1549 were centred on Bodmin. so I suspect there is some truth to this. --Salix alba (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless many sources are found so that it can be adequately written under another name. gren グレン 16:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's not enough sourced and NPOV material here to scavenge for another article. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something less POV. --Mais oui! 12:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm afraid renaming simply will not do the trick. The content of the article is so desperately, earnestly POV that only a complete edit and rewrite can save it. The title is certainly part of the problem (hyperbole to an absurd degree) but it is only the beginning. ---Charles 17:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- makes a mockery of the real holocaust Astrotrain 20:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Character Challenge

Delete. This article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. — Mike • 20:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable and unreferenced. ~ Hibana 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't have an article for every fan-issued challenge in a video game. Nowhere near the notability of something like Quake Done Quick, and that doesn't even have its own article. Ace of Sevens 21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In hindsight I agree. I've spoken with quite a few people who know of the challenge, but I'd not known it was confined to a relatively small group. Lankybugger 23:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as a non-notable biography. JDoorj a m Talk 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgeous George (TV personality)

~~This is may be a vanity entry, particularly judging from the horrendously vandalized talk page. Either way, the subject is not notable.~~ This is an entry repeatedly attacking and harrassing the subject of an Internet meme, a local access TV presenter who received prank calls on-air. The entry was protected due to repeated mean-spirited vandalism. We'd all be better off if it didn't exist. Chris Griswold 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local public access call-in show is about as non-notable as you can get. Fan1967 20:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasons.Sonic Hog 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have done some reverts on the talk page. What on Earth has been going on there? --Chris Griswold 21:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone apparently George himself kept censoring or removing comments. He was doing the same to the article until it was put under protection. He just did it to your comment on the talk page..Sonic Hog 21:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were also many anon ip's adding very nasty insults directed towards George.

He removed Chris' comment about notability, it's not just "insults" he is removing.Sonic Hog 22:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I see he removed my comment too :(. Lapinmies 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of notability can be produced. Ace of Sevens 21:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Gorgeous George is a popular internet meme. I could compare George to John Daker, his popularity is also mostly negative. I have been looking at this article since it was created, and it definitely was not vanity, as the article was mostly insults. He has been featured on Ebaumsworld, Something Awful etc. so this is clearly one of the more popular memes. Lapinmies 21:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence (or at least an assertion) of notability can be produced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that it needs to be mentioned on the page that his show had been attacked by prank callers, and that as a popular target of malicious comedic enjoyment on the internet, the article warrants keeping. Soulsrocker 00:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local public-access host, apparently made fun of on Something Awful forums. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable local public access host. Not vanity: the article was originally written by people attacking the subject, and after a complaint on OTRS, I removed the unsourced and offensive material, leaving the current content. The article and talk page have subsequently been vandalised by people wishing to re-add the material, and the subject has then blanked the talk page. --bainer (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thebainer. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep George is a subject of discussion on many internet forums, infamous among users of Something Awful and it should be documented in an appropriate manner. No opinionated slander, just the facts Plebmonk 22:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would ask the editors voting to keep the entry to police its vandalism should the entry stay. --Chris Griswold 03:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lampooned on Something Awful, among other websites. --Takeel 23:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE= REQUESTED FROM GEORGE HIMSELF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.78.86 (talk • contribs) 13:28, June 10, 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That's not a factor in our decision. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - OH NO ! I THINK IT IS A BIG FACTOR!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.78.86 (talk • contribs) June 10, 2006 (UTC)

Typing in ALL CAPS is not going to help you with anythingSonic Hog 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added an assertion of notability, for what it's worth. --Takeel 18:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best a figure of minor notability, and his minor notability is mostly being attacked on Something Awful. He is (understandably) upset about becoming famous purely by being mocked by people he's never met. Basic decency says that we should remove the article of a borderline notable person who is actively disinterested in the grounds for their notability. Phil Sandifer 16:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for an article here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, snowball delete as nn-bio, and as an article written to disparage the subject, per Thebainer. JDoorj a m Talk 16:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict) Would you want an article about yourself on Wikipedia, if your only reason for notability was that some website made character attacks at you? If an article is borderlining non-notability and a potential legal battle, I think there is enough incentive to delete it.-- The ikiroid 16:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Deleting an article solely because its subject demands it would be a bad precedent; it would encourage others to get all Daniel Brandt on us to try to manipulate our coverage. I'm not from the area where G.G. has his show, so I'm not prepared to pass judgment on its degree of notability (I've never heard of him or his show before now), but the deletion or not should be based on this rather than on his personal wishes. *Dan T.* 17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And while I agree with keeping the Daniel Brandt article, I cannot help but notice that the precedent we set there made every admin on this site into a real-world target of anyone with a grudge. Phil Sandifer 17:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree - the principle is to keep the article if it's notable and encyclopedic, not to keep it just to prove that Wikipedia doesn't buckle to pressure. KWH 18:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with that; we should strive not to let grudges and personal feelings influence us either to keep or to delete an article where the encyclopedic course would be the opposite. Being human, we may not always follow this guideline (I suspect that in cases like this, a "reverse psychology" approach might work at manipulating Wikipedia editors -- if you really want the article on you kept, you should loudly and obnoxiously demand it be deleted, or vice versa), but it should at least be our stated goal. *Dan T.* 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jkelly 17:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A popular internet meme. I.e. a non-notable presenter with 15 minutes of fame who will be entirely forgotten when the power goes out. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', does not assert notability per WP:WEB. KWH 18:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. If he was borderline notable (on an encyclopedic scale), and I don't think he is even that notable, I would lean towards delete due to the apparent harassment by Something Awful and its users. -- Kjkolb 07:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin request - Please look into and address the actions of User:Sonic Hog, who appears to be using Wikipedia's rules simply to harrass George on his entry and talk page. It's really kind of awful. --Chris Griswold 07:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I can't see anything that User:Sonic Hog is doing wrong. Have you something specific in mind? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. —Ruud 11:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Ral315 (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is not just an internet meme, it's gained notoriety because of George's outlandish show and the criticism. --Liface 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's just as notable as most other internet memes. Chris Buckey 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Goodman II

Believe entire contents to be nonsense: Benny Goodman did not have a son, and there is no writer of this name creditted on the IMDB page for Good Times. Listing for deletion instead of speedy deletion just in case someone knows differently. Only Google hits from name derived from this page & no internal links to it. JennyRad 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I cleaned up this article, I also thought it sounded like pure nonsense... but it's your call. I'm not sure on the specifics. --Samvscat 06:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I found this article to be thorough, concise, well researched, and inexpressibly usefull in my scholarly pursuits. I believe this article to be one of the greatest assets to the online wikipedia research community, and it would cause me and countless others indescribable grief to witness the deletion of this rare gem. knowledgeable 07:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, looks like a hoax, and borders on nonsense. If there is a Benjamin Goodman II he doesn't turn up in a google search, and therefore doesn't meet WP:BIO. DVD+ R/W 01:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Most likely a hoax. If it's not a hoax, it doesn't meet WP:BIO because you generally don't become important yourself by being related to an important person. Reyk _YO! 02:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: update: any bio that I could find shows Benny Goodman never had a son. Added hoax template. Time has expired on this nonsense. --Samvscat 10:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge with Raj Comics, just like I did with Jadugar Shakoora. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Killer

Delete, as is this article does not meet WP:FICT. Not notable Vijrams 05:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Raj Comics--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history by country

I'm curious whether lists with mostly redlinks are acceptable. While this would be a great page to encourage people to write articles, they're basically contentless. Until I'm really persuaded in either direction, I'm voting neutral. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to keep this, except maybe as a subpage of some wikiproject. Nearly all links are red, and it contributes actually nothing to the encyclopaedia. --Rory096 20:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- TUF-KAT actually maintains a page kind of like it. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to [[42]] -Markeer 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it convention to make mainspace redirects to categories? —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it involves a duplication of work, yes, but my main argument is that this mainspace IS a category, and in fact a category that already exists in wikipedia, so redirect so those doing a search for this category can find it in the appropriate place Markeer 21:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list serves a purpase that a catagorie can't serve. (See my comments below) ---J.S (t|c) 23:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Whatever happens, do not redirect to a category. --Rory096 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if all articles in it are in the category. Duplicates the category, and the category is easier to maintain. The Land 22:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of those articles linked-to are written yet. Can't be in a category until they are written. ---J.S (t|c) 23:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — In this case a bunch of red links serves no useful purpose other than to show which countries do not have Mhbc pages. — RJH (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete use category instead, too many red links and easier to maintain that way. SM247 23:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep - Redlinks are the exact reason why lists like this are kept. They should only be deleted when there are very few redlinks. (If there are no/few missing articles in a topic categories at the right tool, then a topic is vastly under-represented then lists are the right tool) Category can't index articles that have yet to be created. Each of those red-links are notable topics. (except for the few small countries without any military history... Like Belize maybe). ---J.S (t|c) 23:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that nearly-complete (i.e. few redlinks) lists of these types are still useful for those who aren't aware of our category system. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Things like that would be good in projectspace, as it encourages editors create the articles, but it doesn't contribute to the encyclopaedia at all. --Rory096 03:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nobody is likely to compose military histories for many of these, better just to have those that do exist categorised as created. SM247 23:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to project space. An organisational tool, but not an article. -- 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MIT Assassins' Guild

Worried that this is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I started this page because it was a red link in Live action roleplaying game (which incidentally needs some serious spam cleanup) as the Guild is apparently important in the history of LARPing in the US. Disclosure: I am a member of the Assassins' Guild. moink 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: that importance in history has since been moved to History of live role-playing

Comment Possibly notable, but the current article makes no mention of why it would be. if this was one of the first LARP groups, the article needs to say so. Ace of Sevens 21:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Moeron. It's a bunch of students that get together and play games. Sounds fun, but not encyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The group's motto is "To Err is Human... To Forgive is not our policy." The author erred by failing to establish notability, we should not forgive. Delete. (Disclosure, I am a former member, was on the committee running Patrol for four years, and was a gamemaster of Shadows of the Past a ten day games.) GRBerry 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This certainly doesn't meet {{db-club}} standards, but it's also certainly non-notable. -- Kicking222 02:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but lets not kick the newcomers too hard. -- GWO
That made me giggle. Don't worry, I'm not a newcomer, and I'm pretty resistant to biting. Intent appreciated, though. moink 17:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another MIT student club - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the LARP page, this group popularized the "assassin game". Isopropyl 18:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"R&B Deluxe" Mixtape

This is some unofficial mixtape hosted by an artist who hasn't even released her debut album yet. The mixtape only returns 11 results when searched on Google and is not notable at all. --Musicpvm 19:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of a series of releases by LaToya Luckett, formerly of Destiny's Child. B.Wind 20:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is not one of a series of releases. This is an unofficial mixtape with only a few hits on Google. Thousands of unofficial R&B/hip-hop mixtapes are constantly released. [43] [44] [45] The list is endless. Should there be articles on all of those? The majority, including this one, are very non-notable. This article is nothing but fancruft. --Musicpvm 20:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it has a cover, I see no reason why it shouldn't have a page. This is a legitimate mixtape, and it happens to be the only collection of songs yet to be released that are performed by LeToya Luckett. rhythmnation2004 21:15, 01 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete oh come on, obviously NN, per nom - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Per original nomination. — Mike • 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The real test would be if this was put out / leaked by her or simply a DJ compilation. Some artists such as Jadakiss and Method Man, release music that the label would not permit on a standard album onto a mixtape. Is this a case of that or is this just a DJ compilation and can it be proven the artist released this with permission or at least may have been leaked by them. Ways to determine this would be original track of high studio quality, hints by the artist, promotion of the CD by the artist, references to mixtape only tracks by the artists etc. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whilst some notable artist are involved, this album seems to be designed not to be released to the public at large, a common practice as Zer0faults points out. Except in very extreme circumstances, unreleased = nn. Ac@osr 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Its actually not a extreme circumstance, I didnt mean it to come out that way. Mixtapes have become a way for artists to connect to their audience through means not permitted by their parent companies and recording labels. For instance rapper Mos Def released a track called bin Laden, kind of accusing the Bush administration of knowing about 9/11 before it happened, this kind of track would never be released on an album as the label would never hear the end of it. Sometimes artists use mixtapes because contract limitations or label supression. In a more relevant example artist Lumidee releases her music soley on mixtape now as she resented her label turning her album into a R&B type album, she is a self proclaimed rapper and her mixtape music focuses more on that since she can do it without label pressure. Its oddly enough becoming quite popular as means of expression without the label getting a say. Method Man released an entire album by this method in order to circumvent a force he felt in his label was destroying his music, removing all songs related to his favorite producer. Kanye West has released tracks on mixtapes before their release to find out how they will be taken by the public. Mixtapes are not as they started as DJ mixes that were unauthorized etc. This album may be as legit as any other album this artist has released, just without the support of her label/recording company. That is why I think more information is needed before classifying this. Sorry for the long statement, I just dont want people not to understand what I was trying to say, this phenomenon is actually very popular. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per the insane slav. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I am voting keep because this artist meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Its also in my opinion a valid release as her debut has not been released yet and I believe this mixtape as extensive as it is, is a means of self promotion for the artist without label giving the green light. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete I changed my vote after finding out more information and reviewing the track listing, this is a DJ compilation as its not artist specific as I was under the original impression. Mixtapes like Freshmen Adjustment by Kanye West are artist specific so I think they are to be held to a higher degree. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Zero Faults. I think it is rash to judge notability too quickly, especially if one is not necessarily familiar with a specific artist or genre, but a DJ mixtape is clearly not notable. Fearwig 05:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This mixtape was released in conjunction with Capitol Records and in coordination with LeToya and her management. It was also featured on Letoyaonline.com, rapmullet.com, and others. This mixtape has reached an international level, and has assisted in the promotion of LeToya Luckett. I know this because I was one of the people behind the release of this mixtape. Both this, and Brandi Garcia's release were structured as promotional releases for LeToya Luckett's upcoming debut solo album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.125.69 (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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon's Lair Comics

Appears to be an advertisement for the store. Non-notable comic book shop as well. Wildthing61476 20:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wildthing61476. -- Kjkolb 22:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not an industry index. SM247 23:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn business.--MONGO 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 due to withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 21:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H. Carr

Delete. Please let this not be read as a sign of disrespect to those who passed away in World War II. However, given the sheer number of our soldiers who died in World War II, I think it is impractical to have an article on each and every one of them, and thus SOME requirement of notability as it pertains to their achievements in the field must be considered. The article as stands does not convey the notability of the individual and reads more as if it were a tribute page from a relative, and they appear to have already set up those (cf. the Related Links section of the article). I would feel uncomfortable making this a {{db-bio}}, but I do think it needs to be considered for deletion for the aforementioned reasons. — Mike • 20:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC) In light of ~~unsigned~~ comment by Lohnshark, nomination withdrawn, as having a ship named after you would pass notability, methinks — but I'd put that one factoid in immediately to prevent other notability noms from people who haven't seen this yet. — Mike • [reply]

comment Not that I'm the man to do it, but a separate "Greatest Generation" remembrance wiki would be a flippin' fantastic idea, especially given how we're rapidly losing that generation to old age. — Mike • 20:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
commentI understand why you might say that. I'm hoping to add information at a later time, as this is my first posting on Wiki. The reason for this page is to provide information on the man in whose honor the USS Carr FFG-52 is named. Lohnshark;7 June 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. This could be merged, but probably can stand on its own. --Tony Sidaway 07:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of women bass guitarists

This looks like more listcruft to me. I don't think this page would be particuarly useful in an encyclopedia. Delete Beno1000 20:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with List of bass guitarists. Ac@osr 20:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OMG, we have a list of bass guitarists? Delete them both as listcruft, how can you maintain that? ***mutter mutter mutter growl*** But since 1) I'm too lazy right now to nom that, and 2) I suspect it woulc confuse things, Merge per Ac@osr. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The list is sufficiently lengthy to stand separate from list of bass guitarists. — RJH (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of bass guitarists. I mean, seriously, should we also have a List of men bass guitarists? Can't you use the list of all of them and determine the gender yourself? GassyGuy 23:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't, like, every rock band from the '90s have a female bassist? Danny Lilithborne 05:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmaintainable lists like this, and the non-gender-specific one, should become categories. That way, the criteria for inclusion on a list/cat or the same as the criteria for an article. See [[Category:Bass guitarists]] -- GWO
Keep. FWIW, this page was used to answer a question at the reference desk about two weeks ago, and for that reason alone proved its worth. It's far less listcrufty than many other articles we have here and is maintainable so long as it is limited to bassists of bands that we have articles on. Grutness...wha? 08:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many lists like this on Wikipedia (guitarists, drummers, violinists). Regarding gender, while many '90s bands did have a female bassist, I think it's still rare enough to warrant its own list. GentlemanGhost 16:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question If we already have a list of bass guitarists, is there really any need to separate the female ones into another list also? Could not everyone seeking info on bass guitarists use one list, and those wishing for a gender breakdown derive that information? I am just wondering why this separate list is necessary. GassyGuy 18:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sure, one could do it that way, but it would be more time-consuming. GentlemanGhost 23:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and uncrufty. ~ trialsanderrors 23:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please Keep This List. I have a fetish for kick-ass female bass players [[46] [ESSAY: The Last Great Female Bassist]]
- In that case I recommend Lani Purkis of Elemeno P - [47] :) Grutness...wha? 01:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Platoon (film). – [ælfəks] 09:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Robert Barnes

Delete. Unreferenced. If material is referred to in movie (and is not Platoon fanfic), material can be merged into Barnes' character listing on Platoon movie page. — Mike • 20:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If you don't mind, I'm just going to boldly redirect to the Platoon (film) article. There's nothing worth keeping here, and everything of note is covered in the Platoon article. -- Scientizzle 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wikibooks. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brända mandlar

Wikipedia is not a cookbook —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denni (talk • contribs) .

Delete per nom. Cool3 02:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 20:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to the wikibooks cookbook. Ace of Sevens 00:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transkiwi to b:Cookbook. Equendil Talk 06:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki this to cookbooks please Yuckfoo 01:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, after discounting all the invalid votes. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software manufacturing

Neologic term. Main source is article starter's own blog. Seemingly no relevant Google hits. Haakon 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Gronky 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term is widely used, but the meaning in the article seems much narrower than is normally understood. Ace of Sevens 21:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Ace of Sevens notes the term is in use. If the article is using too narrow a definition then this is good reason to expand the definiton in the article, not delete it, surely. While we are on the subject, IMHO WP is sometimes too heavy handed with deletions. IMHO very very few articles should actually be deleted. Robert Brockway 18:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Robert Brockway, if the article is narrow, expand it. --JpPasnak 19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User's first non-userpage edit. Haakon 10:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as commonly used the term only means a company that makes software, which doesn't warrant an article. Ace of Sevens 06:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RE: "Main source is article starter's own blog." This only means the author has drafted the content earlier than posting it on WP. The phrase has been in use in numerous discussions I have been involved in, and it usefully expresses a concept. I don't think this author coined the phrase, but the fact he has used it on his own popular blog more than others does not seem to be case against documenting it on WP. josephpotvin
- Note: User's first edit. Haakon 10:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's wrong with an author or intellectual coming up with an idea or concept or phrase and then posting it to wikipedia after posting it to their own blog? Let alone as in the case of this where the author may not be the originator of the idea, but is certainly an active user of a new concept that is accurate and worth sharing. It is ludicrous to delete this entry, and if it were to be deleted I'm confident it would re-appear after a short period as it is indeed a legitimate word/phrase that should be documented and included... and yes, this is my first edit, as it would take something as alarming as this to provoke me to actually register and edit a page on this site... JesseHirsh 12:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note User's first edit. Gronky 13:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note Thanks for the self-evident observation Gronky, it's not like I already noted it was my first edit. --JesseHirsh 14:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing wrong with someone coming up with a term, but a newly-and-self-coined term (called a neologism) does not belong in an encyclopedia, be it Wikipedia or any other. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Haakon 15:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: neologism --71.254.6.33 14:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The term software manufacturer has been in wide use for many years (easily many decades) by that subset of the software sector that believe that software can be "manufactured" as if it were a tangible/physical thing. It appears that some persons on Wikipedia incorrectly believe that I coined the term. It is no more a new or self-coined term than saying it is a neologism to refer people that practise "capitalism" by the term "capitalist". If I were to start this process over I would have started a definition for software manufacturer rather than software manufacturing --Russell McOrmond 16:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a term that is part of the total map of the tautaology(sp?) of software marketing and creation methods. It could use some work to place it fully in that context. the first mover in creating this article is a well known activist in the free/open software movement, and his blog is one of the sites where the meaning of the term may have been clarified, but the standards of wikipedia don't exclude experts from starting articles- even if they are limited to published resources.

The term is NOT a synonym for "proprietary" as there are closed source packages that are never the less distributed at no-charge, or bundled with other things. The method is also similar to the music industry who tends to associate the selling of plastic discs with the selling of music. cmacd 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Richardcavell 01:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar's invasions of Britain

It seems to be paraphrasing Caesar, as it stood, but not directly quoting. I'm currently editing out the Caesar and putting it into a more balanced account in my own words (eg the Walmer and Agricola bits). Please don't delete it. Neddyseagoon 17:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon[reply]

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable historical event. If it was copied from De Bello Gallico it needs to be rewritten not deleted. Eluchil404 06:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if Caesar didn't write from NPOV, didn't cite references and was notoriously bat at wikifying his articles.

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nolej Studios

Vanity / promo page Fram 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Has seven hits (4 distinct pages) on Google, none of them interesting. Non notable. Fram 09:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its web site (written in Flash, so it won't show up very well) lists a number of interesting clients and projects. TruthbringerToronto 23:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like which ones? Cirque du soleil? They name it, but the link doesn't work. This is a very small company with a very limited clientele, and has done nothing remarkable until now. It is thus extremely non notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Fram 08:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Arvy-vier 10:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its simply an advertisement for a non-notable company. SteveHopson 12:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge with Replicator (Stargate). Deathphoenix ʕ 16:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human-Form Replicators

Delete. ~~Describes the events of an episode that may already have an article on Wikipedia; if so, perhaps a redirect.~~ Utterly unreferenced. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. — Mike • 20:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up on vote: Covered quite adequately in Fifth (Stargate) and in episode links that branch off that article. I don't think it'll be searched for enough for a redirect to be useful. So, removing "perhaps a redirect" from my vote. — Mike • 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave. The main Replicator article calls for it to be simplified and cleaned up. This is the natural solution.

Edit This article is in need of revision, however, every human form replicator's aricle features the same information, again and again. The Replicator main article is cluttered as is, and there is certainly plenty of information to include here. Kashami 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fancruft. Merge into another article if you must. --Rehcsif 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Replicators. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Replicator, there is just no need for an article about one particular form of a villain in an SF television show. - Motor (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Replicator, the two basic types of Replicator never separated from each other significantly in the show (there were always regular Replicators hanging around the human-form ones and working together) so there's no need for a separate article. Bryan 23:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above reasoning. -- Alfakim -- talk 12:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect It's a short article and will never get any longer, so might as well just be a section in the bigger article. --Tango 15:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Tango. Lockesdonkey 18:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge either works, but this is definietly not fancruft Tobyk777 01:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Merge makes sense, as they're still just a subcategory of Replicators. Biscuit Knight 07:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Replicators. Konman72 11:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Replicator (Stargate) as suggested a few times already. ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Metamagician3000 15:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammedans

This page appears to be a quote from a primary source....why is its own article? Dlayiga 21:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --tyomitch 00:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Shawn 15:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like the ramblings of a mad-man. ---J.S (t|c) 22:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ~~replace with Redirect to Muslim. It's kind of an archaic term but some might still use it in a search.~~ Fan1967 22:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, don't redirect, per Charles below, just delete. A few paragraphs from Voltaire do not constitute an article. Fan1967 13:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muslim.Weak keep Charles below makes an interesting point... if the term is a notable insult there might be an article in it (as long as the current content does not remain) origin, how widely used, when it stopped being widely used etc etc. Not bothered if it gets deleted though. - Motor (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've given this more thought, and, though I do find the term offensive, it has a history (and is still, though rarely, used) and is a notable term used to refer to Muslims. As such, it perhaps should have an article, as Motor indicates, without the current content. It needs to be rewritten to reflect the origins of the word, and when, and under what conditions, it fell out of use. ---Charles 08:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Do not redirect to Muslim as Mohammedan is a term of insult to Muslims. Furthermore, as this is nothing but a long quote from a work by Voltaire, the value or purpose of which is unstated, in what way would it add to an article on Islam? ---Charles 04:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Even though Muslims object to the term it in general use in Enlgish in the past and would be a reasonable search term. Eluchil404 06:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question if this is from a 1764 source text, why does it make reference to events occuring from 1769 to 1773? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't understand the purpose of the article as it is now Deleuze 00:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COGIATI

Found whilst stub-sorting. Doesn't give any context, too technical, can't figure out if it's notable or not. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, may be self-publication. haz _(user talk)^e 17:30, 18 March 2006
Keep. There are plenty of stubs which have far less information than this one. Later, this article may be expanded to give commentary on the veracity of it which would be very important to questioning persons. 68.161.80.72 19:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it's entirely possible that the entry could be expanded by someone willing to give it the time and effort required, I find myself asking if the subject of the article is worth that time. I can't see that it is, especially given the amateur psychology and stereotyping involved in the questions the COGIATI asks.
Comment. Current entry state not a reason to delete. Amateur Psychology and Stereotyping is opinion. Its well known amoungst the trans community.
Keep. According to Jennifer Diane Reitz (both the person and the article), professionals frequently use or have used this test. If you dispute its usefulness, I'd call that all the more reason to expand this article. Dan 17:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am a transsexual and my therapist did indeed reference this quiz - not the entire thing, but select questions she felt relevant to my treatment. 66.67.227.247 00:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A well known concept, very notable and meets the guidance. I'm surprised its not already listed. Worthy article. --manchesterstudent 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not asserted satisfactorily, it was created by a webcomic author and doesn't seem to have acceptance by experts in the field. -- Kjkolb 22:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This standard is used often in gender identification tests; in fact, everyone I've taken on the Internet complies with this standard. Plus, the creator of the test made Boppin'. Can't beat that;) Danny Lilithborne 05:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merged to Emma Frost for time being. Madchester 03:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Frost (film)

Article is about a movie that has only been mentioned once. The movie doesn't even have an IMDb page. Ixistant 20:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Crystal ball / we already have a page for the character Artw 21:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the character page. Movie isn't far along in development, so giving it its own page is crystal ballery. Ace of Sevens 21:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coming attractions at from USA Today suggests that the movie is already in the script phase just like Magneto. And Three Kings director, David O. Russell, is working with Fox studios on the film. --Facto 04:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Emma Frost until more substantial information is available. Danny Lilithborne 05:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The film is only "confirmed" by one external news source and not by any other FOX or Marvel source. --Madchester 06:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Danny Lilithborne's suggestion. DemonWeb 14:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Rikoshi 07:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and wait. --Francisco Valverde 16:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. EVula 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It can always be remade if more info comes to light. --DrBat 00:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco Global Exploiter

Delete. The article seems to be just a definition. It is too short and no one has tried to expand it or merge it with another article. BGFMSM 04:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 20:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been re-listed to generate a better consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This hacking tool appears to be not notable. DarthVad e r 11:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but i'd change if there were actually any well-known instances of it being used OR if it was expanded greatly, since the article as it is is...rather...uh...lame. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 01:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aardvark Dry Carpet Cleaning

This has been through speedy (as advert -- article de-speedied and further copy added), and prod (which appears to have been simply removed). I continue to consider it an andertisment and request deletion. -- Simon Cursitor 14:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete as advertisement. Circeus 03:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement and nn. --WilliamThweatt 11:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. --cholmes75 01:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement. I think it should have been speedied. Cool3 21:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Paddles 23:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. incog 21:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORP SM247 23:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it hasn't been deleted for 6 weeks, what is the argument for deleting it now ? Sockpuppet 11:10 9 June 2006 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Golbez 00:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schade E. Libito

Delete. This page seems to be trash. I don't know if the first article is even a serious attempt, and I know the rest is not. -Tjss 16:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete A7, no notability claim, so tagged. MartinRe 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational physics

There is already plenty of articles (main one being Gravitation) that describe this topic. This one is just a listcruft of references. A merge is not even useful, as the main article is much more advanced. Delete Tony 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom Ace of Sevens 21:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The content of this article is not to be found in Gravitation (have a look yourselves). Further more it explains a slightly different theory of Gravitation to the generally used General Relativity, so merging isn't appropriate (though a renaming to affine theories of gravitation or similar may be appropriate). Could do with clean up and expanding though. CaptainJ^{(t | c | e)} 21:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So this page could be called "Historic tests of the equivalence principle", for example? — RJH (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe, I'm not sure now. If it's a copyvio, then maybe it should be shortened and merged? CaptainJ^{(t | c | e)} 11:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, copyvio http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm... albeit with chunks chopped out. It's sat in its current form since Jan 2004 with no improvements or work (someone in 2004/10 tried to add some wikilinks). I'm not qualified to judge the contents, but my BS detector is ringing clearly. - Motor (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. If it wasn't I'd suggest a merge of the list into Gravitation as it's somewhat interesting . Inner Earth 09:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE as copyvio, REDIRECT to gravitation. 132.205.45.148 19:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Joelito (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennic

This seems to be an advertisement brochure, not an encyclopedia article. Thekohser 04:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 21:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - rm some of the POV material. ---J.S (t|c) 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep They seem to be notable enough. GassyGuy 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was keep. This is not a vote count; the IMDB link, award nomination and projects he's worked on suggest notability. Someone should still clean it up. Metamagician3000 15:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evan jacobs

Vanity? Note the original author. JGorton 20:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy and delete. It'd make a finer user page. Isopropyl 21:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - it looks like a vanity page (especially considering the original author), but the IMDB link is legit for the name at least. A weak delete for now. Dead 22:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 21:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep since the subject has a nomination for an Emmy Award under his belt and is associated with quite a number of very notable projects. ---J.S (t|c) 21:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity page - created, and only edited by subject. If he's really notable, i.e. widely known, per WP:BIO, he should be able to supply links to neutral reliable sources showing his notability. Crum375 23:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Moved to Evan Jacobs. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not paper. Snugspout 19:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joelito (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chirotalk

Shameless self-promotion TheDoctorIsIn 21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Article makes no claims to pass WP:WEB. In addition, the article seems to be heavily bias in favor of the website. I'd be willing to change to keep if evidence of passing WP:WEB and a complete rewrite happens. ---J.S (t|c) 21:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to STRONG Delete. Forum is hosted on proboards.com. ---J.S (t|c) 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page has over 6000 unique visitors per month. What's the notability cut-off?

http://my7.statcounter.com/project/standard/stats.php?granularity=monthly&project_id=1146899 Ace of Sevens 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 6k per month... I got about that for my LARP forum that had a membership of about 50. 69.4.137.153 04:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chirotalk's current membership is much higher, 832 individuals (see bottom of page). What is the relevance of the host?Abotnick 11:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Number of accounts is irrelevant. If all 800 individuals were regulars you would have nearly 100k hits per month. The "unique hits" tells me you get about 30-60 regular posters, if that. ---J.S (t|c) 19:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sites owner (editor Abotnick) has made many attempts add a link to his forum site on the main Chiropractic article as well. His forum site makes it known that they are focused on boosting the sites PageRank by getting inbound links (from prominent sites such as Wikipedia). As for the references by other publications below, it should be known that user Abotnick works with Neck911.com (organization that created the hate-message billboard) in publishing and promoting press releases. With the NCAHF reference, it should be noted that the anti-chiropractic circle is a tight ring (in fact they participate in a Skeptic Web ring). They all link to each other, again to boost PageRank. As far as the James Randi reference goes, the "anonymous ex-chiropractor" that it refers to is in fact Allen Botnick once again self-promoting his website. Doing a cursory web search for his name on Google, I am actually able to find that he has inserted links to his website and cause all over the Internet in seemingly odd and inappropriate places. My feeling is that him creating a Wikipedia article about his forum Chirotalk is just another attempt at - as TheDoctorIsIn noted - shameless self-promotion. Levine2112 23:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:Web one of the criteria is if the site is referenced by other publications. This site has been referenced in three. The first is in print and online while the other two are online:

http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/2005/aug/a.htm "Billboard's hate message is short‑lived" August 2005

"Even many critics of chiropractic were put off by the viciousness of the attack. During a discussion of the billboard on a predominantly anti‑chiropractic Internet group (Chirotalk: The Skeptical Chiropractic Discussion Forum), one member called the sign "Fear mongering, nothing more..." Another stated, "It's a cheap tactic to hit the public with a sledgehammer that big." One member made an interesting point by saying: "What if we had one for 'Aspirin can kill you!' or 'Reading this sign while driving can kill you!' That is simply a sensationalized ad to get attention.""

http://www.ncahf.org/digest04/04-11.html "Skeptical chiropractic forum launched. An online discussion forum for the critical investigation of chiropractic topics has been launched by Allen Botnick, DC, who voluntarily surrendered his chiropractic licenses after concluding that his education had not prepared him to practice safely. He started Chirotalk because other discussion groups have expelled people who posted critical comments. Chirotalk is open to anyone who wants to discuss the problems associated with chiropractic theory and practice."

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-01/012006bigfoot.html

"Thank you, Brian. We have here a note from last week’s anonymous ex-chiropractor who was involved, and I think it will be encouraging to others and give a new source of assistance. He writes:

Thanks for forwarding me the nice emails from your readers. While it will probably be a while before I "come out of the chiropractic closet" and use my real name, I do currently participate in an email discussion list called Chirotalk. The address is: http://chirotalk.proboards3.com/index.cgi

The members of this list are mostly former chiropractors along with a few Physical Therapists who are chiro skeptics. The purpose of the list is to support chiropractors trying to get out of the profession (suggestions for new careers, encouragement, etc.) and to keep information on the web to discourage new students from enrolling in chiropractic college.

I have gotten a lot of ideas from this list as to how to move forward with my life. The main reason I wrote you is that I respect your opinion a lot and, also, I wanted to bring attention to the fact that there are students like me who have been ripped off by the chiropractic schools.

I agree that I have a moral obligation to help potential students see the full picture. Chiro college recruiters are very good at painting chiropractors as mainstream healthcare professionals based in science. This is fraud – as far as I'm concerned – since all chiropractic is still based on subluxation theory, although some modern chiros call subluxations different names, like fixations, spinal lesions, etc.

Allen Botnick, D.C., is the chiropractor who started the discussion list. He is also graduated from my college and has written, under his real name, about his experiences as a chiropractor. He has really endured a lot of hatred from the chiropractic profession for his honesty. It’s at: www.chirobase.org/03Edu/botnick.html

Anyway, thanks for spreading the word. While I certainly wouldn't accept donations from anybody, I am inspired to consider telling my story in a more public way in the future. The kind messages from your readers have shown me that skeptics really have big hearts."

The site is volunteer and not for profit-unlike the chiropractors who are bashing it. It deserves mentioning. Abotnick 22:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:WEB, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Fan1967 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>The sites owner (editor Abotnick) has made many attempts add a link to his forum site on the main Chiropractic article as well.

Levine has a problem with many of the skeptical contributors to the Chiropractic article. I have actually written two of the paragraphs in the current chiropractic article and edited and rewrote the lead. Please see discussion for more information.

>His forum site makes it known that they are focused on boosting the sites PageRank by getting inbound links (from prominent sites such as Wikipedia).

Levine is referring to the writings of one individual member of the forum, not the forum itself. The forum itself is referenced by many individuals outside the forum itself as the statistics show. It is not simply self promotion.

>As for the references by other publications below, it should be known that user Abotnick works with Neck911.com (organization that created the hate-message billboard) in publishing and promoting press releases.

I had nothing to do with the reference posted above. That was independently written.

>With the NCAHF reference, it should be noted that the anti-chiropractic circle is a tight ring (in fact they participate in a Skeptic Web ring). They all link to each other, again to boost PageRank.

NCAHF is a legitimate skeptical newsletter. Levine is implying that any skeptical publication is a conspiracy.

>As far as the James Randi reference goes, the "anonymous ex-chiropractor" that it refers to is in fact Allen Botnick once again self-promoting his website. Doing a cursory web search for his name on Google, I am actually able to find that he has inserted links to his website and cause all over the Internet in seemingly odd and inappropriate places. My feeling is that him creating a Wikipedia article about his forum Chirotalk is just another attempt at - as.

I had no part in writing the Randi article. Please back up your statements with evidence Levine and stop the conjecture. Chirotalk is either the number one or number two top chiropractic discussion forum on the web and has been cited in several publications. It certainly has the most uncensored content as the other sites actively censor skeptical opinions (as I suspect some people are trying to do here by suggesting that Chirotalk's wiki entry be removed). People are going to be curious about its history and goals and it's worth a few bytes on Wikipedia.Abotnick 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only notable thing is this page is started by the owner of the website. Can you say self promotion???--Hughgr 00:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has less then 200 contributions. ---J.S (t|c) 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As this pertains to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, Hughgr's "contribution history and pattern of comments" are consistent with someone acting in good faith... not a sockpuppet. -AED 06:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just making a note so the closing admin is aware. I never claimed he was a sock. One thing about AFD is that new and/or annon editors's opinions are weighted much less then users with significant history here. ---J.S (t|c) 19:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing about AFD is that how opinons are weighed depends on a full context of information which includes not merely the number of contributions but the "contribution history and pattern of comments". I just wanted the closing administrator to be aware of my opinion, too. -AED 20:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a soapbox. WP is not self-promotion. Fails WP:WEB. TheDoctorIsIn 01:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has less then 100 contributions. Also, the person who starts the nomination dosn't need to voice there opinion twice. ---J.S (t|c) 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't know. If this helps, user Abotnick and mysterious user 64.230.76.119 has tried to a link to the Chirotalk site in articles as seemingly unrelated as Homer Simpson and Crack and has repeatedly pushed to have the link read something such as: The #1 ranked chiropractic discussion forum on the internet. This seems very spammy to me. TheDoctorIsIn 07:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the pro-chiropractic forces are rallying to do their best to remove a channel for skeptical inquiry into their practices.Abotnick 01:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less about the chiropractic field. I've never edited a cyropratic article. I have no stake in the outcome of this artilce. I don't even know anyone who goes to the chiropractor, and I think this article is bias self-promotion of a non-notable forum hosted on a free-service. Enjoy your website. Enjoy chatting about whatever it is you chat about. But wikipedia has standards and your website fails them. ---J.S (t|c) 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not a self promotion enter your own articles and websites to get yourself notoriety kind of place. Also, the argument that "the 'pro-chiropractic' forces are mobilizing" is patently moot. It 's like saying the "pro gravity" forces are arguing against commercial flight. The "pro-capitalism" forces are going to walmart to buy groceries today. Sad, and needs to be gone from this forum.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.175.2 (talk • contribs)

One of this user's first contributions. ---J.S (t|c) 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am a skeptic of chiropractic, but an article about Allen Botnick created by Abotnick violates Wiki guidelines at Wikipedia:Autobiography and policies at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (esp. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox"). -AED 03:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about his website and not himself. ---J.S (t|c) 03:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over half of the article, six of eleven sentences, makes direct reference to Botnock. Regardless, the guidelines at Wikipedia:Autobiography pertain not only to writing about oneself: "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." -AED 05:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure your clear on the content of the article. ---J.S (t|c) 19:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure you're clear on the guidelines and policies influencing my vote. -AED 20:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Autobiography. -- GWO

Delete, for most of the numerous reasons above. Jefffire 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Will someone please list the remaining problems with this article so they can be corrected? So far it appears that all issues have been addressed. Abotnick

Comment The issue that it is a non-notable website with only 6000 visitors a month and very limited attention from anywhere else (in other words, the standards of WP:WEB) have not been addressed. Fan1967 13:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE Using WP for free advertising and shameless self-promotion. Written by himself about himself in order to raise his forum's minimal importance. He seems to be the main contributor to his forum, asking and answering his own questions.

Abotnick has tried spamming his website in many instances around WP. He has also added fake "press releases" into the chiropractic article that he has written about himself. These have been removed. He is using WP as a soapbox to promote his POV and the fact that he is unhappy with his life. Who cares? Steth 11:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know this isn't my first comment, but if you take out all the sentences with Allen Botnik's name in them, as it should be on Wikipedia, then there is nothing to the article. It is basically an autobiographical article about Allen Botnick's bias against the chiropratcic profession, and why he created his own little weblog. I'll delete the sentences with his name in them and see 1) how long it lasts, and 2)what the article looks like...thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.143.82 (talk • contribs)

"STRONG DELETE" I have practiced chiropractic for 30 years. Based on my clinical experience with thousands of patients and based on similar experiences of well over a hunded colleagues of whom I have personal knowledge, I find Mr. Botnik's bitter remarks to not be credible. For whatever personal reasons, he failed in an attempt at practice and is conducting a bitter anti-chiropractic campaign in retaliation. I have never met Mr. Botnik nor have I personally corresponded with him, but based on his comments that I have read, he appears to be a bitter and immature person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.51.102 (talk • contribs)

Delete Self promotion. Not notable. --TrustTruth 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete: Does not appear to meet any of the Wiki's notability standards. Ombudsman 04:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The content of this website should play no part in this decision (i.e. it might be totally unreliable for all I know, but if extensively used and influential then it would still merit an article), WP should not engage in censorship. The only significant issues are whether the website is sufficiently notable for inclusion and that the content of the article is a NPOV balanced, verifiable account. The latter is I think now true. The former however is not clearly established; I would suggest that Abotnick consider merging the content with articles on related or similar websites (e.g. Quackwatch) and use redirection to direct searches to the composite article. Gleng 10:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greng, I think the vandals and poorly qualified editors in the wikipedia process have greatly diminished the quality of the article. Further merging it with other nonrelated sites is no longer specific to the Chirotalk term so that doesn't work. This isn't chirobase-neck911-chirotalk. We are a separate discussion site with a history and individuality that deserves to be listed but was removed due to critical chiroprctors who don't want individuals to know that censorship is common at private nonprofit chiropractic institutions and that they have an accreditor who routinely doesn't enforce its own standards. Most likely we will need to just mount a PR campaign and get a reference in another media source to meet the WP guideline for notoreity. This is sort of ironic because of the biased chiropractors who are screaming that I am using wiki for self promotion. Anyway, wikipedia just isn't worth the bother if their major editors can't see the value of the entry. The information is available elsewhere on the net. Further, despite chiropractic's false assertions of growth they are running scams and it is simply a matter of time before the public hits critical mass and rejects them en mass. Utilization is already down 25% in just four years. So their reframing this as ad hominem attacks on me is really just a reflection of their inability to overcome the handicap. Chiros you can't build a house on a foundation of sand. Your scams won't win. Truth and knowledge have power. Abotnick 11:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that 'merging' in this way would be a bad solution. Disambiguation could redirect a search for chirotalk to a larger article on sceptical websites that includes, as a subsection on chirotalk, all the material that you presently have (and more). The case for inclusion on grounds of notability could then be decided by comparison with other websites rather than in isolation, as now.Gleng 11:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do agree that the content of or the motivation for starting the web site should have nothing to do with whether it should be included as a wikipedia article. Does it have encyclopedic value.. possibly. The article can be cleaned up to be quite NPOV, though there is no guarantee it will stay that way. However, that means that every web site with similar qualities would deserve an article as well. Where to draw the line is apparently in notability. The line for this article would allow for other sites that are pro and anti everything, including medicine, politics, religion, vitamins, vaccination, phone systems, and most other web blog discussion groups. Is that what Wikipedia is? Is this what Wikipedia wants to be? I don't know. This is an important question that my level(two months of editing) is not qualified to answer.--Dematt 14:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gleng-The merge/subsections idea sounds like it might work. Would it still be under the heading of Chirotalk or another one? A list of Skeptical Sites could include: Chirobase.org, Neck911USA.org, "The Quack Files" and Chirotalk. How about "Skeptical Websites about Chiropractic"? Chirobase alone has a large amount of notoriety. Since this is a big revision can we put a pause on the deletion of this Chirotalk entry? Any suggestions for revision?Abotnick 15:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I protest any "pauseing" of the deleation. The consensus so far is to delete, not to merge. Wikipedia is not a webguide and your website is not notable. ---J.S (t|c) 15:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed. Regardless of the infighting between the pro- and anti-chiro forces, the only relevant question here is whether the site meets the standards at WP:WEB. Certainly Wikipedia has entries for many sites with controversial (some might even say bizarre or even crackpot) viewpoints. However, they are sites with higher traffic and much more attention than this one. Fan1967 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed. I think Abotnick is giving up trying to get a link to/article about his website and himself here and is now trying to start a Chiropractic Skepticism article. I am not sure if that will fly either. Might I suggest that if he wants his POV heard, then he should keep on editting the main Chiropractic article. But if this is all about trying to get a link to his website, then he should be submitting it to search engine; not Wikipedia. Levine2112 18:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with reasons given above. Simply does not meet WP:WEB, unless I, and others voting for deletion, are all missing something. Abotnick, it would help if you were able to provide such arguments; the validity of chiropractic is completely beside the point here. thx, Jim Butler 06:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User Abotnick has today tried to remove the AfD template from the Chirotalk page. He has also attempted to change the external link going to his site to contain "spammy" link text - something which he was warned about previously. How much loinger until this article is deleted? Levine2112 21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be closed realy soon... it's been 7 days now. I guess noone wants to touch this mess of an AFD. The good news is that conseneus is clear. ---J.S (t|c) 15:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furry Fiesta

nn. advert? manchesterstudent 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Furry conventions do not need their own articles unless they become somehow notable outside of the furry community. This already has an entry at WikiFur, where it belongs. GassyGuy 23:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Hmmm... Well, I'm a member of the furry fandom, but it isn't yet really notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The location and date of the convention still haven't been confirmed, either, and I think we should probably wait until after the first convention and see how notable it is then before recreating it. If it's notable at that time, by all means, recreate it. Beno1000 23:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Many conventions are notable, but this one is too crystal-ballish (from the article: "The location and date are yet to be determined") Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's Farmers Market

Reads like an advertisement. Obviously non-notable EdJones 22:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I did a slight re-write for neutrality. This page could be merged into Whole Foods Market. — RJH (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this comes off as an ad. Author can move some info to the Whole Foods article if s/he wishes, but I imagine Whole Foods would remove it to avoid the precedent of listing every one of their hundreds of subsidiaries on an encyclopedia entry (when they have their own perfectly good website). -Markeer 22:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT advertising, and really doesn't sound terribly notable. Yanksox 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Video Solutions

Does not appear notable (one user has stated that the division is not even on Motorola's website). Also is a glowing endorsement of the division and its merits - an advertisment, of sorts. Falcon 22:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm no longer abstaining from this vote. Falcon 23:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, specifically advertising. Yanksox 22:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brokeback Mountain cinematic analysis

What citations do exist in this article are from message board posts. Delete as original research. --InShaneee 22:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is the most influential and and controversial film of 2005. Anything that can be added is great, especially something like this which can clear up people's minds on the movie and so on. 67.120.168.41 23:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incredibly fascinating and found no where else. Answers so many unanswered questions that were on Annie Proulx's forum (that no longer exists). Explains the symbolism and literary devices of the story and film. Very thorough, and a definite KEEP. Shamir1 23:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Keep (recommendation from the author) since total censorship would be a double standard compared to Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code (DVC) et. al. It is very telling that the most honored film of 2005, some say of all time, cannot be described in detail within today's Wikipedia community: very interesting. Meanwhile, The Da Vinci Code has entire articles devoted to opinions criticizing the book, while opinions about Brokeback symbolism are considered beyond Wikipedia??? No, you clowns need to get your biases in sync and re-think your motives for censoring details about Brokeback Mountain. The cinematic article should be converted from "Delete~" to "Clean-up" status, as is typical with other Wikipedia articles: the hypocrisy against Brokeback Mountain must stop. -Wikid77 11:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that the Da Vinci Code criticism article references twelve books of criticism and analysis. I'm not familiar with a single book doing the same for Brokeback.

And, please, no personal attacks. eaolson 13:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shame, it's a solid review, but doesn't belong here. Yanksox 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very interesting and enjoyable read, but this isn't the place for it. I hope it finds a home somewhere, though. GassyGuy 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. SM247 23:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Forum posts are not valid references. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any NPOV material into Brokeback Mountain, then delete the rest as OR. eaolson 17:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a roll-out from main article, due to size/editing issues about the most honored film of 2005 (i.e., VERY large non-trivial, worldwide topic). Mark sections needing citations, then remove undocumented statements. Preserve "stub" status until more solid. I have added 50 citations within a few minutes; actually, this article had over 40 references to published reviews/interviews (the hysteria about "message board posts" was hyperbole). Keep, since it is a new original article (not original research): there is no need to survey viewers or re-interview the cast/crew; vast amounts of external information are already available as sources from prior research behind this article. No one who worked on the film has even posted in Talk yet. Much more detail needs to be added to this article. ("You thought you knew, but you have no idea.") -Wikid77 05:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Believe it or not, some of you don't know as much as you think about this film.
Archived for recovery. This secondary article might be deleted due to bizarre opinions, after being tagged for deletion within 10 days of creation, skipping the civilized process of potential cleanup. I have created an offline archive copy to recreate the article in another form, in case of deletion; feel free to create personal archives of the information, as well. A major point of misunderstanding is about removing a collection of opinions from Internet-forum participants, stated as such; as though forums contain no information, even as opinions, rather than citing a forum as a source of documented facts. The concept of a forum as a source of opinions, rather than a source of researched facts, seems to be over the head, beyond comprehension of several people. The zeitgeist of Wikipedia is quite primitive this year, and perhaps a revelation (or hard-fought epiphany) might occur in future months. It might be a cosmic joke that Wikipedia contains little knowledge about some major topics: Weakopedia. As of today, Wikipedia still had no World Riddle (German "Welträtsel"). Meanwhile, be prepared for the worst. Who said: Stupid is as stupid does? -Wikid77 02:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consider article "Club Ernies" as a questionable entry for the Wackopedia; it has been unchallenged for over THREE MONTHS while the indepth description of Brokeback Mountain was slated for deletion within 7 days of being linked to the parent article. Can you say Sickipedia? I-think-you-can. Obviously any moderately intelligent person can see, after observing for just a few days, that the Wikipedia processes and guidelines are currently pathetic in the task of collecting and maintaining valuable information. Sorry, but institutionalized incompetence aggravates me. See more at: Club Ernies. -Wikid77 09:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the questionable Club Ernies article. I agree. I've merged the content of that article into The Catcher in the Rye, and prod'd the article.
The question isn't whether the statments of opinion attributed to the forum participants are accurate reportings of their opinions, it's whether these opinions are encyclopedic enough to be included in Wikipedia. If I picked up the Encyclopedia Britannica, I wouldn't expect to see a movie article backed up by postings on USENET. This seems like a similar case. Forum postings are just not considered acceptable secondary sources, per the criteria at WP:Reliable sources.
The very title of the article is Brokeback Mountain cinematic analysis, which suggests this article is intended to be a new systhesis of analytical material, which would make it original research.
I went looking for other critically-acclaimed films that have had similar treatment in Wikipedia, and could find none. Admittedly, my search was hardly exhaustive, but I looked at: It Happened One Night, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film), Gone with the Wind (film), and a couple of others. None have this sort of subjective discussion of their content.
I agree with Yanksox above; this is a good review and analysis, but it's just not currently not Wikipedia material.

eaolson 14:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per eaolson's search on similar well-known and analyzed movies. None of them have this sort of article in the Wikipedia. I fear that the construction of this sort of article is too much of a walk down the path of synthesis of information and original research. Or else, it is critical analysis, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOR. John Reid 18:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (recommendation from the author) to end senseless debate. I will submit details about Brokeback Mountain to other venues. [No, Re-Keep (see "Re-Keep" above).] Of course, the Wikipedia contains vast amounts of subjective information on other topics: the very act of including, or rejecting, an article is a subjective opinion, no matter how well rationalized as being an "objective" choice. I don't see the Wikipedia community evolving beyond this point, any time soon. Perhaps the related policy in the 20th Century, for Encyclopædia Britannica to not describe films at all, was based partly on avoiding such debates about motion-picture details. I prefer that Wikipedia continue to describe films in some detail, since storage space is no longer an issue as it had been with hard-copy Britannica; however, the Wikipedia zeitgeist is not yet ready to describe films in terms of musical composition, symbolism, film editing, cinematography, sound editing, etc. A motion-picture encyclopedia would be a more receptive and sophisticated venue for those details. It is very telling that the most honored film of 2005, some say of all time, cannot be described in detail within today's Wikipedia community: very interesting. -Wikid77 19:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is at least your third vote. And note that attempting to add unsourced self-written commentary into other articles won't get you far, either. --InShaneee 15:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal guard speak

Subject is a forum game played on a single forum. Only linked to by a redirect page and the MGS disambiguation page. (There was a reference on forum game, which I've deleted as part of an overall trimming of the article.) Previously listed for WP:PROD by Ashibaka but de-tagged, so I'm putting it here. æ l e ✆ 2006-06-07t22:59z

Delete non-notable GassyGuy 23:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Google returns only 11 results. Kalani ^[talk] 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 00:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you recommend I do to save this page? --Stripedtiger 05:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the content itself, but with the subject matter. Wikipedia has guidelines on the notability or importance of certain topics, and a forum game from a single forum unfortunately does not meet these criteria. æ l e ✆ 2006-06-08t23:24z

Delete Very, very non-notable. -- Kicking222 00:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the guidlines, it is notable.

An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:

There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject.
Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.

If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being:

of insufficient importance, fame or relevance, or
currently small or a stub, or
obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.) --Stripedtiger 08:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, my house is a community, and a reasonable number of people in it are interested in my dog (both of us, three if you count the dog). Therefore, a literalist reading of (1) above says my dog is notable. Therefore, a literal reading of (1) is a very silly thing to do. -- GWO
Delete, recommend GWO write an interesting article about games he plays with his dog Ashibaka tock 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So that makes five of us interested in the dog? Hm.... æ l e ✆ 2006-06-10t20:18z
  - OK. I confess. I don't actually have a dog. It's a gedanken experiment pet, like Schrodinger's Cat but with a longer life expectancy. But we do look after my fiance's mother's dog from time to time (only occasionally putting it in a box with a quantum mechanical poison dispenser). -- 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 Keep Eluchil404 13:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York Renaissance Faire

Delete. Non-notable event. Association with Jon Lovitz and David Brimmer (who?) is not verified by anything I can find. ... discospinster _talk 23:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Clean Up Added sources: In process of confirming Lovitz reference. -Rensource — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.117.125 (talk • contribs)

Keep & Expand I just started the article so that those with a greater knowledge of the rich history of the NYRF might expand on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grepowell (talk • contribs)

Relisted for clearer consensus Computerjoe 's talk 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the day after this AfD nomination, not even the article creator has returned to edit this article - so much for expansion. No independent coverage of this event as far as I can tell. Kimchi.sg 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Keep, expand per TruthbringerToronto - D'oh! I was so sleepy I missed the sources section. Apologies. *reminds self never again to comment in AfDs at 4 in the morning* Kimchi.sg 14:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Kimchi.sg, I am confused by what you mean by "independent coverage". Did you see the list of sources? Grepowell
Delete I must've missed Kimchi.sg's comments somehow. Keep & Clean Up per TruthbringerToronto --Starionwolf 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the New York Times writes about this event, then it's notable. See the list of references. TruthbringerToronto 00:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep is notable, and deserves to stay. Trm3 11:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 MartinRe 23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

Is not suitable for Wikipedia and Article is biased or has lots of POV Andy Blak 23:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reason above (in response to "keepers" this is not a "bad faith" or "joke" nom, everything alleged is legal and Wikified) Andy Blak 23:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Bad-faith nom. -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 23:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snowy Speedy Keep nonsensical bad faith or possibly a joke nom. SM247 23:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' if you're going to delete christianity, then delete buddhism, islam, bah'ai faith etc. Pure inuyasha 23:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep utterly bad-faith nomination. Kevin_b_er 23:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep obviously. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and censure nominator. Slac speak up! 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a sorry attempt by a satanist to try to take christianity off wikipedia. blatant POV and valdalism. Pathetic..... Pure inuyasha 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Proto///type 14:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily Able-Bodied

Page seems nonsensical, and discusses a neologism that doesn't seem particularly notable JulesH 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on a second reading, is probably original research. There are certainly no sources, and much of it sounds like it is simply the writer's opinion. JulesH 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up It's poorly written, but passes the google test (more than 12,000 hits from a variety of sources). It is a neologism, but seems to have gained enough currency to be notable. Ace of Sevens 00:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above.Voice-of-All 05:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemanth Ramesha

A former teenaged hockey player. A total of one Google hit and it's not about hockey. Vanity/not notable. HollyAm 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very, very, very non-notable. -- Kicking222 02:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Get the puck out of here. -- 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. Proto//type 14:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bushell

(Auto)biography about a non-notable American journalist. --David Iberri (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks notable to me. Ace of Sevens 00:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does the article establish notability? Having written for various papers, being educated at Georgetown, and having covered "the war" does not in itself warrant an encyclopedia article (per WP:BIO). On top of this, I have a strong suspicion that this was originally an autobiography by Bushell himself (based on the POV tone and on phrases such as "One of his most important influences was..."). As such, the article as it stands reads like the prosified resume of a non-notable journalist trying to make a name for himself. (I should note that there is perhaps a conflict of interest in my contributing to this deletion proposal as I have met Bushell through a common acquaintance.) --David Iberri (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's written significant amounts for notable papers. You don't exactly need to be Walter Cronkite to be notable. Ace of Sevens 07:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Walter Cronkite point is a straw man. I have only stated that the article does not establish notability per WP:BIO and WP:AUTO, not that journalists must be as noteworthy as Cronkite to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. However, biographies are commonly included in Wikipedia only for individuals with a reasonable degree of fame. This extends to journalists as well. Merely writing "significant amounts for notable papers" does not a notable journalist make.
      Implicit in my earlier argument above is a deeper concern that, owing to his non-notability, a sufficiently WP:NPOV article cannot be written about Bushell: as it stands, the current autobiography is unverifiable, relying almost wholly on original research. Extensive googling (which FWIW provides only a few dozen relevant results) reveals that neither he nor his works have been the subject of review. Thus, it would be impossible to elaborate on Bushell beyond his being an American journalist without violating Wikipedia:No original research. Non-notability, unverifiability, and the subsequent impossibility of writing an article without violating NPOV and NOR are sufficient reasons to Delete. --David Iberri (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:VAIN also applies here. --David Iberri (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - We seem to disagree on what the cut-off for notability is. I see he's written plenty for some prominent papers and won an award for his work on organ transplants. I think that's good enough. You apparently don't. Ace of Sevens 02:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to have assumed that Google's results for "Andrew Bushell" all refer to the same person. As I alluded to above, this isn't the case. The individual who won an award for organ transplant work is Andrew Bushell, MD. The individual who posted a vanity article to Wikipedia is Andrew Bushell, journalist. These are two different people.
        Now that we've established that, and given my additional arguments above regarding WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BIO, can we agree that this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia and should be deleted? Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A vanity piece, he needs to win some awards or have other people notice his work enough to know who he is. Williamb 14:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a resume or CV. I'm not sure if this is relevant, but a cross check reveals that while the article states "he moved to Afganistan and Pakistan to help cover the war for the Economist," the Columbia Journalism Review states he was a "free-lance writer who spent ten months covering the conflict in Afghanistan." RapidMotion 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I changed my mind because the only Google results that are actually him seem to be articles he wrote. There's no evidence anyone is discussing his work. Ace of Sevens 20:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not paper, if you care about Google hits you ignore the 100,000 years or so of human history before 1995. Snugspout 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not paper, but it does make a reasonable attempt at being an encyclopedia, one with certain inclusion requirements for its articles. "Wikipedia is not paper" is not a valid argument against deletion in the face of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BIO, and WP:VERIFY. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - if you care about Google hits you ignore the 100,000 years or so of human history before 1995 Right, because as is well known, Google automatically filters out every web page that mentions anything taking place before 1995, including the Middle Paleolithic period 100,000 years ago. [48] Whoops, that slipped through. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, nor is it a journalist's directory. Standard alumni-association bio of a working foreign correspondent, otherwise non-notable.--Calton | Talk 07:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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