Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 11: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 20:19, 18 October 2022

< April 10	April 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

April 11

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 (e) 14:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number 53 (webcomic)

The first of 4 webcomics I bring to you today is Number 53, found here. If you have a look at Talk:Number 53 (webcomic), you'll see the article author noting why he believes the article to be notable, being that it is linked from The Webcomic List, however, I disagree. Being that the Webcomic list is merely a webcomic link site which hosts entries for thousands of webcomics. This is not a notable website, having been established just over 3 months ago, a look on Google for "number 53" webcomic only finds 30 links, all of them trivial. - Hahnch e n 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as author's name is "Creamer," which fails WP:LOL_CREAMER. Or as non-notable. Aplomado - U T C 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another nn webcomic.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. what's with all the webcomics? delete as per nom.--Strothra 02:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Pureblade | ^Θ 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and I have no idea what you're talking about Aplomado. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 04:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing more than cruft. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. It doesn't even have its own domain. --David.Mestel 07:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Metamagician3000 09:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marketleap.com results (limited presence; realize that isn't the standard, also due to other tests), and per nom. MikeBriggs 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Computerjoe 's talk 18:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's so great why does he have to host it on Blogspot?
Transwiki to Comixpedia, then Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 02:21, 16 April 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 (e) 14:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Rusty Life

Are UTurn Creative Studios a notable artistic entity? What about the webcomic they produce, found here? You can take a look at their forums here, where you'll find the webcomic author (who also wrote this article) mostly talking to himself. A google search for "a rusty life" brings back 49 unique hits whilst Alexa ranks it at over 2 million. Wikipedia is not the place for these nn webcomic entries. - Hahnch e n 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 00:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL!! He took the trash out to a Chinese restaurant. What a comical situation! Delete as non-notable. Aplomado - UTC 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "As of this writing, ARL has won no awards." It's only a matter of time. Aplomado - UTC 00:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure it'll get an award soon. Games N Stuff and Cool Black Sheep are more creative names than some of the other crap in some webcomics. --Optichan 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 01:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. per nom--Strothra 01:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Pureblade | ^Θ 03:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 04:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --David.Mestel 07:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Marketleap.com unofficial test (average presence; and double-checking other tests - first of the 25 hits I got from Metacrawler is for the actual website, 2nd is a sponsered link and 3rd is Wiki (rest look like Rusty or UTurn links). MikeBriggs 17:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Optichan 16:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Comixpedia, then Delete. It's redlinked from a couple of their pages, so it should work well for everybody. -Colin Kimbrell 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 02:23, 16 April 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 (e) 14:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Zone

A website hosted on Freewebs, this webcomic can be seen here. Is this website notable? Do these Sega inspired gif animations warrant an encyclopedia article? If you do a search of "The Final Zone" finalbeyond (finalbeyond being the author) you get back 13 unique links. - Hahnch e n 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hosted on Freewebs does it for me. Royboy crashfan 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like this one could have some copyright issues as well. Aplomado - U T C 00:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per royboy - pm_shef 00:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much any sprite comic is going to have copyright issues, but that's a concern for the spriter, not us. However, this webcomic clearly doesn't meet WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn webcomic.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per blnguyen. --Strothra 01:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Pureblade | ^Θ 03:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another nn comic ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ardenn 06:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Abe Dashiell (and Marketleap, and Google test, and etc.). MikeBriggs 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knew what to do with this one as soon as I clicked the link. Delete. --Optichan 16:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Comixpedia, then Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Comixpedia, Why should it matter that it's on Freewebs? Where you host a comic does not affect how reputable it is. The comic does not violate any copyright laws because it is a parody, and no profit is being made from it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ash Loomis (talk • contribs) .
Delete nn webcomic.--Jersey Devil 02:26, 16 April 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 (e) 14:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Kharana

This is a Sonic the Hedgehog fan fiction webcomic (related to the nomination above), hosted on a forum thread. Yes, it doesn't even bother with a free web host, you can see it here on the Friday the 13th Forum. Now the forum has about 1500 members, which might make it barely notable enough for an article about the forum itself, but a singular webcomic thread?! And it's not even popular on that forum, about 10 different people have ever replied to that thread. Also note that you'll see Wikipedia linked prominently in original webcomic post, they're using a Wikipedia page as a handy free "About Us" page, which also generates a handy little promotional tool by appearing in the List of webcomics. I would prod this, being so unnotable, but being hosted on a forum, I decided not to take the chance. - Hahnch e n 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wholly non-notable. Royboy crashfan 00:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as so non-notable it's almost notable for it's non-notability. Aplomado - U T C 00:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Appears to almost be a fancomic of The Final Zone, which itself isn't sufficiently notable for an article. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass any notability tests : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 01:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. not notable--Strothra 01:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and 1500 isn't enough for a forum to get an article ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Sheehan (Talk) 04:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 10:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like the comparison to another non-notable webcomic though. "It is a lot different to the old version, and is nearly enirely separate from Sonic the Hedgehog and The Final Zone". --Optichan 16:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too obscure for even Comixpedia. -Colin Kimbrell 19:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Blink484 22:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad for nn webcomic.--Jersey Devil 02:28, 16 April 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 was delete. —Verrai 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy Jackson

The primary reasons I am proposing deletion is because Wikipedia is not a memorial, as well as the article failing to provide notability. Thousands of people died during Hurricane Katrina, and tenfold more were affected by the hurricane. Some might argue for his notability in that he briefly became an international news story on the personal affects. First, this isn't Wikinews, and second, his being on the news was being at the right place at the right time. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article recounts the experiences of a person during a prominent news event. No reason for notability other than having been seen on television during this time period. -Jmh123 22:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that his story was substantially covered in multiple places and the fact that, even recently, there've been follow up articles on him, makes him a cut above the average Katrina victim. I don't believe WP:NOT applies, as the man is not deceased, however I certainly don't feel we should have articles on every Katrina victim, either. And I think, in light of the subject matter, the nom should reconsider the phrase "right place at the right time".--Sethacus 22:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is neither Wikinews nor a memorial. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Should have been deleted after the first nom. --Strothra 20:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sethacus.Lustead 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 07:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very sad story, but subject does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:BIO. Newsworthy is not always encyclopedic. — Satori Son 01:56, 13 October 2007 (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 (e) 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheists of Silicon Valley (2nd nomination)

Delete Seems pretty clearly to be a vanity article. I can't see how this is at all encyclopedic or how it meets any of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Looks like pretty clear Vanispamcruftisement pm_shef 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VSCA and WP:NN club. Royboy crashfan 00:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But break out the laundry hampers, because the socks will be here REAL soon, just like the last nomination. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STrong Delete - obvious reasons - I'll keep an eye out for irregularities.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deletionists of Silicon Valley ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, vanity. Sheehan (Talk) 04:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "claims to fame" section of the article provides enough notability. Kirbytime 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've appeared on radio shows and in newspapers, probably more than ASV. Does that make me noteable enough for an article? No. pm_shef 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; quite. I've appeared on radio and newspapers, have been interviewed on TV three times, and have over a dozen publication credits. Does that make me notable? I think not. RGTraynor 15:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 07:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Claim to Fame section makes a more than enough case of natability. Imagine a world where everyone has free access to the sum total of human knowledge: this is knowledge. Loom91 09:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mirror for the web, which is the only reason I can think of to keep this. Being mentioned in newspapers and magazines isn't enough, they have column inches to fill and may be reduced to burbling about inanities on a slow news day. And similarly to Pm shef, I've appeared on BBC TV, been interviewed on BBC radio, and been quoted by the BBC, Guardian, CNN, etc. So it's pretty easy really to get in the media. Average Earthman 09:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Metamagician3000 10:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Since I've been on CBS a few times can I have my own article yet? RasputinAXP c 11:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just like with non-notable groups of Christians, Muslims and Wiccas. -- Kjkolb 11:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Utterly non-notable. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 13:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but this is a case study about how flawed notability is. The real problem with this article is that there's not really anything to write about the subject. This is a perma-stub. Mangojuice 13:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be vanity and non notable IrishGuy 14:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what everyone else has covered--Tollwutig 14:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pace Kirbytime, there's knowledge, and then there's trivia. I don't want to know the location of every puddle in Nunavut, either - but it's still knowledge. Fishhead64 20:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity.--Ton e 21:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone (Calton?) seems to be coordinating attacks on atheist Wikipedia entries. [1] Human455 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All your edits are pro-atheism, so it isn't as though you don't have an agenda yourself. IrishGuy 08:26, 14 April 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 (redundancy). – Rob ert 00:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana University (disambiguation)

Its a copy of Indiana University, but not as good. Fosnez 00:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dab page serving little or no purpose. Royboy crashfan 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary disambig page. All this info is and should be in the Indiana University page. Aplomado - U T C 00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per aplomado.--Strothra 01:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uh...how can you disambig this? del. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only reason for a disambig would be would be IUP, but that's already at the top of Indiana University. Jesuschex 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. JIP | Talk 05:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Probably making it a redirect page also wouldn't be a bad idea. However, chances are little that it would be used. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as redundant. MikeBriggs 17:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. DarthVader 22:28, 11 April 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. Mailer Diablo 02:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reserve Bank of Fiji Building

According to the Suva article this is no longer the tallest building on the island (see here). I think that removes its only notable characteristic. -- Scientizzle 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If that's its only notable characteristic, how about we write an article on the new tallest building? Royboy crashfan 00:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fourteen floors? Holiday Inns are taller than that. Aplomado - U T C 00:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a stub and can be expanded. I say give it some time.--Strothra 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is the second most remarkable landmark - then it is good enough.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't sit back and watch Fiji get slammed once again. Let's give them some credit for building an even taller building than this. Not to mention that it is a major landmark in Suva. But beyond all that, if we get rid of this, do we then delete some of the buildings on our Tallest buildings in the United States article? Because we have an article on each and every one of the 50 buildings on the list and 49 of them are not the tallest. -- JJay 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you are so concerned about Fiji, would you consider expanding the article? The current stub text is essentially the same as when the article was created in 2004. --Ajdz 04:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment makes me wonder why you are participating here if you are not "concerned about Fiji"? Having said that, I added two lines of text to the article and some links. Now it's your turn. -- JJay 13:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and calm down. --Ajdz 16:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Enjoy the new article and I hope others pick up the gauntlet, perhaps expanding our coverage to the top-50 buildings in Fiji like in the US.-- JJay 18:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge) I would agree with Strothra, if not for the fact that the article has existed since June 2004 (almost two years!) without any additional information being added. --Ajdz 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once an article is notable i don't think it can become unnotable. We are an encyclopedia NOT a newspaper. It was notable, therefore is notable. Mike _{(T C)} 03:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was at one time the tallest, that's good enough. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was at one time the tallest, so I say keep. It's still notable, but that's because it used to be the tallest building. Thing can rarely "lose" notability. Jesuschex 04:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep somewhat notable - deleting it would be too drastic. Sheehan (Talk) 04:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JJay, Stothra, and Jesuschex. Grutness...wha? 05:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is practically the same as it was when it was first created. If there was anything else notable to say about it when it was the largest building, I would have thought it would have already been written about, the page has looked the same since June 2004 as another user said. Radagast83 05:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Article may be considered notable as it refers to thing that was once notable. Notability doesn't perish. There must be something about it more belonging to the period when it was tallest, the reasons why it was made, etc. However, as the article has remained unattended for so long, my guts aren't very sure whether it would turn out to be a worthwhile article. Obviously, what is written currently needs to be edited and corrected. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand if possible. Seems fairly notable. --David.Mestel 07:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JJay, Stothra, Jesuschex and Grutness. David Sneek 07:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. If a subject was notable to begin with then it does not lose its notability over time. Ever heard of Historical Interest? Anyway, it should be given time to expand before passing judgments on notability.Loom91 09:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, isn't the second tallest building in Fiji notable? It definitely is. If that's the case, then we might as well nominate the Empire State Building and Central Plaza, Hong Kong for deletion as they are not the tallest buildings in the country, per JJay, Stothra, Jesuschex and Grutness. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the tallest building on Fiji doesn't seem to equate to notability and nor does being the former tallest building on Fiji. Being among the tallest buildings in the world at a particular time in history would be notable for me. MLA 09:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge, avoid cultural bias. That said, Terence, don't set up straw men like "we might as well nominate the Empire State Building and Central Plaza, Hong Kong" because those buildings are notable in their own right aside from their height and you know it. That said, I don't see why there shouldn't be a Reserve Bank of Fiji article about the bank itself and then have the building entry merged into that. I may just decide to do that later, then we can all be happy. RasputinAXP c 11:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rasputin. That seems to me the most appropriate action here. Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rasputin, since both articles are very small -- Astrokey44|talk 12:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aplomado. The tallest building in a nation (however tiny the building or the nation) is notable. A not-very-tall building in a not-very-large nation is not, ad hominem attacks on cultural and national bias notwithstanding. RGTraynor 15:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RasputinAXP. MikeBriggs 18:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (name didn't seem to stick)[reply]
Merge and add a photo. Whoever goes to Fiji in near future...--Ton e 21:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "what was once notable, is always notable" Jcuk 22:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Loom91. DarthVader 22:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It remains Fiji's first skyscraper. Hawkestone 00:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former tallest building in an independent nation with a population nearly a million? Seems plenty notable to me. Kestenbaum 00:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because Fiji is small doesn't mean their former-highest building isn't as important as those of any other country. I'm prepared to do some work on this in the next few days if it still needs it. In fact, take a look at Category:Oceania buildings and structures stubs and you'll see many other articles of even less notable buildings. Should we haul all of those in here too? PageantUpdater 04:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the tallest buildings in Fiji are as relevant as the oldest houses in America. i.e. pretty insignificant on a global scale, but of some local interest. -- GWO
Merge with Reserve Bank of Fiji. Both the articles are short and would be more useful if merged. utcursch | talk 03:54, 13 April 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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tilford Kutch

NN ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although he did establish the burgeoning metropolis of Cokeville, Wyoming. Aplomado - U T C 00:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the founder of a small town and a local trader is not notable. Royboy crashfan 00:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Poorly written article and clearly nn.--Strothra 01:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete founding a town is sorta-notable. Not really though. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Sheehan (Talk) 04:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Founding a town is very notable. Loom91 09:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as non-notable. I would say redirect to the town article and mention him there, but I don't want to split the vote causing no consensus. A redirect can be made after deletion. -- Kjkolb 11:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to town article. RGTraynor 15:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RGTraynor. Fishhead64 20:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, w/cleanup and expansion. Founding a town is good enough for me. -Colin Kimbrell 19:41, 12 April 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. – Rob ert 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scout (LC newspaper)

High school newspaper with no claims to notability. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 01:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7, no claim to notability. Royboy crashfan 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Almost nonsense. Completely not notable.--Strothra 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slow delete - a7 does not apply to publications, only people (and perhaps analogously to nn animals).ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete: I almost wanted to say WP:BAD, but it's not even good enough (bad enough?) for that. Jesuschex 04:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nn, useless, bad... Sheehan (Talk)
Delete, non-notable school newspaper. JIP | Talk 05:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per just click on the thing. Danny Lilithborne 07:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 --Ter e nc e Ong 09:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. Metamagician3000 09:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slow delete. Alright, this is a NN school newspaper, but it's neither illiterate, filled with hate speech, nonsensical or anything of the sort; let's dial it back a notch. RGTraynor 15:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable school newspaper, as Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Don't forget to {{subst:orfud}} that image when the article is gone. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with whatever school its published by Jcuk 22:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 22:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete per Jcuk. No redirect. utcursch | talk 03:55, 13 April 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) 07:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's notes
The comments of some very new users were disregarded in determining the result of this debate (Heatherb, Tail3736, Pvision). The comments of all anonymous users were also disregarded.

Fireweed Democracy Project

Nn spamvertisement for online political project. Alexa ranking of 3,180,738. Fails to meet WP:WEB. Delete --Hetar 01:12, 11 April 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}}.

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely nn.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting this would be an error. This is a genuine description of a cross-partisan political project in Canada. Fireweed's initial roundtable session was attended by a good cross-section of academic and political experts, and recorded and telecast by Canada's Parliamentary channel. This is an initial entry, which I am sure will be improved by others and over time, but the information is intended to be balanced and informative. User:Rick Anderson 02:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is actually Rick@asci.ca who has 8 edits to date. DarthVader 22:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently it's not. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire!

04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Any time a group of cross-partisan experts/citizens get together, it is noteworthy.

Delete does not establish notability. Danny Lilithborne 07:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Allow some time to establish notability? Currently, a cleanup seems more appropriate than deletion.Loom91 09:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia's for things that are notable, not for things that aren't, but might someday be. RGTraynor 15:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sure hope we shall hear from some knowledgable Canadians in this discussion before people who have little first-hand knowledge summarily censor a legitimate political entry. The individuals involved in this are well-known, the fact that they have engaged in this discussion together is significant, the effort is legitimate, it is broadly-based, it is not partisan. But perhaps it is more fun to just lob judgement from a grand distance. User:Rick Anderson 19:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting again? DarthVader 22:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep minus the exlinks, based on involvement by notable political figures. Gazpacho 20:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Loom91. DarthVader 22:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, Darth, changed the second vote to a comment. And yes, 8 edits, and will do more if needed, hope that this entry can remain here in a manner which conforms to wiki purposes and standards, feedback appreciated Rick Anderson 16:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keepany time a group of cross-partisan experts get together to make a better system, it is noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatherb (talk • contribs)
Keep seems to me that this entry is a good introduction to a new project, there are some very notable Candian figures involved including Preston Manning, John Reid, Gordon Gibson and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.147.66 (talk • contribs)
Keepseems like a worthy, noteable project. read
Keepthis event happened, the people involved are important figures and it is an interesting project. william
Keep I agree with the above. The information is valid and noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvision (talk • contribs)

Note: Beware rampant sockpuppetry. All of the "Keep" votes after Rick's comment are the users' first edits to Wikipedia. Sandstein 07:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus WP:NOT a soapbox. Sandstein 07:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This notability business is silly. Wikipedia is not limited in space like Britannica. Only 2 Questions should be asked when keeping an article: 1. Is it verifiable? 2. Will anyone outside the project ever come here and type in the title looking for information.--God Ω War 06:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, that's not the case God of war. There's server space, and server load issues. There's copyright issues. As well, your question number 2 is essentially notability: if nobody will ever come to see it, it's not notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:34, 17 April 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. – Rob ert 15:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Afshar

Vanity bio -- complete with numerous presumably-for-SEO links -- of Yet Another Digital Entrepeneur. Gets 54 hits on Google -- the first calling him a scammer, and the second this article. Calton | Talk 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, WP:VAIN, and WP:NOT a soapbox. Royboy crashfan 01:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. vanity, bio, waste of server space. --Strothra 01:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this strong vanity.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete completely nn, vanity too. Sheehan (Talk) 04:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete "Robert Afshar is a pioneer..." I pretty much stopped reading after this point. WP:VAIN, plus only entry by contributor. Danny Lilithborne 07:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Founded several corporations, wrote 5 books. More than enough notable, considering Wiki is not paper. Loom91 09:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, vanity, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:31, 11 April 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) 07:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MYktm.com

Apparently non-notable Nepalese website. 818 Google hits. Prod tag pulled (twice, actually) by the original author without explanation. Delete. DMG413 01:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. Alexa rank of 1 million plus. Royboy crashfan 01:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'm generally strongly in favour of deleting websites, but as far as Nepal goes, there is unlikely to be widespread internet access there, which might explain why the numbers are extremely low - when it may possibly still be very notable for Nepalese standards.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Non notable website. regardless of it's google hit count, notability is not established IN the article.--Strothra 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I agree with blnguyen, but I also agree with strotha that notability wasn't established. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Make that Alexa rating 1.8 million! - Gl e n ^T _C 08:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep. Let's please avoid systemic bias. Notability is established right at the beginning, it hosts Nepal's most popular chat room. Obviously a Nepal website will have a low Alexa ranking, from when is Alexa an acid test? Wikipedia is for people of all country, not for the rich countries with high internet access. This is even more notable considering the current political situation in Nepal. Let's look beyond our borders to the global picture, not everyone has the same kind of oppurtunities. Loom91 09:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Let's try this then; is there any verification for the article's claims that this is, indeed, Nepal's most popular chat site? My vote may change if I see some. RGTraynor 15:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete for the same reasons that Blnguyen stated above. It needs sourcing, and despite the systemic bias evident in this, there'd be something about it somewhere. RasputinAXP c 11:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per RasputinAXP Computerjoe 's talk 20:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Rasputin (and Bln and Swat, too; share the wealth...). Joe 03:46, 12 April 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 (e) 17:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Antalek

This article is not encyclopaedic. I deleted it 2 or 3 times on fr:Wikipédia Markadet fr 01:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:VANITY WP:BIO. Royboy crashfan 01:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly encyclopaedic, not deemed important by some people, and not about a famous person. Note birthdate of person wiki'd. Probably a rather creative birthday present.68.34.230.216 01:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. Royboy crashfan

01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete --Markadet fr 01:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Why is this an article? Bio, vanity; thank you for attempting to contribute to wikipedia please try again. Please watch this article. User is attempting to delete the AfD tag.--Strothra 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete While this may not be a world famous person, the person is rather well known through the Albany, NY region.User:Adam Riley 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, you NEED to provide evidence of that beyond one mention in the local newspaper. Her own website doesn't count. Powers 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You can think of a better birthday present than this. --Strothra 05:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely nn, vanity.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure she's a very nice person, but just not notable enough for Wikipedia. The "Relationships" section almost constitutes an attack, too. Not to mention the fact that it's completely unverified. Powers 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not an attack since she proudly admits this, and has vouched accuracy of entry. (unsigned entry by Adam Riley) 03:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read WP:NOR? Powers 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sign of notability --Ajdz 02:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any strong notablilty of this person. Vanity. Sheehan (Talk) 04:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:VAIN, WP:NOT, WP:NN and just plain common sense. Danny Lilithborne 07:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn (nn but more so). Not speedy, though, since it does assert notability. --David.Mestel 07:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. May I just suggest that we try to be a little bit cognizant of the subject's feelings, and assume good faith on the part of User:Adam Riley? It's becoming clear that he just wanted to do something nice for a friend, and it appears that some people are starting to interpret this AfD as a discussion on Ms. Antalek's worth as a person, rather than as an encyclopedia article. I know it's not, and you know it's not, but not everyone knows that. I'm just asking everyone to be cognizant of the people involved. Powers 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes and for that reason I am changing my vote to speedy delete because it is also borderline vandalism and complete nonsense. It was created with absolutely no intention of good faith in contributing to the Wiki project. --Strothra 15:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Read User:Adam Riley's edits to the article and you will quickly see there is no 'good faith' here. Tyhopho 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read them. I don't see anything that was obviously done in bad faith. Powers 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try this - and read the last section of the human relationships. if you still think this is done in good faith either this person needs their head read or you need to understand that good faith does not involve nonsense like that. Tyhopho 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that at first, too, but Mr. Riley corrected me above. Apparently it's a little inside joke between the two of them. Powers 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A debate on Mr. Riley's intent is beside the point, as much so as any need to be warm and fuzzy towards him. This is a barely-sourced article about an obscure, NN lady who looks after crabs in a small museum in a small town. I've seen articles that were more NN, but not many. RGTraynor 16:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tollwutig 15:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy delete per A7, article does not satisfy WP:BIO guidelines for inclusion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 is only for articles that make no assertion of notability. Powers 22:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not seeing any assertion of notability, at least in the current version. MCB 05:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And I'm not just afraid of the clowns. Fluit 18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This sort of nonsense should be swiftly nipped in the bud. Fishhead64 20:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very obvious case of nn/vanity. DarthVader 22:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, pretty much a classic example of CSD:A7. Personally, I think it's more respectful to the subject for it to have been speedily deleted than to have a long pointless debate on AfD about an article which has no chance of surviving. MCB 05:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly and whole heartedly seconded Tyhopho 14:02, 12 April 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 (e) 17:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hernan Lopez

Untranslated Spanish article from WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. Delete unless translated and notability explained. Kusma (討論) 01:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newly created article on March 23, apparently Spanish. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish. Bio about artist dedicated to tango. AnFu 10:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem notable. Parts of this don't make any sense to me... I'm gonna leave it for now. Grand master ka 01:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a rough translation from AltaVista Babel Fish:

Hernan Lopez, born Argentinean the 15-04-1977, centered multifacético artist at first in the architecture and that soon would deposit all its creative load in the tango. An example paradigmatico of the joker of fourth degree is considered. Founder of the interpretativo system of the personality that consists of being made the estupido one to hide that he is natural estupido. It caused that by Frachela comparison it is seen as but studio illustrates cultor of metodo Stanislavski of the actor, and that Marley, TV conductor, like a French estructuralista. Their feats like tango dancer were so important that until a letter "Milonguero of Building" was dedicated to him. A controversy with respect to its doctrine and thought exists, in as much to the responsibility, given the characteristic equality differentials with Emilio J. Rizzo. In order to desmarañar this intríngulis that worries to the modern historian has mentioned a witness, companion of both: Tomás Peisker. Tomás I declare: "they grew up literally together, in any case he is stupid to say that some I copy myself of another one, they lack the encefalica mace to carry out this cerebral process", a corchea, four semifusas, greater DO.

Based on that text, I don't see any suggestion of notability. Delete. Royboy crashfan 01:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And I recommend that "deposit all its creative load in the tango" become a new internet meme. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to create an internet meme: (1) Click here. (2) Click once in the large text box and type

'''Deposit all its creative load in the tango''' is an internet meme created by [[Babel Fish (website)|Babelfish]]. It is currently gaining in popularity.

(3) Click "Save". (4) Check back periodically to remove prods. Remember to log out before you remove the prod; it looks amateurish if prods are removed by named users. (5) There you go! Henning Makholm 13:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS, Henning. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Spanish if it's not there and let them deal with it, otherwise Delete. Danny Lilithborne 07:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- Ned Scott 07:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article lacks the encefalica mace to carry out any cerebral process, let alone this one. Delete it to hell and gone. RGTraynor 16:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGtraynor Blink484 22:11, 13 April 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 as WP:CSD#A2: same article in Spanish at es:Juego de la Distribución de la Cerveza. Kusma (討論) 03:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juego de la Distribución de la Cerveza

Spanish text from WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. Delete if nobody translates it, reconsider if someone does. Kusma (討論) 01:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article ? in Spanish.--File Éireann 18:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish. Unfortunately, in spite of the tempting title of 'Game of the Distribution of Beer', this is not a beer drinking game. Although surely not as much fun, it sounds interesting. It's a "Game Simulation of Beer Distribution" used to teach, learn, and explore principles of management, production, supply, demand, and inventory management. It potentially relates to Game Theory, Economics, & Management. Short. AnFu 10:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rough AltaVista Babel Fish translation:

The game of the distribution of the beer is a game of the simulation used in atmospheres of education to demonstrate a number of dominant principles of the management of the source chain. Fact in front with the uncertain demand for the beer and and a chain of gradual source, the players is that they fight to avoid to work of product whereas they try to avoid to finance great inventories. The game introduces quickly to students to several important concepts of the management of the chain of source including turnpikes, cooperation, and prognosis

WP:NFT? Royboy crashfan 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone translates it and adds a source. Bob A 03:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beer Distribution Game exists already, has verifiable links, and is more informative. — TKD::Talk 03:40, 11 April 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 deleted by Elf-friend as nonsense. Henning Makholm 13:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hibbo

Deprodded without comment. Neologism/dicdef.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 00:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable--Strothra 01:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism. Royboy crashfan 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not-verifiable, non-notable, nonsense. Complete contents: "A nickname given to Ginger beard bearing individuals who thrive on Curry and Beer. The Hibbo is always keen to know what you are eating and if you will be joining him in an interlude of alcohol consumption before returning to his cave. Most commonly found in the Clifton area of Bristol" Yeah. --Lockley 02:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment haha, yeah it's borderline vandalism. --Strothra 02:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-funny joke. JIP | Talk 05:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:PN. Danny Lilithborne 07:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Added {{db-nonsense}}. If that doesn't go through, delete. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WP:BJAODN. :) Loom91 09:30, 11 April 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 per WP:CSD#A2 since this is at es:Ingeniería Logística and we have Logistic engineering already. Kusma (討論) 21:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ingeniería Logística

Untranslated Spanish from WP:PNT. Delete if untranslated, reconsider if somebody translates this. Kusma (討論) 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rough AltaVista Babel Fish translation:

Logistic engineering takes care of the science of the logistics. The logistics talk about the purchase, transport, distribution, storage of raw materials. The handling of all these activities efficiently is for an effective organization the main question in the mind of any logistic engineer. Diverse measures of operation are used to examine the effectiveness of the logistics of an organization. The measurement of more popular operation and extensively used is the landed cost. The landed cost is the total cost to buy, transport, raw materials of storage and that they distribute, half-finished and finished merchandise. Another measurement of equally important operation is the mark of the client. It is the percentage of the demand of client who immediately is satisfied. The logistics are generally service operations of the cost-center, but it provides value via the client satisfaction. It can lose that value quickly if the client is not satisfied. The client of the end can include another center of the process or the work within the manufacture, a warehouse in where to the articles or the final client are stored that will use the product. Another much more popular derivative and a complete use of the logistic term that has appeared in recent years is the provision chain. The provision chain also watches an efficient linking of the same one with the distribution of the purchase and the organization. While Logistic sight single steps with the provision and the distribution immediately related, the provision chain watches manifold escalones/etapas, the right of the acquisition of the raw materials to the final distribution of merchandise or products finished for the client. One is based on the basic premise of which the activities of the provision and the distribution if they estan integrated with the manufacture and the logistics operations, can have like result better capacity of gain for the organization. The local minimums of the total cost of the industrial operation obtain replaced by the global minimums of the total cost of the whole chain, giving one better capacity of gain for the members of chain and of it lowers the costs for products there.

Delete, we already have Logistic engineering. We could, however, transwiki to Spanish Wikipedia. Royboy crashfan 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to es wiki, since we already have Logistic Engineering. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trannswiki per above. Sheehan (Talk) 04:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it. I believe that this text is from the Spanish Wikipedia. According to es Wiki edit summaries, this article was originally created over there as a translation of the English version. There's no need to ship it back. What a vicious circle. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:36, 11 April 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 and speedy delete as non-English text on another language Wikipedia. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sociedad Americana del Control de la Producción y el Inventario (APICS)

Untranslated Spanish from WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. Delete if untranslated, reconsider if translation reveals something interesting. Kusma (討論) 01:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article ? in Spanish.--File Éireann 18:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish. Ti: American Society for the Control of Production and Inventory. Please note that American in this context may refer to North, Central, and South America, as opposed to only U.S.A. AnFu 23:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rough AltaVista Babel Fish translation:

APICS the Association for the Administration of Operations, is nonlucrative international an educative organization, offers the certification, the programs, training instruments and to make contact with enemy the opportunities to increase the performance of place of work. He was founded on 1957 like the American Society of Production and Control of existence, and has at the moment about 77,000 individual and corporative members in on 25,000 world-wide organizations. APICS defines to the Management of the Operations as "the field of the study that is centered in the planning, programming, and control of an organization with the study of concepts of the engineering of design, industrial engineering, information systems of management, management of the quality, management of production, management of inventory, accounting, and as functions to the organization affect ootras" (dictionary of APICS, 11ma edition). The main push of the APICS knowledge is how to improve corporative benefits eliminating costos.A difference of several consultadoras companies, this knowledge does not require the increase in sales, nor in involuntary unemployment of employees to improve the gains. APICS also considers the authority in systems of management of business such as MRP and ERP, Just in Time, and defects zero. APICS grants three designations professional: CPIM (certified in the management of the production and inventory), CIRM (certified in the integrated management of resource) and CSCP (professional certificate of the provision chain). The CFPIM (Certificó to Man in the Administration of the Production and the Inventory) only has was obtained by about 1200 teachers of the body of APICS CPIM of the knowledge.

Based on WP:CORP, I'd have to say delete. Royboy crashfan 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep appears to be a non-profit for training in administrative and managemant positions. The numbers seem to make it pretty good. I say keep on PNT. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This comes from WP:PNT. We can't actually force anybody to translate anything, so we just list things on AfD after two weeks because we don't know what else to do with these untranslated articles. I'm all for keeping the article if somebody translates it, but just letting it sit around hasn't worked in the last two weeks, why should it work now? Kusma (討論) 04:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems weakly notable, but transwiki to es:Sociedad Americana del Control de la Producción y el Inventario. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a Spanish translation of the article we already have at APICS. Looks like someone translated it over to Spanish, and now has brought it back. Fan1967 20:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So it is notable and good enough to be transwikied to eswiki, while not useful here? Good, transwiki then. Kusma (討論) 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have worked with production control and inventory management systems for 20 years. This organization is the standard-setter for these areas of management. Anyone who manages large-scale manufacturing operations will tell you it's quite notable. Fan1967 20:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to es: sounds good to me. Kotepho 19:27, 17 April 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. – Rob ert 23:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend

Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Boatfarm 01:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Article could be updated, but, yes it is a dictionary article--Strothra 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless completely rewritten to look more like an encyclopedia entry rather than a dictionary entry. Royboy crashfan 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is currently a list of dictionary definitions. CheckerBoard 02:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There is nothing wrong with this page, which goes well beyond a dicdef and includes cultural aspects that can obviously be expanded. I also note that the nom joined wikipedia in the last 2 hours and has made no productive edits, but did find time to vandalize the fool page. [2]. -- JJay 02:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that this page has been nominated twice before and the last time looks to be a near unanimous keep Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Girlfriend_(2nd_nomination). -- JJay 02:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does either fact have any bearing on the merits of the nomination? I don't see how. A dicdef is a dicdef regardless of when Boatfarm signed up for an account. RGTraynor 16:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My vote stands. Anytime I see someone join wikipedia just to vandalise a page and nominate an article on AfD I vote speedy keep. I'll reserve AGF for non-vandal, non-puppet accounts. -- JJay 18:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. I hope you don't mind if by contrast I base my votes on the merits of the argument and the evidence presented. RGTraynor 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contrast as my vote is based on the merits of the argument and evidence presented. Hence the first sentence I wrote concerning the cultural angle and expandability. I just add speedy to the keep to reflect the vandal/sock puppet aspects. -- JJay 21:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't give any more information than dictionaries already give, or if it does it's very minor. This doesn't look like an encyclopedia article to me. 152.163.100.203 02:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: anon vote -- Samir (the scope) 03:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef.--Zxcvbnm 02:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, agree with JJay, bad faith nomination, see above links -- Samir (the scope) 03:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is a dicdef, and I can't imagine ever being much more than original research. Also, if I understand AfD correctly, once there is a delete vote, there cannot be a speedy keep, yes? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than a dictionary definition. Golfcam 04:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It only barely goes beyond a dictionary definition. If kept, it should (and, I believe, could) be expanded majorly. Furthermore, I think it is essential to the boyfriend, marriage, significant other, etc. group. Jesuschex 04:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a reason for this to exist since wikipedia isn't a dictionary. It doesn't go beyond the definition of the word, too. Sheehan (Talk) 04:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Merecat 06:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Important phenomenon that must be treated thoroughly to help readers understand twentieth- and twenty-first century mating habits in Western (and several other) cultures. David Sneek 07:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Chambers defines girlfriend as "sweetheart, or girl who is often one's companion: (girl friend) a girl's young female friend;". This article goes into rather more detail, though it could say more. --David.Mestel 07:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Checkerboard - come to think of it why do we still have boyfriend which is similar in nature? - Gl e n ^T _C 08:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even though the current article is insufficient, this is a valid and expandable topic. "Girlfriends" and "boyfriends" are concepts which can only exist in a specific type of society, and not, for instance, in a society where sexes are raised separately from a certain age and all marriages are arranged. I am convinced that there are anthropologists or sociologists who have studied this type of relationship, and that the article can be expanded. u p p l a n d 09:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep. Certainly encyclopaedia material. This is a cultural phenomena. It's a dicdef in current state, but that's reason to expand, not delete. Loom91 09:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - borderline encyclopedic. Metamagician3000 10:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly a notable topic, even if the current article is somewhat skimpy. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely notable topic, expand, encyclopaedic. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uppland et. al. Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep would like to see more discussion of cultural impact of the use of the term particularly in different countries around the world Tyhopho 15:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand: the article doesn't mention "girlfriend" as non-sexual female friend among women, as it is also used. More than a dicdef. ProhibitOnions 15:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dicdef or not, it's an important article. Should be expanded, not deleted, as deleting it will only invite someone to come along and recreate it, losing all the work that's already been put into it. Qleem 20:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fishhead64 20:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just because it is currently a dicdef (and it is barely just a dicdef) does not mean that it will stay a dicdef, and the topic is obviously both notable and encyclopedic. —Cuivi é nen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:05 (UTC)
Speedy keep or she'll kill me. Just kidding. Maintenance is never a reason to delete an article; there is no doubt (in my mind at least) that this can become a decent page. Isopropyl 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important article. DarthVader 22:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve; definitely potential for culturally significant, encyclopedic expansion. MCB 05:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than just a dictdef; for example, the Japanese stuff was interesting and informative. -Colin Kimbrell 19:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has extra information on cultural diferences (eg: Japanese info). Should be more fleshed out however. Royrules22 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.-- 陈鼎翔 ^说!贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gary Kirk (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Significant other. -zappa 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Royboycrash. Freddie 01:53, 15 April 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. – Rob ert 00:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tigor Music and Media

Non notable company. "Tigor Music and Media" yields 0 Google results. Rory0 96 02:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP, WP:VAIN, and no Ghits. Royboy crashfan 02:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete 0 ghits? that's easy. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete zero notability. no ghits as User:Swatjester mentioned. Sheehan (Talk) 05:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, also the user created a duplicate page at Tigor music and media. Danny Lilithborne 07:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanispamcruftisement Just zis Guy you know? 09:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanispamcruftisment, 0 Google hits, definitely nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DarthVader 22:53, 11 April 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 as the AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator. Con Dem^Talk 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing

Information that is in oath and profanity already. Also looks like a dicdef. Suggest redirect to profanity, since this is probably what someone searching for "swearing" would be looking for, or maybe a disambig page. Con Dem^Talk 02:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to profanity. --Hetar 02:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful to disambiguate between oath and profanity and can give information about how the meaning of the word slowly changed from mostly one to mostly the other. Kusma (討論) 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kusma. Royboy crashfan 02:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Just realised that since I don't think the page should actually be deleted, I probably shouldn't have listed it here, so sorry guys.Con Dem^Talk 02:41, 11 April 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, come one, how could a religion that was created today (tomorrow, for us here in the United States, possibly be notable? patent nonsense.--Adam ^(talk) 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Existism

non-notable, delete Bill Sayre 02:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Benon 02:38, 11 April 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 (e) 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Oil Bourse

there's no indication that anything will become of this "bourse". given that, the only other thing i can think of to do with this article would be to merge it to "planned exchanges that never happened". the question is, should it be deleted now or given more time (or merged)? Bob A 01:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator forgot to list on the AfD logs; completing nomination. --cesarb 02:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Bob A is factually incorrect as this "bourse" is mearly a propossed addition to the Tehran_Stock_Exchange. If anything this should be merged in to that article but I belive the current geopolitical ramifications of trading oil in euros warrents a seperate article Carbonate 12:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree strongly with all the comments opposing the deletion of this article. While it is definitely in need of updating - what's the situation now, etc., to delete this page seems like a covert agenda intended to render invisible serious motivations for continued American military threats against Iran. To delete this article is a ridiculous proposition. Erik 11:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This was a newsworthy event for months, causing much speculation and discussion. Deletion would seem more than a little revisionist, particularly given the current threats against Iran.  JEREMY 02:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Against deletion. The fact that the opening of the Iranian Bourse has been posponed for geopolítical reasons or may be cancelled is not enough reason to destroy the information. At the time when the US is threatening Iran is just normal to expect projects to be put on hold. The article just needs to state that and explain the whole story, why it happened or why it didn't.--tequendamia 04:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Against deletion" Despite the fact the IOB did not open on the scheduled date, there is still important and relevant information in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.82.120 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 9 April 2006
Against deletion. Wow, i can't believe that anyone could be considering deleting this article! The intention to establish an alternative to the petrodollar, thus financially harming the U.S., seems like a pretty valid reason for the U.S. to attack Iran. Certainly a better reason than to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, of which there is no evidence. Please don't let this page disappear 'down the memory hole'. -- Mark is Happy 15:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Factual and relevant. Brisvegas 23:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Factual, relevant, and notable. Bill Sayre 02:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed since the article was created: the tensions with Iran still exist, and this topic is still in the news. Hmm, I don't know much about finance: is "bourse" really the right word for this? I only know it as the French word for "purse". --Saforrest 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep factual, still relevant. Sheehan (Talk) 05:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if the bourse is not operative (yet), the fact that it has been in the news for almost two years now make the plans notable. David Sneek 07:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, factual, relavant, encyclopaedic. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as developments such as this in the oil market (basically setting up, IIRTC, a new market to bypass OPEC) are inherently important, even if they come to naught. Pat Payne 02:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support - per all above --Benon 23:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see above Blink484 22:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pat Payne Blink484 22:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep factual, very relevant Frankman 13:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Pat Payne Barnetj 14:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't know French, but it sounds right; the Brazilian Portuguese words for "stock exchange" is "bolsa de valores", and "bolsa" is the Portuguese word for "purse". --cesarb 02:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally a bourse is a currency exchange, not a commodities exchange. Wikipedia is not Wikinews and I'm undecided whether detail on a not-yet-realized proposal belongs in its own article, rather than a sub-article on conflict between political factions within Iran. What I consider important (and very dangerous) is that some people call this proposal "a pretty valid reason for the U.S. to attack Iran." No vote. Barno 04:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which would make it pretty notable, IMHO.

RGTraynor 16:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, it doesn't qualify based on a Wikipedia editor (or a consensus of them) saying something like that; it qualifies now only if this is among the comments from current and former Bush Administration military and national-security experts which have been reported by the major media in recent weeks. However, if Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld think that way, then it will soon become very notable. Perhaps we should keep and expand the article based on what has been published; but in most cases there are large numbers of grand proposals that die out or are replaced by something else. Barno 23:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but, it seems rather strange that now this is regarded by some as a useless piece of news. I cannot help thinking that there is some hidden agenda here. Official Revisionism.--tequendamia 04:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your facts: Nobody here called it "useless", nor attempted to revise anything to meet any hidden agenda. The question here is whether it's encyclopedic content that will be worth reading in an encyclopedia one hundred years from now, or if it's just news whose current importance (and potential future greater importance) will soon be overtaken by later developments. Please note that wild imprecise charges are likely to lead editors to discount your comments as violations of the policies WP:NPOV (which doesn't control AfD comments as it does articles, but ought to be kept in mind) and WP:NPA. Barno 05:12, 11 April 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, A5. – Rob ert 00:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets and glitches in Halo 2

Transwikied to Wikibooks Transwiki:Secrets_and_glitches_in_Halo_2, not needed here anymore.--Zxcvbnm 02:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Wikipedia is not a how-to guide). Bucketsofg 03:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BryanG 03:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 03:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete a5 ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. JIP | Talk 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Merecat 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Sheehan (Talk) 08:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DarthVader 22:52, 11 April 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. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wizor

Advertisement and a Non notable electronic device. Every DVD player and most home theater stereos have circuits that do the same function. Bige1977 03:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete-Non-notable product--blue520 03:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --KimvdLinde 04:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 06:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:51, 11 April 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 (e) 14:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tips for weight loss

Delete: WP is not a how to guide KimvdLinde 04:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:NOT.--blue520 04:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, although I should probably follow its advice and drop a couple pounds. Tijuana Brass 04:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is not the place for these kinds of things. Sheehan (Talk) 05:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 05:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Merecat 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Metamagician3000 12:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the fat and delete. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DarthVader 22:54, 11 April 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) 09:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious fanaticism

I am probably going to lose this one, but... Religious fanaticism is a priori a NPOV violation. The whole article cannot escape being terminally biased. One man's religious fanatic is another's normal religious person. And before you can retort with, "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, and look, we do have an article on Terrorism", at least terrorism is a defined crime and statutes describe it and people who may condone it at the very least recognize that they're involved in it. Religious fanaticism is much more amorphous, and cannot be defined. Practices of sect X, which some may consider to be R.F., should go into the article on sect X. Everything else here is hopeless conjecture. Note also that this article has been untouched for half a year. Delete - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 04:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and merge any useful content into related articles. Well said. Tijuana Brass 04:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I believe the term would be res ipsa loquitor instead of a priori? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A priori means "necessarily resulting", meaning there's no way to craft this article without violating NPOV. Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself" and is a legal principle by which a tort is proven just by virtue of the fact that the harm could not have been incurred absent a tort, even though no direct evidence is available. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 14:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stinks of POV. Even if it is somehow cleaned up it'll continue to attract more POV junk. Seems like it was left untouched for a long time too. Sheehan (Talk) 05:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Merecat 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good reason, too. I wish there was a way to systematically deal with articles like this. --Impaciente 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 07:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I don't really like this article, but I think it is possible to make a NPOV article on this. Abortion is a POV magnet too but I don't see us deleting it. Kotepho 08:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. I can't imagine anyone wanting to delete this. Why on earth? It's a very important topic in current climates and just because an article may attract POV is no reason to delete it. It is quite possible to discuss the evolution and strength of religious fanaticism over the ages and the controversy surrounding it in a NPOV manner. It's possible to discuss who considers what to be religious fanatcism and who doesn't and how it affects global politics. This is so obviously encyclopaedia material. If you think it's POV, well clean it up or tag it but don't delete it. Abortion and Terrorism provide two perfect parrallas, I don't see any difference. This is one of the most absurd AfDs I've seen. Loom91 09:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Loom, this AfD is not absurd, and I resent the notion. Islamic R.F. should be covered in article on muslim religious philosophy, but not as "R.F.", rather as "this is what they do, this is why they do it, and here's who condemns it." You see, R.F. is inherently an epithet. For example, the article refers to the adherence to Shari'a as R.F. That just serves to denigrate the billion muslims who adhere to it. And I am arguing that there is no way to clean up an article like that, it's inherently uncleanupable. Please re-read the article and the nom carefully -- and consider being softer around the edges. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 14:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right in saying that the abortion, terrorism (and any other hot issue) articles attract POV edits, but that's not what the nom is for. The title itself is inherently POV. If we were to use those examples in comparison, the articles would instead have titles like "Abortion as Murder" or "Terrorist Arabs." I agree that there's useful content that could presumably be written here, but it would need to be added in a way that doesn't have tinge of a POV accusation of "fanaticism." Tijuana Brass 16:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the title or subject are inherently POV--unless you are going to deny that it exists. This article could be easily written NPOV if well cited and it discussed psychological and sociological studies. Kotepho 17:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hopelessly POV, and doesn't seem particularly useful when this could be covered on each religion's page, or possibly in fundamentalism. Perhaps this should redirect to that... Grand master ka 09:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Per Loom91, this could be a legitimate topic, but this article is going nowhere. Metamagician3000 09:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect at fanaticism. NPOV is a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. Certainly accusations of "religious fanaticism" make this a concept about which a worthwhile article can be written, and the text now at the page is not entirely unhelpful. Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 14:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. IrishGuy 14:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - merge useful material with fanaticism, fundamentalism, or the articles dealing with various faith traditions. Fishhead64 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but heavily rewrite. It can be a useful article, but the language in it is too POV at the moment. If anyone knowledgable about the subject and who has a calm enough demeanor to take it on were to rewrite it from the ground up, it could come out a valuable piece. Pat Payne 03:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We should no delete an article because it's bad NOW, but only when it could be nothing but bad EVER. The article doesn't have to label any particular group as fanatics, it can discuss the CONCEPT of religious fanaticism and alleged examples with cited sources as to allegations and refutations. It is not necessary to say 'following Shariyat is religious fanaticism", we can say "this what religious fanaticism is, Reputable Source A calls following Shariyat religious fanaticism, but Reputable Source B refutes this claim". NPOV and bad material is not ground for deletion, bad topic is, and I don't think this opic is predestined to be bad. Certainly encyclopaedic content. Loom91 07:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, but it'd be difficult in practice — it's hard to do an article on religious fanaticism without mentioning at least a few groups (although there may be an appeal to a general agreement for certain groups, like Charles Manson's). I think that the argument in favor of deletion is concerned with the article's title labeling groups in a POV manner rather than the kind of content you're suggesting. Tijuana Brass 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to point the finger at all religions, balancing it out. Holds great promise for expansion. Religious fanaticism is a real phenomenon, and I don't see why--if it is such a strong influence in world affairs--not to have an article about it.--Primetime
Comment. I've extensively rewrote the article to prsent an encyclopaedic and NPOV approach to the matter, also trying to explain to some extent why it should be considered an encyclopaedic topic. Please review the article in its current form and reconsider your vote. Loom91 07:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You just deleted all of the examples. I thought they broadened the definition and gave made the article more complete.--Primetime 07:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoah. First, Catholics have not been the only Christian fundamentalists. Second, there is not a direct war going on between the West and the Middle East. I'm sorry, but I'm just going to have to revert the change.--Primetime 07:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would also add that the Crusades weren't one sided. It isn't as though that was a Christian fundamentalist issue with no fundamentalism at all on the Muslim side.IrishGuy 08:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a step in the right direction, but the very last sentence is exactly why POV is a problem — "Members of the religious mainstream usually disapprove of fanaticism, but some also feel it to be necessary to maintain cultural identity and spread the word of God." Your aim was clearly not to take any side on the issue, but it's exceedingly difficult to nail down objectivity on this one, as this sentence indicates. A noble effort, though. Thanks for taking the initiative to do it. Tijuana Brass 16:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs editing and cleanup, not deletion. It is (to me) clearly an encyclopedic topic. See the article on terrorism for a good example of how to approach this kind of stuff. Deleting notable articles without given them a chance to improve harms wikipedia, instead of helping it. Also I object that any encyclopedic article could be by necessity not NPOV. And if it is so, is that still grounds to delete if, if it is encyclopedic? Many topics would be missing if wikipedia avoided controversy. Perle 19:57, 13 April 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. – Rob ert 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lucid Dream Project

non-notable, advertisement Bill Sayre 04:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Helped Bill Sayre with discussion page lay out) blue520 05:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn advert.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 05:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--blue520 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete any information of value on this page could be posted at Nagualism Merecat 06:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 07:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 08:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DarthVader 22:55, 11 April 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) 09:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's notes
Note that although the debate did not reach a consensus, the article underwent a rewrite during the debate. All who participated in the debate after the rewrite were in favour of keeping the article. Thus for all intents and purposes, the result of this debate is to keep the article.

Saidu hospial swat pakistan

illegible. The closest I got was that it's a hospital called Saidu in Swat, Pakistan, but does not make any claims of notability. Is totally unreadable, and I would LOVE to see someone count how many times the author says the word "swat", it seems like every other sentence. Anyway, nn, horridly written, signed by author, etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can read it, although, yes, I agree, it is horrendously written. I'm going to try and make some sense of it though - I will do so at Saidu hospital swat pakistan/2 and then move to the original page if that's okay with everyone. -zappa 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it got moved to Saidu Hospital. I cleaned up the history section, and it looks okay, but after reading the rest (or trying to) I figured it isn't notable enough to keep. Nevermind. -zappa 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY Delete - seems to be patent nonsense, in its current form at least. pm_shef 05:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Erm Zappa: if the page is non-notable, then no matter how much you clean it up it still won't merit inclusion... ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Merecat 06:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 07:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep now that ive had a go at tidying it. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nicely rewritten by BL Lacertae. Good save! Please move to whatever the right title for the article is after the AfD closes. MCB 05:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite. Nice job, BL! -Colin Kimbrell 19:48, 12 April 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) 09:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Ashton

Closer's notes
The debate reached no consensus because there was not sufficient support for any single option.

About a third favoured deletion.
About half favoured keeping the article.
About a quarter favoured merging the article.

Thus there is a consensus not to delete the article (although the majority was divided between keeping and merging the content).

Delete NN, doesn't meet WP:BIO, consensus has generally been that former candidate, if otherwise not noteable, do not get pages. pm_shef 05:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page was nominated for deletion once before, and survived. CJCurrie 05:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election as per other defeated candidates. Luigizanasi 06:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An NDP candidates in the 2006 Canadian federal election candidate. For great justice. 08:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A candidate for mainstream party in national election is a marginal case, that can go either way. But, given there was not a delete in the first AFD, we should stick with that. With a million articles in Wikipedia, one AFD for each is sufficient. --Rob 10:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per For Great Justice. OoskMR 11:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ought to have been deleted the first time. Even less reason now to keep it. Skeezix1000 11:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with other defeated candidates. The article was kept last time due to no conensus based on being a candidate for national office. Well, she lost. Thatcher131 11:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The previous AfD was closed as a no consensus not keep forever. AfD in the past has shown that candidates cross the threshold to notability when they win the elction they're campaigning for. Merely being nominated isn't enough because plenty of people are nominated for these things all the time in Canada and the US and luckily we don't have entries for all of those people. To state that one AfD of no consensus should be sufficient to shield any article from ever being deleted is disingenuous. RasputinAXP c 11:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, losers of an election are usually not notable and she is not notable enough for other reasons to be an exception. -- Kjkolb 12:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable, and of considerable historical interest, for defeating three-term incumbent MP Bev Desjarlais in her own party's nomination election, a rare occurance, after which Desjarlais ran in the general election as an independent (and placed far below Ashton). Samaritan 15:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO turns on "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature" and "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage." Ashton is not the former, and as to the latter, she has all of 168 total G-hits. "Significant press coverage" that isn't. (Quite aside from that the Churchill riding defines, in non-territorial Canada, the back end of nowhere.) RGTraynor 16:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ A fairness argument can be made while the election is going on, but once it's over, unless the person is otherwise notable, I see no reason to have a bunch of entries for candidates who ran once and lost. Fan1967 20:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Please do not keep. Commons has 308 seats. US House has 435. Conservatives, Liberals, NDPs, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and independents add up to a lot of losing candidates. A huge number lost the only election of their lives, and will go back to obscurity. Unless an individual has other notability, or made the campaign notable in some way, they should not have permanent articles. Fan1967 01:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO -- Ned Scott 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Fishhead64 21:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a notable Northern Manitoban, not many of them, fewer people up there, so it's no surprise that she doesn't have many web hits, though the page does need to work. The Ashtons are a political family here in Manitoba, it might be better to make 1 page for both of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.179.252.24 (talk • contribs) .
Keep or Merge to NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. The above anon is correct in saying that the Ashton family is highly influential in northern Manitoba. Also, someone above mentioned her unseating a three-term incumbent, which makes her notable in the history of Canadian politics; nomination unseatings are very rare in Canada. Also, on the Google search method - a poor choice indeed for a region where, despite high computer ownership in Canada, less than half of the population owns or has access to a computer. —Cuivi é nen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:12 (UTC)

Comment. Google hits =/ page views; we're not measuring how popular Ms. Ashton is (I rather think the electoral results did that for us). They measure how notable she is. What you and several other noms are doing is arguing why she should be notable, and your arguments are defensible, but the purpose of AfD isn't as an advocacy group. Demonstrably, Ms. Ashton was a mere drop in the outside world, and barring greater success in politics, she just hasn't demonstrated that the world's particularly noticed her. RGTraynor 14:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rob. Ground Zero | t 23:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it still doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. I'm sorry, but what is wrong with you people. Just because someone doesn't have their very own Wikipedia article doesn't make them not important. This article gives nothing to the world. -- Ned Scott 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ashton was the only person to defeat any Canadian Member of Parliament running for reelection for their own party's nomination in the 2006 election. Political historians will value a quick biography of the victorious candidate who did so, even though she came second in the general election (to a well-known actor who seized on this split running for another party). Samaritan 00:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I realize that not everybody agrees on the notability of unelected political candidates, the precedent has already been set that federal candidates are entitled at least to inclusion in a merged list. I'm inclined to agree with Samaritan that l'affaire Desjarlais is, in and of itself, a sufficient criterion of notability, but per established practice, as a candidate in a federal election she's unequivocally entitled to at least a subsection in a merged candidates list. Either keep or merge into NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election; precedent already excludes outright deletion as an option. Bearcat 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on merits of notability as a federal NDP candidate, as well as nothing having changed since previous AfD. MCB 05:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a huge change since the last AfD. The election happened. She lost. Fan1967 13:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was part of a nomination race and election campaign that garnered a lot of media attention. She's also pretty youung and could make future runs for office. It does need some heavy editing though. --NDP Johnny 07:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I would have no doubts about voting delete were it not for the same sex marriage issue defeat of Bev Desjarlais for the nomination, which was extensively covered by the national media, and a notable (but transient) current event. Pete.Hurd 19:07, 16 April 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) 09:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ashlee Simpson remixes

Closer's notes
The nominator attempted to nominate other articles along with this one, however since the AfD notice was not displayed on any of those other articles, they will not be deleted as a result of this debate.

Pop-Music-cruft. I found this on the Dead-end Pages page and added a Prod" tag. Tag removed by User:Everyking (although, I oughtta add, he was NOT its creator), with the comment what is this thing? there must at least be an afd. So here we are. Calton | Talk 05:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I recalled that List of Mariah Carey remixes went down in flames 0-14, so I decided to see if any other similiar articles were deleted, were kept, or existed:
- List of remixes of Britney Spears songs - not Prodded or AFD'ed.
- List of Ayumi Hamasaki remixes - not Prodded or AFD'ed.
- Shakira remixography - not Prodded or AFD'ed.
If these lists are inappropriate, should these be nuked/merged, too? --Calton | Talk 05:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I "second" these co-nominations for deletion, if it is not too late to include them too -- Ned Scott 07:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Maybe it could be merged into List of Ashlee Simpson songs? Everyking 06:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merecat 06:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per Mariah Carey remixes -- Ned Scott 07:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid basis to speedy. Everyking 14:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable unless good verifiable source citations are provided prior to end of AfD period. In this case, a source citation means, at the very least, something that would enable someone to locate the items. Unless, being ignorant of this area, maybe I'm missing something obvious. If I wanted to listen to "Eddie Baez Radio Edit 4:21" (or verify that it is 4 minutes 21 seconds long) what would I do? An iTunes Music Store search on "Boyfriend Eddie Baez Radio Edit" yields no hits; neither does "Boyfriend remix." Have these remixes in fact been "published" in any significant say? Where? Why doesn't the article give the publication data? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless cruft. And sure, if anyone will be so kind to AfD similar articles, I'll vote to delete those too. RGTraynor 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Delete as cruftycruft. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 16:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But NOT Creator is OK to remove prod! Anyone is. Prod guidelines re-read Yoda must! - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 16:41, 11 April 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 by Marudubshinki at 06.37. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kwok Kin Kwong

nn secondary school teacher. Horribly POV ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:34, 11 April 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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Righteous Warrior Temple

nn cruft website ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tyr_shadowblade I do not understand why this article was slated for deletion mere seconds after I posted it. The information is verifiable, does not violate copyright and is unbiased. And what did User:Swatjester mean by "nn cruft website"? Please be specific as to how this article can be improved, as I'm new to posting here.

The poster deserves more explaination. The criteria for a Wikipedia article about a web site is at WP:WEB. The requirements are set rather high, or every promoted website in the web would have a Wikipedia article. "nn" just means "non-notable", which refers to Wikipedia's requirement that a website or person or band be "notable" to be included. --John Nagle 06:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable website about a non-serious topic.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 06:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tyr-shadowblade Warriorship is a "non-serious topic"? Mr Binguyen is entitled to his opinion . . . even if it's wrong. I looked at Wikipedia's articles on the topic of notability and understood that this is not necessarilly a "requirement", as "Wikipedia is not paper". I thought RWT was of interest, and their website certainly isn't a fancruft or vanity website. Have any of the people in favor of deletion even looked at the material there?

User:Tyr_shadowblade Just realized that I made a mistake in the first paragraph and edited it. RWT was an organization which created a website and published several books . . . if that makes any difference. Not JUST a website.

Delete as non-notable, unsourced, unverified cruft. 96 unique G-hits, many of which are from link and mirror sites. Alexa ranking of 2,486,338. [3] if you'd like a chuckle. RGTraynor 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tyr_shadowblade Fine . . . article deleted. . . oh, the bot won't permit it.

Delete per nom and RGT. Joe 03:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SubGenius must have SLACK!!!

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanshin Republic

Delete, we can't have whole articles devoted to minor elements of an anime. I'm a big fan of this series, and even I find this article to be completely unnecessary. Wikipedia is NOT here to retell every possible event in fictional stories. Please "nip this in the bud". See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) -- Ned Scott 05:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merecat 06:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom. Average Earthman 09:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 11:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I can't say that we don't have articles about small event in fictional stories. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought I should say, I hope the creator of this article does not feel insulted or discouraged. The article is rather well written for a stub, it's just not-notable. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 12 April 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) 10:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Baird

Delete Attempted speedy, user deleted it. Article looks like a vanity article, there is no claim to noteability, being a failed election candidate does not entitle one to an article pm_shef 05:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Casper2k3 06:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election as per other defeated candidates. Luigizanasi 06:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user who removed the speedy tag was me, and the reason I did so was because an article that survived AfD unchanged is surely not a speedy candidate. I have no opinion on whether or not it should be deleted, mind. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 07:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stood, came third. Isn't, therefore, sufficiently notable. Average Earthman 09:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Luigizanasi --Ed (Edgar181) 10:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Baird. --Rob 10:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thivierr. See parallel debate on Niki Ashton here] OoskMR 11:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ought to have been deleted the first time. Even less reason to keep it now. Skeezix1000 11:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The equivalent of a candidate for a seat in the US House of Representatives. If otherwise non-notable people can get an article by losing an election, we have 230 years worth of failed US candidates to add. Thatcher131 11:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia already has dozens of articles on people who didn't even successfully win their own party's nomination for Congressional elections. Bearcat 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he is even less notable than Niki Ashton. -- Kjkolb 12:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At least Niki Ashton wasn't this colorless. RGTraynor 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably keep, otherwise merge. Samaritan 23:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I realize that not everybody agrees on the notability of unelected political candidates, the precedent has already been set that federal candidates are entitled at least to inclusion in a merged list. Either keep (though boy howdy, does it ever need cleanup) or merge into Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election; precedent already excludes outright deletion as an option. Bearcat 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Please do not keep. Commons has 308 seats. US House has 435. Conservatives, Liberals, NDPs, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and independents add up to a lot of losing candidates. A huge number lost the only election of their lives, and will go back to obscurity. Unless an individual has other notability, or made the campaign notable in some way, they should not have permanent articles. Fan1967 01:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; major party candidate for federal office makes the cut for notability. MCB 05:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 15:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete NN Pete.Hurd 19:00, 16 April 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. – Rob ert 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheng Mi Tian

This article is an appendage to Holy Tantra Jin-Gang-Dhyana Buddhism by the same author (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Tantra Jin-Gang-Dhyana Buddhism). Totally unreferenced, obscure, and contextless. Nat Krause^(Talk!) 06:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 07:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; could have been speedied as A1 for lack of context. MCB 05:38, 12 April 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 tending towards keep. bainer (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koorong

POV and plain spam Casper2k3 06:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 06:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Alexa rank is 209,832. There's quite a few references in Google for this book chain. ~~I'm reserving my vote for now pending further research into the company. -- Longhair 06:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep - I'm with Scott here. If this were spam, competitors wouldn't be rating a mention from the same author. - Longhair 02:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. If this chain merits an article, don't build it off of an advertisement. Feezo (Talk) 06:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: maybe there are problems with POV but it isn't plain spam because we're talking here about a company which has an oligopoly in the Australian Christian bookstore market. as longhair says, the alexa ranking is also quite high. Also, if you search on Google for koorong christian book you get around 26,400 results which is quite significant.Rebecca Rowland 06:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: -- I didn't say the Alexa rank was high (by the way, low Alexa ranks are a good sign, not high ones), I merely told those interested in this debate what the actual ranking was to save them the bother of checking. - Longhair 06:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As it is now, it is slightly spammish, but that can be fixed and I think the chain is notable enough for an article. JPD (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per comments above. I would want an independant verification of the oligopoly claim which others are using to support retention of the article.--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Casper2k3. -- Kjkolb 12:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above nom. --Roisterer 13:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a national chain of book stores would be notable, edited to make more encyclopedic. -- Paul foord 13:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite. We really can't claim it isn't encyclopedic. RGTraynor 16:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - Ianblair23 (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 14:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a notable Australian bookshop. POV is no grounds for deletion. Cnwb 06:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations): The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Cannot find any such works. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you aren't looking very hard. Koorong is the biggest and most notable Christian bookshop chain in Australia. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess it's better to find some examples rather than say "look harder". Googling "koorong" gives a lot of church and christian sites discussing Koorong as a resource, and book reviewers giving it as a source. I guess these don't quite meet the criteria, but do give some idea of the notability. [4] and [5] are perhaps more helpful, as would be "looking harder" in non-web publications. JPD (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely, 100% STRONG keep! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The article can't be spam, or the same author would not have also created the article for the major direct competitor! Does anybody have access to retails statistics to show how Koorong ranks in bookselling chains in Australia (without restricting to "Christian" book shops)? --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable; plus my favourite pub is right across the street from the Adelaide one. michael ^talk 05:15, 16 April 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. – Rob ert 15:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vinny's Pizza - Clarion

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Article seems to be self-promotion for Vinny's Pizza. Also, not of significance/notability. jpmck 06:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 07:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete! Seriously, shameless advertising needs to be a speedy criterion. I think I'll go propose that change sometime soon... Grand master ka 09:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue. Wikinoob. Ha, i say delete too. jpmck 23:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and yeah, shameless advertising should be speedy criteria.--Isotope23 16:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad OSU80 16:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adcruft, then go and delete the user whose sole contribution this is. RGTraynor 16:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make that one large Delete...with mushrooms. PJM 19:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nice one.--Isotope23 19:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. I don't like mushrooms. (Make it sausage or pepperoni, though, and we're good!) RGTraynor 14:50, 12 April 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 as duplicate of Bridle Path, Toronto. – Rob ert 00:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bridal path

No context provided, has not been edited since January 22. --Impaciente 06:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Nobody looking up this article could possibly have any idea what it's about, which makes it useless as an article. The El Reyko 07:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is patent nonsense. Also, only edit by user. Danny Lilithborne 07:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may be a notable neighborhood, but there's no way of knowing without any details or context. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It's a mispelling of a Toronto neighbourhood, The Bridle Path, that already has an article. Eron 14:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. --Off! 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article as nonsense and a possible personal attack (probably not, but "WASPS with old money" doesn't seem friendly, and the subsequent naming of names seems a little caustic to me). — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Eron said. Fishhead64 21:05, 11 April 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 as attack page. – Rob ert 00:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miss_Lau

No clue how this page has been around for so long. The entire article seems to be a joke and/or hoax. Landeyda 06:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - clear hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blnguyen (talk • contribs) 07:33, 11 April 2006
- More evidence Miss Lau was impregnated, with a son, "Gay"-Wan. No-one is sure who the father is, but many genetic scientists believe he is Annika Sorenstam, the noted golfer. Sorenstam is a woman. Clearly doesn't stack up. I'm a big faggot - hoax.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non verifiable, probable hoax. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable WP:V, extra strong likelihood of being a hoax.--blue520 08:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an attack article. -- Kjkolb 12:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as disgusting attack hoax. RGTraynor 16:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. DarthVader 23:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Attack article OSU80 15:38, 12 April 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 (e) 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lenox (tools)

As it is, advertisement. Has been left virtually untouched since creation. Impaciente 07:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "focus on quality"... "significant... savings and value"... blah. Danny Lilithborne 07:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. Feezo (Talk) 08:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merely an advertisement. Sheehan (Talk) 08:22, 11 April 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 userfy. -- RHaworth 16:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fuchs

Nothing in the article asserts any kind of notability whatsoever. It's a biography of an unimportant person. All Google hits on "Anthony Fuchs" writer are of different people with the same name. The El Reyko 07:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:VAIN and noting the article was created by Tonyfuchs1019. Danny Lilithborne 07:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I have tagged it so - long but utterful useless throughout.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly userfied. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Lockley 15:41, 11 April 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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Lui, Chris Walasi, Francis Manioru, Jack Iroga, Mariuti Uan, Wally Kirika

This is a block nomination for six sprinters from Oceanic countries. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casnel Bushay for precedence.

These six athlete substubs were created in connection to the 2006 Commonwealth Games, where they participated without even reaching the semi finals. Except for this mere participation at the 2006 Commonwealth Games these athletes have achieved nothing of note, thus falling below the notability bar. No Olympic participation, nothing. Believe me, I have searched for ways to expand the articles (see for instance this diff for Fijian sprinter Jone Delai), but as these athletes haven't even won medals at the Oceania Championships, or the Oceania Youth Championships for that matter, it's just not enough to warrant inclusion here. Punkmorten 07:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete their PBs are 10% outside the WR. This is too much. They don't appear to have done much in the way of placings.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, participated in a major international competition. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bln. Joe 03:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Punkmorten,

You stated that, Except for this mere participation at the 2006 Commonwealth Games these athletes have achieved nothing of note, thus falling below the notability bar. To what notability standard do you refer to. The only one I could find is at WP:BIO, where it states that:

"the following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles:

Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles."

Now the 2006 Commonwealth Games, whilst not the Olympics or the World Championships, still had 71 nations and territories competing. It is classed as a Category A event by the IAAF when calculating world rankings. (see [6] - page 6)

I created these articles on the athletics participants and others based on the fact that 1) they had competed at this level, 2) they had a profile on iaaf.org and 3) these athletes, in each of their own countries, are considered notable. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Hello Ian. I have mentioned this a few times before, in other contemporary athlete deletion debates, that some weak countries are allowed entries on a wildcard basis, meaning their athletes do not have to meet the A-qualifying standard to qualify, unlike an athlete from a developed sport power, who must meet the A-qualifying standard to apply. So I am not convinced that wildcard-qualifiers are sufficiently notable on sporting-merit alone, as they have not earnt their position in the international arena on merit. (I am pretty sure the A-qualifier is less than 10% outside the WR).ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 04:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What Blnguyen said. The WP:BIO guideline mentions "an individual professional sport". Whereas the top finishers at the Commonwealth Games are indeed fully professional, I don't think these athletes are. Mariuti Uan clocked a personal best time in 11.65 seconds. He would have entered a 98th place on the 2005 statistics in Norway, a rather small country which sent 1 athlete to the latest World Indoor Championships. Moreover, getting an IAAF profile is not a great achievement by itself, seeing that an athlete like Stian Andersen has a profile. What really puzzles me here though, it that you left my early attempt to contact you via your talk page unanswered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkmorten (talk • contribs)
  - Comment - Wow a guy with 11.46 for the 100m gets an IAAF profile. My old high school had people running 11.2s and none of them even got into the state level championships - and Australia isn't a sprint running power.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 23:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Zoe. MCB 05:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please these sprinters are important to the countries they represent `Yuckfoo 23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per zoe. Blink484 22:14, 13 April 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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Moussambani, Gibrilla Bangura

This is a block nomination for two sprinters from African countries. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casnel Bushay for precedence.

These two athlete substubs was created in connection to the 2006 Commonwealth Games, where they participated without even reaching the semi finals. Except for this mere participation at the 2006 Commonwealth Games these athletes have achieved nothing, thus falling below the notability bar. No Olympic participation, nothing, and believe me, I have searched for ways to expand the article (see for instance this diff for Fijian sprinter Jone Delai), but when an athlete hasn't even won a medal at his respective regional championships (in this case: the Central African Championships or the West and North African Championships) it's just not enough to warrant inclusion here. Punkmorten 07:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Moussambani and Bangura, their PB is 7% and 5% outside the WR and nothing else sticks out. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not Eric Moussambani. Just zis Guy you know? 09:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alfred is no relation to The Eel MLA 09:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both, based on Commonwealth particpation. I think retention is supported by a reasonable interpetation of WP:BIO. The odd AFD doesn't outweight WP:BIO. --Rob 12:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It isn't as if they participated in the Olympics or any world championships. RGTraynor 16:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a major international competition though. --Rob 17:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 14:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, participated in a major international competition. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Zoe. MCB 05:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Lui
Keep well known. Bur expand. --MaNeMeBasat 13:21, 17 April 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 by Jaxl. Sango 123 (e) 14:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tigor music and media

Duplicate of Tigor Music and Media which is also AfD. Danny Lilithborne 07:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - an advertisement, nothing else. Sheehan (Talk) 08:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 09:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam/advertising.--Alhutch 14:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Delete this one too. -Colin Kimbrell 19:53, 12 April 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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies in autism

POV fork. Contains lots of redundant information part of more neutral articles. Merge relevant information into other articles and redirect Rdos 08:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: While it's a poor quality article that seems to mix autism in medicine and autism in pop culture, the various autism articles need someone really knowledgeable to sort them out. Peter Grey 08:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Yet another attempt by POV pushers to hide information that is important for anyone affected by this condition. Absolutely no basis for the assertion that it's a POV fork. --Leifern 10:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Leifern put all the redundant information back into the article that I selectively moved were it belonged. In the process he also reinserted all the speculations about vaccines that Wikipedia has been flooded with. --Rdos 11:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ . Merge the verifiable non-duplicated information in it into the existing articles dealing will with those aspects. Failing that, if it were rewritten shorter, tighter, and about the controversies, rather than another copy of the usual article as they all tend toward, it would be reasonably useful. Midgley 10:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: articles cannot be merged and then deleted. The history of the article must be kept to preserve attribution. After merging, the article is redirected to the article that received the content. -- Kjkolb 12:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly possible to do a simple redirect, as this article contains a lot of information that should be spread to many articles. --Rdos 12:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that in such a case you would simply redirect to the article that received the most content. If it is about equal, then redirect to the most notable article or just pick one. All of the pages that receive content should be mentioned in the edit summary. -- Kjkolb 12:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, point taken. I've changed my request. --Rdos 12:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NO, Kjkolb IS INCORRECT. Articles certainly can be merged and deleted, preserving histories. The process is straightforward and described here. The only reason why "merge and delete" votes are strongly discouraged is that the process is very laborious for the closing sysop. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep: There are numerous noteworthy controversies stemming from the iatrogenic epidemic of autistic spectrum diagnoses. This AfD is unlike the usual offensive attempts to silence dissenting medical opinions, as it seems likely to be a protest to make a point, triggered by the odd decision to delete Neanderthal theory of autism. The real reason this article needs to be kept is that big pharma has as much as admitted its culpability for the autism epidemic by launching an expensive, preemptive lobbying and propaganda assault aimed at securing immunity from the industry's enormous vaccine injury liabibilities (e.g. BioShield Two and PREPA). The assault also shows that the industry is unwilling to defend itself in the judicial system, which itself has been undermined to suit corporate special interests, rather than the mere carbon based life forms that courts were originally designed to serve. At least ten bills were in the works as of the end of last year to shield vaccine makers from any form of responsibility for these atrocities. Liabilities are projected by some observers far in excess of tens of billions of dollars. The controversies will only escalate as health care rationing decisions are made about the best/most cost effective treatments for this huge, emerging population. The controversies may be ignored deliberately by the mass media, as advocates like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. have found out, but there is no doubt that the increasingly unstable and inefficient medical system will be put under considerably more stress in the near term. Ombudsman 19:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that the deletion of the Neanderthal theory of autism sets a preference for me (and should for others too). However, in this case I'm not arguing only this point, but for the bad idea to have similar information at many locations. If you and Leifern prefer to have the vaccine argument in this article that is fine with me, but then you will need to delete it from the other articles (like Causes of autism). --Rdos 05:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with redundancy, per se; the purpose of this article is to summarize the various controversies in one place and then provide links to the in-depth article on each one. I always wanted this article to be succinct, providing readers with the means to study each matter more deeply, but with the right context. The term "controversies" is carefully chosen to avoid bias. Although I think the Neanderthal theory is specious, I think it should be kept and would have voted to keep it. I want all the controversies here. --Leifern 14:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The causes of autism themselves are all controvesial. However merging causes and controversies pages would make the article too long. I believe that all causes information should be kept with causes, with a link from controversies Alister Namarra 02:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per Peter Grey. I believe it needs a more clinical approach, starting with individual assertations having direct citations, and not a blanket "references" for the whole article - as is it seems to serve to disguise the POV nature of the topic. -Dawson 22:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge & redirect as per nom. Pete.Hurd 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It is very much needed, I often see links to it on autism sites. I have also made a note on the discussion page for the article. AmyNelson 19:20, 16 April 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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowland Challenge

Advertisement for a non-notable local charity walk. Was PRODded, but tag removed without comment. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 08:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 08:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It has some notability. Certainly it is interesting. I suggest it be merged into Forest of Bowland as an evvent that takes place there. --Bduke 09:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have trimmed it down, wikified it and changed it from a copyvio of the web page for the event. It is now in a form that could be merged into Forest of Bowland. Does anyone object if I do that? --Bduke 22:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Go ahead and do it - WP:BOLD backs you up! ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 22:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertorial. Far, far, far too many links (now removed). Just zis Guy you know? 09:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement. Sheehan (Talk) 12:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:46, 11 April 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. – Rob ert 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Goodfellow

Local councillors, unless otherwise notable, do not meet WP:BIO. (I can see a case for redirecting this to the council page rather than deleting it, and would be interested in others' views.) —Wh o uk (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are an enormous number of local councillors, and they are only of very local interest, if at all (the only reason I'd have a hope of knowing who my local councillors are is that they keep sticking pieces of paper through my door) Average Earthman 09:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Metamagician3000 10:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferably we could delete politicians themselves. Other than that can you imagine having an article on every local council member for every county/district in the English speaking world?--Tollwutig 17:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really can't, and further more do not want to do so. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 19:07, 11 April 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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Ce Wei

No assertion of notability and only two relevant-seeming Google hits. But has an entry in the Indonesian Wikipedia and has been in List of famous Indonesian Chinese since the article started on 26 December 2005. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 08:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt seem to meet english wiki notability. Tyhopho 22:20, 11 April 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. – Rob ert 15:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ego non fui

Not notable garage band from Argentina. Zero google hits on band and albums. I know the people don't like google hits, specially with 'third world' stuff, but today all bands that makes it to the news has at least some hits. I, Argentine, never heard of them. Mariano(t/c) 08:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 09:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delenda est. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:26, 11 April 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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great_Expectations_plot_details

The plot summary of a book should not have an article to itself unless it is demonstrated that the plot summary itself has some unique notability. Integrate content into Great Expectations and delete. Loom91 08:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main article. Metamagician3000 09:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Ed (Edgar181) 10:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the main author of the article. The question of having spoilers in literary articles or moving them to a separate article is significant and is now being actively discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum. There are reasons other than separate notability for spoiler content in literary articles and it is grossly overreaching to be looking to delete or even merge and delete before these points have been thoroughly discussed. -- Cecropia 15:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Great Expectations.--Isotope23 16:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - But open to persuasion. Please do look into the detailed points made by the author at the place he mentions Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum. This is a serious issue with far reaching consequences (far beyond Novels, all Fiction in fact). So we do need sober and reasoned debate on this. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the points and I see no strong reason to fork plot details... that's why we have spoiler warnings.--Isotope23 16:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I believe that spoiler warnings are woefully inadequate. -- Cecropia 16:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I believe they are wholly adequate... a difference of opinion.--Isotope23 19:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. --Stbalbach 16:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep re Cecropia. MikeBriggs 19:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment .. Well, I don't think using Great Expectations to make a point is the way to go about it enacting change, because it will meet resistance with every article it is tried on. The best way is make a proposal and build consensus using a test case on a temp page somewhere so people can play around with different ideas. It may very well be a great idea, but it has to be demonstrated and build up support, which takes time. -- Stbalbach 00:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and all worthwhile information into the actual article. The spoiler warning that appears on many pages will steer away people who don't want to know details (though people should realize that if you're going to an article that Wikipedia is not obligated to censor data (eg put data on a seperate entry) so you don't have a book/film spoiled. Radagast83 19:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. SorryGuy 04:28, 18 April 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 (e) 22:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brianism

An alleged religion-substitute based on the teachings of a "cyber-prophet", but whose website is (and has been for a while) 404. About 750 Googles, none of whihc appear to relate to coverage in reliable sources. Contains unverifiable claims (especially since the primary source no longer exists). So, problems with WP:V, apparent lack of WP:RS, no way of verifying WP:NPOV, quite likely to be original research, and no real way of showing otherwise. As far as I can tell Wikipedia is the primary source of information on this topic. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Previous nomination (Jan 2004) --kingboyk 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 09:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. I count 760 google hits, Alexa.com shows one site linking to brianism.org = and that's this one. - Gl e n ^T _C 09:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete (see comments) This is evidently a parody religion that is by definition a joke. Only question is how notable the joke is. Well, not as notable as the flying spaghetti monster, but it seems to gets some reasonable hits on google. Metamagician3000 09:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those sources are reliable? And to what extent is a spoof religion which Googles a fraction of the number of hits I do encyclopaedic? Just zis Guy you know? 10:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, some look otherwise reliable and are not obviously part of the joke. However, prompted by your question, I've spent some time trying to get to the bottom of it. It looks like the creators of this parody religion have been successful in using the Wikipedia article to fool various people such as Webster's On-Line Dictionary into thinking that this is, indeed, a popular joke like the spaghetti monster or whatever (in which case I would consider it to be encyclopedic as long as it was discussed as being a parody or a hoax, not as if it were a real set of beliefs). The article can't bootstrap itself into notability, so I've changed my vote. Metamagician3000 12:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable to me. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since it doesn't have the popular culture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as judged by a lack of google hits and the fact that I've never heard of it (obscure religions may well deserve entries if there are people who take them very, very seriously, but this doesn't count here). Average Earthman 17:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --kingboyk 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Also, it's misspelled :) BryanG 22:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even particularly funny. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom.--blue520 05:21, 16 April 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; cleanup and expand. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Blooms

Very mildly notable, but not enough information available on this song to warrant an Article -- Mattrixed ^Talk 09:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if notable article should be deleted until written so it constitutes an actual article - One line does not an article make. - Gl e n ^T _C 09:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and Expand, singles are notable but content needs to be added. SorryGuy 04:28, 18 April 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. – Rob ert 15:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Cablemodem

This article is a storyline from a movie which claims that this is claimed as "first prize at the first annual Southwick Film Festival (Spring 2004), Southwick, MA." Also, there are no Google hits relating to this. Not notable or encyopedic and does not satisfy the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyopedia, not a collection of stories! fnfd 09:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither "Southwick Film Festival" nor "Pirates of the Cablemodem" have a Google hit. Gu 11:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Metamagician3000 12:28, 11 April 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. – Rob ert 15:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in Kanto between Pokémon Red/Blue/Yellow and Pokémon Gold/Silver/Crystal

Pokémon gamecruft. Punkmorten 09:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's verifiable and useful to any of the Poké-articles (I don't pretend to know), merge. If not, delete, per nom. PJM 11:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd like to add all Pokemon while we're at it, but alas, it will never be. RasputinAXP c 12:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article seems a little too specific, maybe an article for the list of overall changes between all the different version of Pokémon is in order. In its current form it's barely understandable. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A better and more expansive form of this list already exists at Pokémon Gold and Silver#A different Kanto, and that's where it should stay. BryanG 22:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pokemon Gold and Silver where the topic is already covered in more detail. Delete —Cuivi é nen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:19 (UTC)
Delete - not encyclopedic. The article's title is too complex to be of any benefit as a redirect. Pagra shtak 02:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a redir is absolutely not remotely useful. --Golbez 03:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. —Cuivi é nen, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 @ 04:06 (UTC)
Delete. Long name, who finds this article? Gold and Silver article can cover it, and it violates WP:NOT. --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 21:12, 13 April 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. – Rob ert 15:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor online

An so-called "online version" of Survivor running on Freewebs. No Alexa ranking or relevant Google hits. Very non-notable online game. Canley 09:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, non-notable, unverifiable. RasputinAXP c 12:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom Tyhopho 15:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. MCB 08:08, 12 April 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 per CSD A7.--Alhutch 14:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney

Makes absolutely no sense - not an article at all. Needs deletion. Kingofspades 10:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I think the word you are looking for is {{db-bio}}, so tagged. Weregerbil 10:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Gu 11:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It starts off by describing a character from American Dragon: Jake Long, then turns to mush. It's unsourced and there is no mention of this character in the main article. PJM 11:52, 11 April 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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ram Cam

This is the webcam at http://rameysrealm.com/cam.html, which is on a domain that is ranked 5,551,357 by Alexa . It appears to be no more notable than any other webcam. Almost all of the Google hits for "ram cam" are for totally unrelated products and sites. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note: The "Ram Cam" was only officially called "The Ram Cam" from the year 2005. I recommend you re-check the site under the search name "RAMEY GHOST CAM" which comes up with completely relating links which shows it is amongst the most popular of webcams and has been for years.
- Well, that search term gets exactly five hits on Google. Three of them are message boards, and the other two were posted by "Ramster". GeorgeStepanek\^talk 11:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also get too few hits to think that this is more notable than any other ghost cam. Gu 11:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't cross the streams, Ray. RasputinAXP c 12:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry friends i dont mean to be annoying but this article took so long and i hope i can spare it with one more chance. Here goes...Please use dogpile instead of Google. Searching with one search engine cannot simply disquality something for being popular or not. Taken from the Geocities Stats for website /rameysrealm stats show: www.rameysrealm.com has been visited a total of 92,363 times. A link here with a huge comprehensive gallery on the cam found at :

http://www.ruthshere.com/ghost/ramcamcaps.htm

The ghostcam has had many, many hosts- the name changed- some links were lost- but if you go to any paranormal community and ask them about the ramcam or "rameys cam" they will know exactly what you are talking about. Rameys Realm won an award for the most Original Paranormal Site at Hunts ghosthunters paranormal group. Its listed on Paranormal Australia- Horrorfind Ghosts- Will County Ghost Hunters Society- Paranormal Reviews- Best Websites. Net - Ghostfiles. Org- Ghosts In The Linen Mill- Ghost Encyclopedia @ The Late Shift- Deviant Art and more...I just find it frustrating that something with plenty of reference- thousands of photos- genuine website- plenty of links and adequate hits simply cant make it to wikipedia...The Ram Cam is one of the strongest and convincing paranormal cams ever put on show- not to mention one of the longest lasting. What more is required?

Comment I'm sure that your cam is well known within the ghost hunter communities and boards but I don't think it's especially known to the rest of us. Google certainly has its faults but still if something has little Google hits it's usually one among other pointers to non-notability.
But that aside your article is also to a large extent original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia Wikipedia:No_original_research. So it also lacks independent sources and references which would be necessary to verify most things mentioned in the article.
Maybe you want to consider to make a more general article about ghost cams around the world [7] [8] [9], with your cam as part of the list of existing ones? But please remember, no original research, just information which can be verified be independent sources. Gu 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have links that directly mention the things that i have mentioned in this article to verify that these did indeed happen...You can see the pictures that relate to the apparitions mentioned in its text. I still ask of you to keep this as it is different than other ghost cams and has had reliable sources such as investigators and tests to conclude that it wasnt a hoax. I can post links that give more direct mentioning of the article which further shows that what is said can verified by more than one source. Im having a difficult time understanding this.

Delete no evidence of notability or exceptional popularity. I would support a well-sourced article on the concept/phenomenon of ghost cams in general, though. MCB 08:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that people are ignoring the sources listed and going about their merry ways researching the camera with their own methods its already been clearly stated that Rameys Realm won an award for the most Original Paranormal Site at Hunts ghosthunters paranormal group. Its listed on Paranormal Australia- Horrorfind Ghosts- Will County Ghost Hunters Society- Paranormal Reviews- Best Websites. Net - Ghostfiles. Org- Ghosts In The Linen Mill- Ghost Encyclopedia @ The Late Shift- Deviant Art and more...The website has nearly hit 100,000 web views (according to its host Geocities) and there are sites that back up its sources that show the information is accurate and reliable. Please stop ignoring the sources which directly point out the camera and its "popularity".

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business planning (an integrated plan approach)

This is a student essay — original research. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And watch out for more of the same kind - I think we may have a student class project here - see The Buyer Utility Map. We also have Product Software Pricing - especially the see also with assigned author names!

Note also that it includes Image:Concepts.JPG. Creating what should be a Wikitable as a JPG file is a totally anti-colaborative action which should be stomped upon firmly. -- RHaworth 11:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sleepyhead 11:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOR. PJM 11:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Isotope23 19:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem? The table has been changed and there is no information published without the proper rights. 1:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: see debate at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia. -- RHaworth 11:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to ask that this nomination be withdrawn or put on hold pending centralized discussion. It's not just one page in question; it's a fairly large number, all related. John Reid 13:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise with your general position, but if one or more of the articles (such as this one) shouldn't be here, then shouldn't we delete them? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication of effort, risk of inconsistency. John Reid 15:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history of AfDs is one of inconsistency — that's unfortunately the name of the game. My worry here is that we shouldn't just decide not to delete this article despite the near-unanimous consensus, simply because there are other articles that might be in the same position but not yet deleted. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:22, 15 April 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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NDI University Award Center

Few Google hits, sources rather old (1997 and 2003), non-notable ~~scam~~ Gu 11:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks like a good faith article, but subject matter not notable. Metamagician3000 12:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment upps, with non-notable scam I actually didn't mean the article, I'm sure it was written in good faith. I ment the dealings of the NDI University Award Center are a scam, however, a non-notable one. Gu 13:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, that was how I interpreted you. I just meant to comment FWIW that this looks like a well-meaning article about a scam that is not important enough to justify such an article here. Metamagician3000 13:17, 11 April 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. – Rob ert 15:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toromat1 Games

Not notable. 20 google hits. Unknown in Norway. Sleepyhead 11:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably vanicruftspamvertisement. RasputinAXP c 12:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam. Metamagician3000 12:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Some guy 21:17, 11 April 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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Buyer Utility Map

This is a student essay — original research. Delete. Seems to be a mate to Business planning (an integrated plan approach). -- RHaworth 11:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make clear that my article is no original research but the result of a literature study (see references at the end of the article). More argumentation can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Method_engineering as this article is part of this project. What should I do to contribute to the wikipedia ecyclopedia with my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgiesen (talk • contribs)

Root it in Real Life rather than academic hypothesis. Cite documented instances in which this paradigm has been used (or has been disproved for a specific microcosm), so that a reader could relate it to their own experience. -- Simon Cursitor 07:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see debate at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia. -- RHaworth 11:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to ask that this nomination be withdrawn or put on hold pending centralized discussion. It's not just one page in question; it's a fairly large number, all related. John Reid 13:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise with your general position, but if one or more of the articles (such as this one) shouldn't be here, then shouldn't we delete them? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia, I endorse deletion of this article (and associated ME material]], with their transfer to an ME-wiki of their own. -- Simon Cursitor 07:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. SorryGuy 04:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Only one article has been published about it and I have some WP:OR concerns over the section Buyer_utility_map#The_buyer_utility_map_process. —Ruud 18:23, 18 April 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 (e) 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoembryology

This term gets only three Google results. Unfortunately, none of them work. From the results page, two of them appear to be mentions in a list. The word is not shown in the third result, but it is not promising. If this was a real field of study, I would expect far more results, with at least several of them being of decent quality. The article mentions cellular memories (mispelled in the article), which seems to be pseudoscience from my brief investigation. Here is one statement about them. "Cellular memories are stored in the DNA, which we receive from our ancestors. Cellular memory is created whenever we experience trauma or make an emotional decision. And if you believe in such things, cell memory comes in from other lifetimes, other aspects of ourselves in other dimensions." I believe that this article should be deleted as non-notable pseudoscience. -- Kjkolb 12:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a pseudoscience without followers, and looks like a bad Babelfish translation of some sort. The two links are unimpressive (Yahoo free hosting?) Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom, also qualifies as Nonsense IMnsHO Pete.Hurd 19:13, 16 April 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 10:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sun City Palm Desert, California

An article about a gated community in Riverside County, California. Doesn't assert notability, plus there is a city called Sun City in the county that is unrelated to this community, that has already caused confusion. ~~While~~ I assume good faith on the part of the author, ~~this article should still be deleted.~~ Danny Lilithborne 12:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe there is precedent for communities and neighborhoods to have their own articles, however. I don't know enough about this particular one to cast a vote myself. 23skidoo 12:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's true, then I should probably alter my vote, until I get enough information to make a fair vote. Danny Lilithborne 12:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see the notability. Metamagician3000 12:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real place. If we can have articles on neighborhoods in major cities, then housing developments of over 5000 homes should be kept as well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wrote the article and I live here. This is a huge community and shows on all the tourist and real estate maps in the area. There is more than one Sun City. The community I wrote about is Sun City Palm Desert and is a community of nearly 5000 homes. There is also another Sun City near Hemet in Riverside County and yet another in Indio (also in Riverside County) called "Sun City Shadow Hills". I don't feel that Sun City Palm Desert should be deleted, rather, the Sun City near Hemet can simply be added with it's own article. When you have a community with over 10,000 residents, which is more than many incorporated cities in America that are recognized here, that should not simply be written off. Rchristiananderson 11:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can I withdraw a nomination? There's only one vote to delete here, and I already understand the reasoning. To Rchristananderson, there is an article for Sun City here. :) Danny Lilithborne 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi Danny.... yes, that article you refer to is the Sun City near Hemet, California, which is also in Riverside County. Besides the sheer size of Sun City Palm Desert, the main reason for the notability of it is the golf club, which is open to members who don't actually live in the community itself. Within the community is a huge "par 72", 36-hole regulation golf club. The course is known as "Mountain Vista". It was designed by former PGA Tour great and two-time PGA Player of the Year, Billy Casper and Greg Nash. The club is divided into 2 courses: The San Gorgonio (6,669 yards) course and the Santa Rosa (6,720 yards) course. This is one of the most significant courses in southern California and is only a few miles south east of the new Classic Golf club being built for the Internationally known Bob Hope Golf Classic. Rchristiananderson 12:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 15:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for 10,000 in population and the Mountain Vista Golf Club. Nearby Thousand Palms, California has a Wikipage and it's population is only half of this community. Here is an overview of the golf club from the Palm Springs.com website: [Mountain Vista Golf Club] --sandowmuseum 16:52, 12 April 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. – Rob ert 15:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die Ritter von Bork

Allegedly, a Knights Templar splinter group turned American mobsters. Already "Bork" suggests a hoax, and "Ritter von Bork" scored a perfect zero Google hits yesterday (today Google seems to be slightly ill, and suggests 62 links, none of which actually seem to contain the phrase). If they indeed "operated toll gates on all the major rivers in Germany and Modern day Austria", there would surely have been Googlable mentions. Delete as sourceless hoax. Henning Makholm 12:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A prod was contested by an anon (70.32.10.59) who added on the talk page:

Often times things about the Knigts Templar and any other group from that era are hard to find. Is it possible that the author is a mason, and cannot give us the sources?

Said anon's only logged contributions is removing the prod and vandalising Bork to point exclusively to Die Ritter von Bork. Suspect anon is identical to User:11spike whose only contrib is creating Die Ritter von Bork. In any case, the explanation offered here is not a valid argument for keeping, because it directly contradicts Wikipedia's fundamental verifiability standard. Henning Makholm 12:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:V--blue520 13:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blue520. Gwernol 14:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Blue520. Note if they are notable there will be Historical References to cite.-Tollwutig 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with hoax-delete -- Simon Cursitor 07:32, 12 April 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. – Rob ert 15:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scuffleball

The Scuffleball stub has been about for over a year in which time it has been updated mainly with janitorial edits. It has only one external link which no longer works. A google search for scuffleball shows mirrors only. It is a self-declared new sport and I don't think it is verifiable. MLA 12:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gwernol 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. My reading of the current state of the centralised discussion is that the articles will have to be dealt with individually. So I see no reason not to act upon the consensus here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Product Software Pricing

This is a student essay — original research (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business planning (an integrated plan approach) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Buyer Utility Map). Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even when Dr Sjaak Brinkkemper (whom god preserve) of Utrecht tells us what product software is, this is still likely to be original research. -- RHaworth 17:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT how-to and WP:NOR.--Isotope23 19:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see debate at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia. -- RHaworth 11:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to ask that this nomination be withdrawn or put on hold pending centralized discussion. It's not just one page in question; it's a fairly large number, all related. John Reid 13:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise with your general position, but if one or more of the articles (such as this one) shouldn't be here, then shouldn't we delete them? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication of effort. See, I made the same comment on -- what? -- three different noms; you asked this same question three times. Must I now answer you three times? One size fits all for these dozens of related articles. John Reid 15:17, 15 April 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. – Rob ert 15:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloggy style

Contested prod. It's a blog, no indications of meeting notability guidelines and WP:WEB. Unless such information is provided, delete. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 14:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete' per nom. Gwernol 14:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 14:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cje 12:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blink484 22:02, 13 April 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 Wikisource and delete - Couldn't find it on Wikisource, so I'll just transwiki it myself. Proto||type 11:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Cobain's Suicide Note

Transwikied to wikisource per tag request. This isn't an encyclopedia article. Delete.--Isotope23 14:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki. Did you already transwiki? I cant find it on Wikisource; am inclined to do it myself but wouldnt want to duplicate efforts. Also, have added the text to Image:Cobainnote.jpg, so it shouldnt need a seperate article anymore. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 17:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, looks like I hit preview but never saved it on my transwiki. Fixed now.--Isotope23 17:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmmm. Cant find it. I probably dont use the search correctly; I search for Kurt Cobain but get no hits. Do you have a link? The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 14:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - transwikied primary source. -- Saberwyn 13:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—It's not on Wikisource. This shouldn't be deleted until it actually is. Ardric47 00:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, Transwiki, then delete. -- Saberwyn 13:07, 16 April 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 Kotepho 19:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dangerously

Was PROD, but may meet WP:MUSIC (winner of a major music competition, may be "prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city") —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see a bunch of assertions of notability have been added since it was prodded. No opinion yet on those. There's a bunch of stuff related to Nerdcore hip hop that may be similiar- the folks on that talk page are asserting that since the movement is "underground", there won't be any reliable sources covering any of this. Nothing against this genre, but what's unverifiable can't be in an encyclopedia. Also, FWIW, apparently some of these people have taken to writing aritcles about themselves, see High-C for example. Friday (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, most of those claims are adapted/copied from his website. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 14:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this counts as being a national tour or anything, but I know he's playing in Vancouver (did play? I forget the date I was given), and he's apparently appeared on MuchMusic as well as getting airplay on CBC Radio. Can't research heavily right now, but I'll take a look later on.Tony Fox 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep after some research. He is in fact playing dates in Vancouver, Oregon, San Francisco and San Jose in the next couple of weeks (though they are listed on his LJ and aren't exactly huge venues), and did appear on MuchMusic's Going Coastal program in March. Can't find anything on CBC, but seems to be popular on some level. Borderline on WP:MUSIC, but seems to lean to the positive side juuuuust a bit.Tony Fox 04:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the correct format here is, I'm sorry, but I wanted to say that the reason the info is mostly copied/pasted from Jesse's website is that I was too lazy to re-write it. Oh, and also to say that Jesse also has a weekly hip-hop column in Halifax's Daily News. You can check it out here: http://hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?cid=45 . He's not just a nerdcore rapper! Not even. Lefty Lucy

Copy/paste from another source can be problematic at times. I'll try to give it a rewrite when I get home from work and see if it helps things.Tony Fox 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There. Cleaner, at least. I leave it to the mighty purveyors of pages from there. Tony Fox 00:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The very basis of this genre is indy, DIY, self-produced and self-released artists. Many notable nerdcore artists will probably never release on any label whatsoever. Jason Gortician 01:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that it's been rewritten (Good job, Tony). A lot of the music stuff just skirts around the fringes of WP:MUSIC (especially C1.3, C1.9, and C1.12), and I went back and forth on it a couple times, but the newspaper column clearly qualifies him under WP:BIO's requirements for writers (circulation figures here). All's well that ends well. -Colin Kimbrell 03:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to go with the keep here. Although I admit that it's surfing close to the line in some respects, I can't and won't put an artist I've actually heard on the radio with my own ears on the delete side of the line. (And besides, I'm down with anything that actually inspires Lefty Lucy to become a Wikipedia contributor.) Bearcat 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does pass WP:MUSIC, and is verifiable, in my opinion. For that matter I think the verifiability clauses are mostly crap, since they tend to encourage wikipedia turning into a lame mash-up of the New York Times and Wired, which is not anything the world has been particular clamoring for. Perle 03:02, 16 April 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. This article does not meet any criteria for deletion. – Rob ert 23:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in the United States

no chance of EVER becoming a useful or encyclopedic article, nothing more than a series of rants and other questionable content--IworkforNASA 14:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup Sceptr e ^(Talk) 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs work, but its tagged appropriately. No need to delete it. Gwernol 14:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
~~Strong~~ Delete per nom.--Kalsermar 14:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup Metamagician3000 14:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per gwernol. --Lockley 16:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Rhobite 18:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There are 54 other nations with specific human rights articles. Why not the US? Fishhead64 21:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Fishhead64. It needs to be cleaned up, but that's no reason for outright deletion. BryanG 22:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if there is something POV in the article, it can be removed. You could also call Human rights in North Korea inherently POV as the North Korean government would contest almost every statement on that page, but it is not; there are simply people with strong opinions about both who may attempt to weasel in or directly broadcast their opinions on the page. Controversial pages may need to be monitored for POV edits but are not inherently POV. —Cuivi é nen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:23 (UTC)
Keep Encyclopedic subject Hawkestone 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs clean-up but decent enough material there to mould into comprehensive article. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as many above, as this article does not seem to meet any criteria for deletion, but OTOH I have very little confidence that this article could become and stay POV unless some fair-minded editors do serious work and then monitor it closely for a long while. I'll volunteer to do what I can on this, but I think it will take more than one of us. It seems to me that earlier editors have had a serious axe to grind on this issue and the thing needs to be rewritten from the ground up.--Deville (Talk) 12:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This gives me confidence, somewhat, that the article may actually ever approach a balanced POV. I watered down my vote accordingly.--Kalsermar 16:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — No brainer. Being willing to air their dirty laundry is a good indicator of a nation that takes human rights seriously. — RJH 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Agree with other "Keep" votes above but also there is a debate about the length of the "Human Rights" section in the United States article which currently constitutes 9% of the total article length. We need a place to move that text to. This article is the obvious candidate. Maintaining NPOV is a huge challenge but I am willing to join with Deville in trying to maintain an NPOV. See my edits on the "Human Rights" section of the United States article for an example of my work. Richard 09:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an important topic; however, I must agree with nom that the current article is hopelessly POV. Even the lead section seems to say, The U.S. thinks it has human rights, but it doesn't. I would be willing to help rebuild an article from scratch to treat the topic from a more neutral standpoint. Perhaps Human rights in the United States/temp. — MSchmahl… 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Any of the mentioned reasons does not qualify under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy which has very specific policies. I guess this is pretty clear, I'll remove the nomination.--Donut2 13:09, 14 April 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. – Rob ert 15:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth Seven

I'm no prude, but this article on the seven places to have sexual intercourse on the campus grounds of Dartmouth College seems pretty unencyclopedic. Disregarding notions of censorship, this list looks to me to be unverifiable (unless someone wants to try it and get back to us), and its one source (cited in the article and the only Google hit) are from an article in student newspaper The Dartmouth, making it sail dangerously close to original research or "something made up at university one day". Canley 15:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You're not being prudish, you're being encyclopedic, which this article clearly is not. It appears to be a rather arbitrary list of places on this particular campus. At most, it appears to be a game made up at school one day. Fluit 18:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I go to UVA and I've heard of the term, so for whatever it's worth, I think it's useful to have.

Delete and you could probably have got it as a speedy at a push Robdurbar 21:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or I will start listing nookie spots from my alma mater. Butler fornication anyone?--Mmx1 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Campus trivia. Hawkestone 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is encyclopedic, then so are the corners of my house I piss in. Kirbytime 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only seven ?? -- Simon Cursitor 07:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the forgoing Ande B 07:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep famous places of fornication are as important as tourist spots, which wikipedia lists. famous banks, famous squares, famous mountains are listed too. Munckin 07:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Fluit. MCB 06:06, 14 April 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. – Rob ert 23:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion Solutions Corporation

Although the company might be big enough to be notable, the article is just advertising Gu 15:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took out the adspam... here is the afd'd version if anyone cares to see it [10]. I'm still looking into if this company meets WP:CORP.--Isotope23 15:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, can help with WP:CORP:

Non-press release news coverage is detailed here. There's about a couple hundred articles, you should be able to dredge up several dozen that are respectable magazines or newspapers and cover the company in a non-trivial fashion (i.e. not some blurb about an executive change).
Should appear on any ranking of financial or analytical services products. Here's Forbes, Frobes again, American Banker.
Stock indexes: Hyperion is a component of the S&P 600 SmallCap and the S&P 1500 Super Comp.

So, at a glace it would appear to meet "any one" of the three, as well as all three. Kuru ^talk 00:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep At least until they are bought out. I've heard of Hyperion before, but then I have a Banking IT background. --Tollwutig 18:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, very notable company in the financial services industry. I don't think there's much question about it meeting WP:CORP. If there's a content problem with the article, that can be fixed without an AfD. Kuru ^talk 23:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They meet WP:CORP, are notable. Not well known, but notable. Georgewilliamherbert 22:15, 15 April 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 userfy and replace with bio stub about a more notable person. -- RHaworth 21:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Close

Looks like the same exact vanity page which I asked to be deleted a few days ago.--Lacatosias 15:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete {{db-repost}} has been speedied 3 times as vanity already. Delete and salt the earth. Gwernol 15:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and protect from re-creation per gwernol. Unmistakable vanity; author's name is 'Alexclose'. --Lockley 16:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Vanity IrishGuy 18:48, 11 April 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 Userfy Kotepho 19:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayender

Contested {{db-bio}}. I'm thinking speedy userfy. Weregerbil 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom. Gwernol 15:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War on Easter

ATTENTION!

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

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

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

Non-notable web site / club started within the last two weeks. No alexa rank. Prod contested with edit comment Deleted the deletion notice. Deleting this would just be anti-atheistic predjudice, which I would not like to see on Wikipedia.. Weregerbil 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB or simply as a non-notable publicity stunt by a non-notable group.--Isotope23 15:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with it being non-notable. Brian Flemming is a notable director of a very notable documentary which has been featured in Newsweek Magazine, the LA Times and countless other prominent publications (see http://www.thegodmovie.com/press.php). This is no less notable than anything Michael Moore has done, just perhaps more controversial given that most people aren't athiest whereas there are far more Democrats. As to the length of the article, I will work on fleshing out the article more robustly tonight. -- Zeroverse

Brian Flemming is a notable director of a very notable documentary Wrong and wrong, ast least as far as "notable" is concerned. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have some references to third parties saying this is important? Press reviews, ...? Notability of the person does not necessarily transfer to everything he does or says. Google finds very little [11]. Weregerbil 17:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it doesn't matter how notable Flemming is; that does not confer any notability to a one-off publicity stunt unless major media outlets cover his "War on Easter". to use your example Zeroverse, if Michael More took a dump in a paper bag, walked it up to the front porch of Bush's Crawford Ranch, lit the bag on fire, hid in the bushes, filmed George Bush stomping it out, and them someone created an article called Crawford Ranch Flaming Poo on Bush's Hush Puppies I'd still say delete. If this is important information to you and you can source it then add it to Brian Flemming, but right now I see no strong case for this to exist as a standalone article.--Isotope23 17:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno The site 404s for me and it isn't googling well. Maybe turn this into more than just about Brian Flemming as Bill O'Reilly has gone on at least one War on Easter rant on his radio show. Kotepho 17:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I understand that Bill O'Reilly will be featuring The War on Easter very prominently tonight on his TV show. This isn't a non-issue. Thought I do agree that the "War on Easter" can and should be about more than Flemming's and the Rational Response Sqaud's movement. There is a BIG article here...it just hasn't been written yet. As I've said earlier, when I have more time tonight, I'll get to it. My hope was that others might be able to contribute in the meantime...that is the whole point of wikipedia right? Zeroverse 19:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ DELETE or merge. Whether or not this Flemming character is notable is not in question. War on Easter, the subject of the article, is not notable. PS, I do not like Moore but will admit that Moore is a household name. Flemming does not even begin to compare.--Strothra 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Zeroverse: Regarding Michael Moore: says who? How can you compare the "household name" degree of people? He's certainly not a household name in my house. What is your empirical evidence? Should media coverage alone indicate one's notability? Ok fine...Here are some media sources from today alone:
  1. http://www.lavoice.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1726
  2. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49678
  3. Radio appearance: 11:30 AM PT/2:30 PM ET. KOMO 1000, Seattle. http://www.RationalResponders.com/media/KOMOWaronEaster.mp3 - Recording of the KOMO interview
  4. Radio appearance: 1 PM PT/4 PM ET. "Fox Across America," Fox News Radio. XM: Channel 168. Sirius: Channel 145.
  5. Radio appearance: 2 PM PT/5 PM ET. AM 1320 "The Patriot," Jacksonville, FL.
  6. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060411/latu089.html?.v=49

At least you are starting to move in the right direction here Zeroverse... yes media coverage is essential in this sort of situation. If nobody covers it a publicity stunt, then really what is the point? I'd still like to see more important national sources... local radio interviews and a blog (lavoice) just don't cut it as sources in my book. worldnetdaily.com isn't what I would call a reliable source. I can't say I have a high opinion of Fox News's journalistic integrity, but Fox New Radio is a good first stab at proving reasonable national media coverage.--Isotope23 19:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stated "household name" meaning his name is common knowledge among most Americans. You can have a conversation with any half-wit on the street and they are highly likely to know who Michael Moore is. Whereas this Flemming fellow cannot claim the same. I'm sure he's a nice guy but not notable. Media coverage does not make an individual notable. The individual's achievements make them notable. There are standards to judge this but as I said before, no one here cares if Flemming is notable. You are not arguing along the lines of this AfD which is concerns if War on Easter is notable. It is not. --Strothra 21:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate that you are trying to be objective, but I think it's incorrect to say that "the individual's achievements make them notable." What exactly has Michael Moore achieved that Brian Flemming hasn't (other than make more money)? While all your other points about moving/merging this article may be valid, I don't think they should be done under the cloak of "notability." If the article is insufficient at this time, fine...but saying that something isn't notable because Flemming hasn't "achieved" as much as say, Michael Moore, is a poor reason to exclude this article from the public...especially as Easter 2006 is only a few days away and there is very little critism of the holiday in general. The very fact that someone vehemently opposses Easter is notable in itself, and the fact that a growing group of people are committed to this effort is notable on its own merit, Flemming or no Flemming. Brian Flemming is an extremely notable individual in the atheist community anyway. He might not be a "household name" to religious folk that prefer not listening to opposing perspectives, but that doesn't discount his importance to rational thinkers in the freethought community. The War on Easter is extremely important to atheists and freethinkers, and calling it "not notable" because the relative size of the freethought community is miniscule is really just a form of mob rule and bullying. Zeroverse 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly has Michael Moore achieved that Brian Flemming hasn't (other than make more money)? Well, there's making several internationally released movies, winning an Oscar, producing and hosting two TV series (one in primetime), writing a few internationally best-selling books, and popping up as a pop-culture reference everywhere from Team America: World Police to 24 to Family Guy. Other those things, yeah, he's just like Brian Flemming. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

Merge into Brian Flemming. I can't find anything online that would make this notable enough for its own article. Just because A is notable and A makes B, that doesn't necessarily make B notable. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteHow notable is a 404ed website?--Tollwutig 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: All of Flemming's websites have apparently been victims of some kind of attack externally or via his host. I understand they will be back up shortly Zeroverse 19:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So a 404ed website is an attack? --Tollwutig 19:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - 404 is server unavailable... could be an attack (like DoS), could be software/hardware crash, or could be someone doing an page update and not reloading the pages to the correct place on the server.--Isotope23 19:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know what a 404 means was being a bit sarcastic.--Tollwutig 13:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Eh, it's so hard to tell sarcasm in the written form... especially when you don't know the person writing.--Isotope23 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - 404 error is "URL not found". Assuming "attack" from this is assuming that the target is interesting enough for someone to actively attack. A more likely explanation is an incompetent admin. No, there is no great conspiracy to hide this nn stuff. Please let's not pretend someone cares that much. Weregerbil 21:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. And as for no one caring enough to "attack" Flemmings websites, it looks to me like some do care just that much. However, I cannot know if that is what caused the sites to vanish today. Check out this person's website attacking Flemming: http://www.beyond-propaganda.com/pages/1/index.htm

Absolutely Do Not Delete I do suggest this article be merged with another, but there is no way you can delete this article for being irrelevant or not notable enough. That's just a ridiculous proposition. More than half of the information on this site is only recognizable by a number of people that you can count to in about 30 seconds. Even if notability was the case, Brian Flemming the man who wrote the article on "The War On Easter" also directed a movie: "The God Who Wasn't There" which is the current Number 1 Best Seller on [12] indie film list. On top of that, there are thousands of people that have visited the Rational Responders Website and most of them regulary attend a radio show or catch the latest news on the irrational. Hmm, sounds like The Rational Responders need to take a peek at wiki's editors...--Animefreak1390 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I first point you to WP:WEB, which the website does not meet. Secondly, it doesn't matter how notable Brian Flemming is in relation to War on Easter. Just because he is notable doesn't mean every little thing he does warrents a separate wikipedia article. You've made a good case for Brian Flemming's notability, but nobody is suggesting deletion of his main article. Try proving [War on Easter]] meets WP:WEB instead.--Isotope23 19:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnotable per WP:WEB Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete: The War on Easter has been spoken about in many media sources. Here is another interview posted from this afternoon on 1390AM "The Patriot" in Florida http://www.RationalResponders.com/media/waroneasterthepatriot.mp3 also Yahoo News just posted about it: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060411/latu089.html?.v=49 Bill O'Reilly is supposedly covering it tonight. The argument that this item doesn't validly sit on it's own in addition to a individual page for Brian Flemming is now bunk. 68.46.79.43

Please login before making comments. Further, you have not invalidated the arguement. The article does not establish the organization's notability regardless of whether or not it's been reported on in a few news outlets. That fact does not make an organization notable. Yahoo and a radio station are hardly major media outlets. FOX News is a major media outlet but it's only one and it a current item. That does not establish notability. --Strothra 01:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I couldn't find any mention of O'Reilly doing a piece on this on his website archives. All I could find was a bunch of blogging about Fox News doing a piece about employers not allowing people to display Easter decorations and other cultural bias against Easter. As far as I can tell it had nothing to do with Brian Flemming and The Rational Response Squad and in fact is exactly the opposite of what Flemming is trying to do.--Isotope23 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete: My home, snailmail and email boxes are spammed with religious propaganda weekly. Some people trying to share an alternative point of view should be applauded. I recently became a fan of the Rational Response Squad, and through them, found this movie. The fact that atheists are giving out copies of their movie for free seems a very "christian" thing to do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.80.74 (talk • contribs)

What?? That's not even an arguement - just nonsense. Also, please sign your comments. --Strothra 01:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope like I suggested twice in my previous comment on the article, the "The war on easter" article should be merged with either brian flemmings article or one of the correlating Rational Responders biographies. --Animefreak1390 01:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then lets agree to agree. Someone who is interested in this can just go ahead and boldly merge the content into Brian Flemming's main article.--Isotope23 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, at least for the next couple months. This topic may ultimately justify it's own web page, or be more appropriate for a section in TGWWT. It all depends on how Christians respond. If today's DoS attack on Flemming's web sites is any indication, this could be significant in it's own right. In summary, my vote is KEEP. Human455 04:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Could be significant" isn't sufficient justification for keeping the article. It violates WP:NOT crystalball clause.--Isotope23 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More promotional fluff from the ego of Brian Flemming, the distinctly minor movie-maker. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Come on. Are personal attacks really necessary to justify your position? Brian Flemming had nothing to do with the addition of this article and he certainly doesn't make films or spread rational thinking for an ego-boost. A distinctly minor movie-maker? Your unsubtle bias completely undermines any valid points you may have had and frankly didn't add anything constructive to this discussion. I vote not to count your vote. Zeroverse 14:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what personal attacks would those be? ...frankly didn't add anything constructive to this discussion. On the contrary, they're noting the source of this particular aggressive PR campaign. Wikipedia? NOT a free PR resource, no matter how fervent. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Calton previously tried to delete the Wikipedia entry for The God Who Wasn't There: [13] Human455 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment what Calton has done in the past is irrelevant to this discussion.--Isotope23 16:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: It's relevant if he and/or a group of people are trying to delete lots of atheist Wikipedia entries. Why is there simultaneously another VfD attack on Atheists of Silicon Valley? [14] Human455 02:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheists of Silicon Valley (Second nomination) was nominated by pm_shef, not Calton... so unless you have some overwhelming proof that there is a secret cabal working against "Atheist articles", it's a completely irrelevant point. 2 AfD's don't equal "lots of atheist Wikipedia entries". The reason there is a concurrent AfD of 2 "Atheist" articles is coincidence (I'm too lazy to count but there are probably about 600+ articles on active AfD right now... meaning "Atheist" articles make up 0.3% of articles on AfD) and more due to the fact that the 2 articles make no strong case for meeting their respective guidelines.--Isotope23 02:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this opportunity to point out that User:Jason Gastrich was banned in part for attempting an actual campaign against articles on atheists. We don't put up with that kind of crap here, and the fact that nothing bad's happened to Carlton is pretty good evidence that he's not doing anything of the sort. The only campaign I've seen him wage is against bad articles. -Colin Kimbrell 13:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete: Has it occured to those from Wiki that maybe some of us have been coming to this site for the longest time and have not posted anything on any topic, however but because this issue is so important for us, we feel the need to post for the first time?! Thanks for not allowing my one post to get less weight than those regular posters, although I have been and am a lifetime user. 65.40.245.66
- In answer to your question: no. Why would this time be different from all the other times that the sock drawer burst open? --Calton | Talk 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you really were longtime lurkers, I think you would've known more about the way AFD works. -Colin Kimbrell 13:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If the antics make it into the news in a major source, then maybe. Martinp 15:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just letting you know it's at least hitting joke news as it was covered on The Colbert Report this week, or at least the headline was War on Easter. Still don't think it has enough notability yet. My suggestion is give it year, if this group gets a strong campaign together it might make it notable enough.--tollwutig
Delete nn. OSU80 04:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Radagast83 20:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. 132.241.246.182 06:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per martinp. Sandstein 19:22, 18 April 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 11:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cimorene

NN character according to description Gu 15:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we can have entries for Rincewind and Rand'al Thor we can have entries for this one. Wrede is a published author and this is apparently the main character of her books. It needs to be cleaned up and encyclopedified though. Harp Heaven 17:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Amazon shows this Author around 8k in books, In above example Terry Pratchett is 2k and Robert Jordan is at 370. The 2 characters above are rather notable, so bad comparison. Also looking at the author works seems more geared towards younger readers. --Tollwutig 18:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Patricia Wrede. (Cimorene is the main character of 3 of Wrede's books.) —Chris Chittleborough 08:40, 12 April 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 11:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gesellschaft für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Gu 15:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a definition article but rather a stub about an organization. Mike _{(T C)}

17:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough from what I could read of de: and google. Kotepho 18:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to be anything but an acronym, in German yet. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not an acronym, but just translating the name of this scientific society. It needs expanding. --Bduke 22:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So write an article about Society of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics and redirect it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a German Society so has a German name. The english name could well redirect to the main article. --Bduke 23:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to be GAMM, I moved it to the German name as it is more common than both "German Society of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics" and "International Society of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics". The organization seems notable enough so the article should be expanded not deleted. Kotepho 10:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable organization, now categorised to improve its chances of expansion, but be patient. Hawkestone 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable organization, has article on the German Wikipedia. Do not move it to an English title, as the Society uses the German name (or its acronym GAMM) on the English version of its webpage. u p p l a n d 06:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the AfD was for the original GAMM article, which didn't contain anything than the acronym, certainly not for the now created proper Gesellschaft für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik article Gu 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Issue seems to be fixed. Good stub. Martinp 15:55, 14 April 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Patti

Barely notable businessman. Delete or slight merge to Ameritech. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems pretty notable as businessmen go. -Colin Kimbrell 20:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added some content, though it's still pretty skinny. -Colin Kimbrell 20:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or slight merge to Ameritech. If there's an "Average Professor" test, this guy fails the "Average Businessman" equivalent. --Calton | Talk 05:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you want to merge, good enough, but I'm not sure why you'd pick Ameritech, where he was an employee for only a brief period of time, over Dial Corporation, where he spent the majority of his career. -Colin Kimbrell 13:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or smerge per Carlton. Sandstein 19:11, 18 April 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 Kotepho 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Itani

The correct name for this writer is Frances Itani. There is already a longer, more thorough entry under the correct name. Victoriagirl 15:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect then. Average Earthman 17:15, 11 April 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:Alkivar on 12 April 2006. – Rob ert 00:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-Mat

Delete, vanity article (non notable by music standards group on wikipedia) Zotel - the Stub Maker 04:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, satisfies A7 criteria for speedy deletion, and author of the article has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism other than this vanity article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:29, 12 April 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. – Rob ert 23:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Deegan

Not sufficiently notable, and not asserted to be. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to have been vandalised - current news articles (dated later than the potential vandal's edit) have no mention of his being expelled. Any such statement seriously requires citations to avoid libel laws (I believe it is the anon IP who made such a statement that would be liable, not Wikipedia). I have reverted to the last verifiable version and added a link, found via Google News. Average Earthman 17:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unfortunately. As much as I dislike him and wish he had never stepped into the MuchMusic VJ Search competition, the article as well as all of the other MuchMusic VJ articles meet the standards set at Wikipedia:Notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is unlikely that anyone outside of Canada will be aware of whom Tim Deegan really is; if you require pure eludciation, just see http://www.muchmusic.com. It's on the front page. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is the winner of VJ Search and now has a job in front of a camera on the primary music channel in Canada. -- JamesTeterenko 04:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above. MuchMusic is equivalent to MTV in the United States. It's a shame that the article had to be vandalized, and listed here. TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep it. He's a celebrity now. Hundreds of thousands voted. Sounds notable enough to me. He's a Canadian TV figure and he's going to be around for a while. If he disappears off the channel, maybe then he'd be up for deletion (Dfahmy 20:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep and cleanup. -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 21:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it; as national television personalities, MuchMusic VJs are notable enough per WP:BIO. Speedy keep if at all possible. Bearcat 10:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TV exposure and new job make him sufficiently notable. —Wh o uk (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is pretty much just a fan page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chinamanjoe (talk • contribs) .
Keep, hopefully speedily. If it's "pretty much a fan page," you can easily request improvement with a template message... Samaritan 03:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but someone better remove the part about people being charmed by his "down to earth personality" etc. It looks like this is a Tim Deegan fanpage. 132.208.24.101 19:23, 15 April 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. – Rob ert 15:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Randall

Probable hoax or self-fantasy. Googling for "Charlie Randall" and Pokemon only led to this page and its mirrors. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It's a joke copy a Serebii.net entry for a manga characters. Well generally it's 3 manga entries welded together and renamed. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighwayCello. --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 21:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighwayCello. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:12, 13 April 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 Wiktionary. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvi

I prodded this as a slang dicdef (and left a nice message on the creator's talk page about the policy on dictionary definitions and the deletion process). The creator removed the prod tag replacing the word "slang" in the definition with "widely accepted". However, even if this is a "widely accepted" term, it's still a dictionary definition and not appropriate for Wikipedia under WP:WINAD. Delete NickelShoe (Talk) 16:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call this a widely accepted term having never heard anyone use it. It really has no place in this encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.108.108 (talk • contribs) .
Transwiki obvi. Kotepho 18:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvi Agree - Transwiki. It's probably obvi that I'm obvi jealous that Kotepho beat me to it, and obvi that I've never heard this rediculous term before, but the obvi thing for me to do is to not only incorporate it into my everyday speech, but (obvi) defy convention by obvi using it everywhere except the end of a sentence. Fluit 23:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nickel shoe. Blink484 22:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki ~~and~~ or Delete (if unverifiable) per above. I didn't realize that people even abreviated this word. Radagast83 05:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no evidence that they do. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. Radagast83 06:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why transwiki? If it's trash, we shouldn't really be putting it in someone else's yard, should we? NickelShoe (Talk) 13:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found [15][16][17] three mentions in student newspapers. Good enough for me. Kotepho 15:12, 18 April 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. The consensus is borderline, but one 'vote' rests on an assertion of notability for which there is no evidence. Note that this article did not concern the John Scherer linked to from By Jeeves (the only articlespace link to this article), who may merit an article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Scherer

nn commercial endorser. If we had had an article on Video Professor, I would have redirected there. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. How is it nobody ever created a Video Professor article some late night watching crappy TV on Nick at Night?--Isotope23 19:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep can someone spend enough of their (or other people's) money advertising themselves to attain notability? Neil Clark Warren, Pia Zadora, John Basedow seem to suggest "yes". Carlossuarez46 20:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. —Encephalon 21:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the commercials everywhere, the man's name is somewhat of a mime. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 21:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Video Professor if an article is created before closing, otherwise delete. youngamerican (talk) 02:08, 13 April 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 Kotepho 18:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dawkins

Reason why the page should be deleted

Speedy keep. No reason given, obviously an important figure. I'm just listing this properly so this mess created by an anon who's purposes are unclear can get cleaned up. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. We're on the verge of taking this to FAC so I doubt very much this should be deleted. Clear bad faith nomination. Mikker ^(...) 16:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Dawkins's contributions to science and religion are vastly notable whether you agree with them or not. Someone have an axe to grind? Nutjob 17:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no reason given for AfD.--Isotope23 17:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, either a bad faith nomination or a particularly annoying test. Average Earthman 17:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, subject is an eminent scientist and popularizer of science. You might as well delete Carl Sagan. Tex 18:07, 11 April 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. – Rob ert 15:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic.com

Doesn't meet WP:WEB, Alexa >50,000, WP is not a web directory, NN. Delete Dbchip 16:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alexa ranking alone isn't grounds for deletion. This site apparently won a webby and that is a respected award. IrishGuy 18:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the link showing that it did, indeed, win a Webby award [18] IrishGuy 01:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Winning a Webby makes any website automatically notable. Rather like winning a film or music award. —Cuivi é nen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:27 (UTC)
Keep. Even though kind of a weird website, this article has a good number of edits, is an okay article, etc. Freddie 01:24, 12 April 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. Mailer Diablo 09:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mental existence

Combination of original research and spam for the mildly bizarre "Institute for Human Conceptual and Mental Development" (their rather weird powerpoint presentation is hosted on Geocities, which is a little suggestive...) TheGrappler 16:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopedic, only a single source, stinks of orginal research. Also per Nom--Tollwutig 18:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom IrishGuy 18:35, 11 April 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. Shanel ^§ 16:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downrising, Matt Bieler

Delete - Downrising is not notable. If they were notable, there would be revelant results for a google search besides their own website. There is no proof of notability from reliable sources. The only reference to them outside of their website is a brief mention on a local radio station's website. There are ZERO results for them on Last.fm. I don't really know what else you can ask for as proof of a non-notable band. I think we agreed with the deletion of Matt Bieler from the previous nomination. There was no consesus the first time for deletion for this band after relisting. Wickethewok 16:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Information this in-depth on a subject this obscure could only have come from the band themselves. Harp Heaven 17:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only assertion of notability (per WP:MUSIC) is that some of the members were also in other bands, most of which I would also question the notability of. If this band deverves mention at all it is in the profiles of those peole or that notable bands they may have been members of. Spewin 00:50, 13 April 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. Mailer Diablo 09:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of computer syntax patterns

Wikipedia is not a repository for links, or a content mirror. This article consists primarily of links to an external site, along with a small amount of (fortunately GFDL) text copied from that external site. Allan McInnes (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not seem useful as it currently stands; if someone think that it could be useful in the future, I'd support a userfy or move as subpage of a project. - Liberatore(T) 17:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Ruud 03:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an interesting (to me at least) piece of original research but not acceptable as an article. —Chris Chittleborough 11:38, 16 April 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. – Rob ert 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about phantom or sentient animals

Pointless, badly formatted and highly subjective article Jack Cain 17:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per nom --Strothra 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per nom (can I make a list of Pointless Wiki lists?)--Tollwutig 18:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (not as strange as "List of Hindi film stars who have been to Mauritius", but relatively close).... Joe 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Her Pegship 21:48, 15 April 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. – Rob ert 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystick Krewe Mush

I'm not sure about this; is this a notable game? Or a system where you take a game and modify it to create your own non-notable variant? Draws a perfect zero on google. Weregerbil 17:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. --Off! 17:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. nn, arguable nonsense. --Strothra 17:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably somebody's homebrew RPG variant. Unverifiable at least. I must say, it at least sounds interesting and fun, which is more than can be said for a lot of AFD stuff. Still delete though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "mystick krewe" MUSH gets a few hits but.. no. Kotepho 18:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's the MUSH alright, I've seem some of their ads posted on MUSH community sites. Not a hoax, and not nonsense, but also not notable. Ehheh 19:41, 11 April 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. Proto||type 11:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Screen of Death

Possible case of a crystal ball-article. Merge with Blue screen of death if this is a real and notable error screen, otherwise delete. --Off! 17:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is not a crystal ball article since it is actually occuring, however it needs referencing. Mike _{(T C)} 17:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Blue screen of death. --Chris (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Never heard of it but things have been failing to wake up from suspend for a while and google isn't coming up good (handful of forums even when I exclude a bunch of stuff). Kotepho 18:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Blue screen of death or Delete Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 20:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Direct connection with Blue screen of death without being notable on its own. Not verifiable currently, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. —Cuivi é nen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:29 (UTC)
A problem has been detected and this article has received a vote to be deleted to prevent unnecessary articles on Wikipedia.

The problem seems to be in the following file: This page

NON_VERIFIABLE_CONTENT_AND_RELATION_WITH_BSOD

IF this is the first time you have seen this message... Oh, what the hell, this is getting boring.

Freddie 22:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verifiable through the use of reliable, third-party sources, in which case merge to Blue Screen of Death. -- Saberwyn 13:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saberwyn, or merge to Blue Screen of Death if it is verifiable. Radagast83 05:41, 18 April 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 under G4 by User:Fang Aili. Kotepho 19:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackness scale

Contested prod. Seems to be original research. Looks like it's been speedied once before as well. I vote to delete TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself notes that it was created by a high school kid. Completely original research and completely non notable IrishGuy 18:32, 11 April 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. – Rob ert 15:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame... reasons

I hesistated from speedy deleting this by giving the article editors the benefit of the doubt. However, I fail to see any context to actually explain what this article is about. Pepsidrinka 17:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per apparent contextless nonsense.--Isotope23 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent nonsense. Some guy 21:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as this is just a poorly-written copy of the existing article about the ESPN show. See The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame....160.39.31.71 00:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't add anything more than the article about the show itself. --Nlu (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like it should give more detail than the article about the show itself. It can list the actual reasons from each episode. Might be better reworked into an episode guide format. Agree it needs to be rewritten. -- J1729 20:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article contents exist in another form. The article as at present includes absolutely no context and the title is extremely confusing. David | Talk 23:02, 15 April 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. Mailer Diablo 09:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Lendt

A minor, young, self published composer. Article has been prodded twice in the last couple of months, and the tag removed. No cleanup or enhancement of article attempted. less than 140 relevant ghits, buy his music from hornguy@yahoo.com MNewnham 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment . If kept, article is going in the copyvio bin anyway... MNewnham

Delete. A "rising star" in "Wind Band Literature"? --Calton | Talk 05:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a minor composer. grafikm_fr 23:26, 17 April 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 11:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Kids

Delete non-notable. Aplomado - U T C 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Actually, the play has been reviewed by some notable newpapers according to this site [19] IrishGuy 18:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Conflicted Keep and Clean Up. I'm not so sure; there's quite a bit of hits on Google here. It's definitely not a good article, but it seems like a notable play. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:31, 11 April 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 as an attack page. Stifle (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Na Pal Gyi Shwebomin

The article already exists as Shwebomin. Also, this article includes a Burmese derogatory term (Na Pal Gyi) and is vandalism. Hintha 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Shwebomin. Some guy 21:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as personal attack. A redirect is not necessary (and POV) because the insult appears to non-notable when applied to Shwebomin. —Cuivi é nen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:31 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as personal attack, vandalism, etc. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Pal Gyi Shwebomin

The article already exists as Shwebomin. Also, this article includes a Burmese derogatory term (South Pal Gyi) and is vandalism. Hintha 18:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Shwebomin. Some guy 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I tried redirecting the article several times, but other users revert it and re-create the article. Hintha 21:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as personal attack. A redirect is not necessary (and POV) because the insult appears to non-notable when applied to Shwebomin. —Cuivi é nen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:32 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was uhhhhh...no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool (African philosophy)

Neologism, 0.5 sources. One obscure book uses the word "Cool" but isn't clear it ever calls it an "African philosophy".

Article faced AfD but was given reprieve to find more sources. Four months later is still lacking sources.

Fails google test.

Leads in with weasely "Cool is considered by several notable professors", none of which are mentioned.

Creator acknowledges this is a POV fork*: "Because people whined and groused about the information regarding its African/African-American origins, I separated out the African/African-American subject matter from cool and began Cool (African philosophy)" (Deeceevoice)

Archived previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy)

Justforasecond 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that. Use {{afdx}} or edit the template after substing it. Now anything that linked to the old debate links to this one. Kotepho 19:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see instructions on how to do renominate -Justforasecond 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep bad faith nomination. - FrancisTyers 18:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Invalid reason to keep. Justforasecond 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This vote violates WP:POINT and WP:AGF.--Urthogie 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no it doesn't — please try and remain civil and refrain from making unfounded accusations; - FrancisTyers 08:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Friday has suggested my vote not be counted. If the closing admin is suspicious of my motivation I suggest he/she reads both the talk page of this article and this section of DC's RfAr. Particularly see comment 5. - FrancisTyers 09:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with User:FrancisTyers. I wasn't going to mention it, but since this particular thread has come this far, let me state that I, too, believe, this is a bad-faith AfD. It's no secret there is no love loss between JFAS and me -- to the point that I repeatedly have asked him not to post to my talk page. I believe the matter that precipitated this AfD is the issue of JFAS's incessant and appallingly tacky/vicious edit warring at Ronald Dellums. He can't stand the man -- a point he makes perfectly clear on his user page.

March 13, I was approached by an anonymous editor to stop by Ron Dellums.[20] There was no mention in the anonymous post made of User:Justforasecond. I did so, made a few edits and then decided to post the matter of JFAS's (and others') constant edit warring on the Admin Notice Board[21]. (Other intervention did not succeed in deterring JFAS, so the article currently is in a locked status. JFAS subsequently was blocked April 5 for his continuing conduct.[22])
A few days later, I made the following post at Talk:Ron Dellums directed at JFAS, informing him I had edited the existing version of the section dealing with Dellums' family and that his attacks on Dellums "would not be tolerated."[23] Note the date and time of the post: Revision as of 13:14, 11 April 2006.
At 18:28 that same day, JFAS moved to archive the old Afd for Cool (African philosophy) (the second or third attempt to obliterate this article, the last having been closed at the end of December -- incessant and ongoing)[24] and immediately thereafter, at 18:31, opened up this latest attempt to erase it.[25]

Even putting all the bad blood between JFAS and me and all that garbage about the RfA aside, it's pretty obvious who has acted in bad faith here. Deeceevoice 09:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Deeceevoice's Arbcom case:

"Deeceevoice is reminded of the need to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability. and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In addition, her attention is directed to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox  Passed 8-0"

CoYep 13:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My attention is directed where it needs to be at the moment, thank you very much, CoYep. Perhaps you might want to return to the list of sources I provided and direct your attention there -- since your failed attempts to dismiss them outright[26] seem truly to have missed the mark.[27] :p Deeceevoice 18:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the motivations behind the nomination, but there is an actual issue here that needs attention from experienced editors: Is the notion of a whole article on cool as an African philosophy an example of giving undue weight to one (or maybe more) academic(s)? We can all agree there's overlap between this article and Cool (aesthetic). If this is a POV fork of the former, it needs to be merged back in. However, I still don't think the Afd is a good idea- the important issue here is far better off being discussed on the talk pages, as has already been done here and there. Friday (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How many months should an article and its contributors be given to add sources? Hyacinth 19:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as long as it takes. If there is unverifiable information in the article -- as with any other, then delete that information. Let the article remain in that state -- with a stub or other tag appropriate to its condition -- until someone has the time and interest to improve it. I mean isn't that the way Wikipedia is supposed to work? (Duh.) And that's what's happened to the piece so far; whole chunks have been obliterated.

But it hasn't stopped there. This article has been under constant attack. This is the third or fourth attempt to obliterate it, the last effort concluding as late as the end of December. Here, the article has been attacked for lacking information I previously had inserted in the article, but which was hacked out of it! :p And there were subheads delineating the widely accepted components of the aesthetic that were left blank (as is done in lots of articles on this website), inviting input and further development as a means of helping to form a general framework for the piece. They, too, were deleted.

The so-called "weaselwords" of the opening paragraph are a rewrite -- one I did not do. One of the people complaining about the condition of the piece did that. I left it as a concession. And, yeah. I, too, think the wording sux. :p

Returning to the question, the fact is no article on Wikipedia should depend upon the time and attention of a single editor for its development. Nor should it be obliterated simply because no single editor has worked tirelessly on it. People grouse about the page. If they spent a fraction of the time, energy and attention constructively editing the piece (not just hacking away at it) and contributing information that they've so far spent complaining about it or, ad seriatim, trying to get it deleted, hell, it'd be a freaking featured article.

Has anyone thought to put it up for article improvement, as is, I believe, fairly common practice around here when the desire is to improve an article? Has it been suggested for the project concentrating on articles treating Africa? Gosh. What a concept. The answer to both questions is no. Because beyond the criticism (some of it justified; I have not had the time or the inclination to concentrate on it) of the article itself, the hostility of detractors (as is evidenced by those who continue to focus on attack Thompson's unassailed scholarship completely without foundation, while completely ignoring the writings of others) has been directed toward the editor and/or the very subject itself. One of the primary detractors below has had the unmitigated gall to assert, "But many people don't recognize the [A]frican aesthetic as existing." Yet he so far has failed to produce a single, learned individual (biased opinions born of ignorance or animus don't count) who would make such an absurd and possibly racist statement. There is no doubt that indigenous African peoples, as with all other members of humanity, have aesthetic standards and belief systems. Further, there is ample evidence, and considerable scholarhip that supports, that there is, indeed a collective cool aesthetic commonly held across traditional, indigenous African societies that has far-reaching implications with regard to how individuals comport themselves, how they interact, that governs/mediates both everyday/pedestrian and artistic expression. That aesthetic merits an article -- just as Japanese aesthetics merits one.

This article has not been treated the way other articles on the website generally are treated. The far more interesting and legitimate question that begs a proper answer here is, "Why?" :p Deeceevoice 22:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because it is a POV fork filled with OR. No one denies there are aesthetics in Africa (continent-wide aesthetics are in question), but this article is about the supposed African "philosophy" known as "Cool". Justforasecond 17:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, it doesn't seem to be improving. At this point my opinion is to delete this as a POV fork of Cool (aesthetic). If people want to add more on this version of "cool" into the main article, they can certainly do so, as long as they cite sources. I think issues of possible undue weight are best addressed by keeping this as one article instead of two. Friday (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per FT. When is JFAS going to lay off her'his vendetta against all things African? Guettarda 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This vote violates WP:POINT and WP:AGF.--Urthogie 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks and incivility. Invalid reason to keep. Justforasecond 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I think the issue of whether this is a POV fork is an important one, so I suggest letting the Afd run its course despite suspicions about motivation. Friday (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cool (aesthetic), and make it a sub-topic. If this article is kept really needs to have more proper sourcing.--Tollwutig 19:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single source for this. Justforasecond 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any cited content that is relevant to "Cool" should be merged into that article. Justforasecond 16:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable, nonsourced nonsense. And caution Guettarda about personal attacks. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sure, and consider a merge into cool (aesthetic) or delete. The article itself just exists to put forward the opinion of a couple professors(namely thompson) who hold some views on cool in african culture.--Urthogie 00:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into cool (aesthetic), per Urthogie. Haikupoet 03:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Zoe. Joe 03:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork & original research CoYep 06:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Apr. 12, '06 [07:00] <freakofnur_xture |talk>
Merge into cool (aesthetic) -- GWO
delete, or improve+merge. Most of the article, as I can see it, is actually about African-American culture, not about African philosophy.--Aleph4 13:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: The creator of this page, Deeceevoice, has made clear that she supports a merge-- so I suggest that all votes based on supposed vendettas be ignored; vendetta or no vendetta, most people are voting the way the creator of this page originally wanted.--Urthogie 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequently retracted to a strong keep. See my comments farther down the page and on the discussion page. Deeceevoice

I was about to put a pointer here to the same section of that talk page. The explanation of this article's creation given there makes it sound like a classic example of a POV fork. This issue isn't likely to be over just because someone closes the Afd as a delete or merge (assuming that's how it goes.) I hope a few of the editors watching here will stick around to help make sure things go peacefully with Cool (aesthetic) if there's going to be some merging. Friday (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on both articles for months and plan to continue on them.--Urthogie 14:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(moved discussion from top) *Patently false. The charge is groundless and my comments have been taken completely out of context. The article is most definitely not a POV fork. See my comments farther down the page, as well as my comments on the discussion page, which include Google results. Deeceevoice 06:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POV fork argument is incorrect. See my comments regarding the evolution of Cool and Cool (African philosophy) here [28] and here.[29] Urthogie claims he has been working on both articles for several months; however a quick review of the edit history will reveal that very little new, if anything at all, has been contributed to either article in that time. Edits to cool consist primarily of vandalism and subsequent reversions. Lacking sufficient time at present to devote to the article on Cool (African philosophy) and the constant attempts to obliterate it, it is likely best for now that the two pieces be combined. However, I am confident that, given sufficient development, the cool "philosophy" (per Thompson)/"aesthetic" (per other academics) in the African understanding, as I later discovered after doing some reading, is sufficiently complex to merit its own article. Deeceevoice 17:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny story online mentioning wikipedia a few paragraphs down -- [30] Justforasecond 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not funny, a misrepresentation -- and utterly irrelevant to this matter. It speaks to your personal motives/vindictiveness in pursuing this matter ad nauseam. Shall I refer people to your conduct in the Dellums article? Deeceevoice 14:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consensus seems to be delete "Cool (African philosophy)", and merge any valid content into "Cool". Any editor is welcome to edit "Cool" (as always). Justforasecond 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refactored your comment a bit. Whoever closes the Afd (probably several days from now) can decide how to read consensus in this case. Formatted the way it was, your comment looked like it was telling people not to continue discussing this, which I don't think is desirable. Friday (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. no prob. I haven't done one of these before. Justforasecond 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP!!! See my comments on the discussion page, as well as the results of a proper Google search. I've reconsidered my position. I've tried to post this several times, but have been unable to do so. (Another instance of a collateral damage block; it happens to me constantly.) The two subjects are substantially different and both need space to be developed. Cool (aesthetic) should continue to deal with the pop culture manifestations of "cool" with a nod to its African/African-American roots. As I mentioned on the talk page of Cool: (African philosophy), there are all sorts of possibilities for further development of ~~this~~ that piece -- an examination of the evolution of "cool" and the anti-hero (the "bad nigger," Stagga Lee, Iceberg Slim, Clint Eastwood's nameless drifter, etc.). I suggest it be renamed "Cool (pop culture aesthetic)." I suggest the other article be renamed "Cool (African aesthetic)." In the readings I've done, primarily Thompson and the academicians who quote him refer to it as a "philosophy." All others seem to refer to the same (or very similar)concepts elucidated by Thompson as an "aesthetic," which, frankly, seems more appropriate. (I utilized Thompson's terminology in setting up the "philosophy" article as a means of differentiating it from cool in the pop culture context.) I reiterate that Wikipedia has far too few articles dealing with Africa and African culture. Cool in the African cultural context is sufficiently complex that it merits an article of its own. Google "African cool aesthetic" and see what you come up with. There's ample information on the subject in an African context and in the African diaspora to fill an article without mention of Fonzie and social stratification and many of the, IMO, rather shallow, pop-culture manifestations of the phenomenon. Deeceevoice 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

an examination of the evolution of "cool" and the anti-hero sounds like more original research, and in any case, can go into the "cool" article. we have yet to see a single source saying this is a an "african philosophy". Justforasecond 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is what I have just suggested above -- that pop culture references (including cool and the anti-hero) go into the "Cool (aesthetic)" article, renamed "Cool (pop culture aesthetic). Deeceevoice 06:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, I strongly oppose merge, since there is no evidence that this is, indeed, an African philosophy other than one book. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While Thompson's work (which actually includes several monographs) is the source of the term "philosophy" in connection w/cool, there is ample scholarship among academicians, anthropologists, art historians, etc., who write of an African cool "aesthetic." When I separated out the article from it pop culture stuff, I chose Thompson's terminology to diffrentiate the two, "aesthetic" from "philosophy." Further reading tells me the article is best titled "Cool (African aesthetic)," because "philosophy" has other connotations that see incongruous with the phenomenon and, indeed, somewhat antithetical to traditional African ways of being in/regarding the world. Whatever the article is called, there is a need to examine the phenomenon in its original and purest context, grounded in the cultural, existential, spiritual and moral framework that gave birth to it. And even if one completely disagrees that African cool and pop culture cool are even remotely connected at all, the subject still would merit an article -- because of cool's far-reaching influence in African the plastic and performance arts, interpersonal relationships, notions of propriety, comportment and spiritual centeredness. It is a cultural ethos at the heart of the indigenous African psyche/identity. It remains clearly in evidence today in the Motherland and, certainly in the Caribbean and the Americas. And there is scholarship supporting that fact. Deeceevoice 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment My agreement with Zoe supra extends to this point as well. Joe 03:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether we merge or not can be decided on the cool aesthetic page itself. I encourage you to participate.--Urthogie 11:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment That's not altogether correct. If this article is deleted, there is a presumption against its information's being added once more to the encyclopedia, inasmuch as the subject of the article has already been adjudged to be, for example, non-notable. Even as one may later decide to append some of the information in this article to the cool aesthetic page, a merge does not occur in the traditional sense. Joe 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a straightforward case, but this does seem to be a minor neologism, and not to have much in the way of genuine philosophical background. It's certainly not related to African philosophy; the term seems to be being extended to Black American popular culture (something that's also done in the literature sometimes, but even one of the main culprits, Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, doesn't have any mention of "cool" in his African Philosophy: An Anthology). --Mel Etitis (?e? ?t?t??) 21:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep are you kidding me? "This article needs sources" is not a valid reason for delete. It is a valid reason for a "this article needs sources" tag. Let me also remark to Justforasecond that I'm not sure where he got his claim for "consensus"... it seems clear to me that this is a developing conversation we're having here about this, and 22 hours is kind of quick when you have this many opposing opinions. In short, hold off on declaring consensus, at least just for a second. --Deville (Talk) 22:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that its unsourcable-- its an article about an opinion.--Urthogie 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources listed because no sources exist. Justforasecond 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I'm not understanding this. As I read your earlier comments, I didn't see any assertions that the article is WP:OR or unWP:V; as far as I can tell, you were saying that it was unsourced. Are you asserting that it is, say, OR? If so, fine, it may very well be, but this is a different issue, no? --Deville (Talk) 03:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of verifiability - most of this seems to be original research. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verifiability issues. The JPS 17:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The argument that we need to keep this because African-related topics are underrepresented worries me. That's is a great reason to improve our coverage, but it's a bad reason to invent new topics. I still say this is a textbook POV fork, and it's also explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas: A new article to supplement an already existing one which you think is not putting your point across forcefully enough. This is precisely what happened here, and it's exactly the sort of thing NPOV does not allow. Friday (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verifiability problems and original research are inherent to the idea of this article in my opinion. Ehheh 18:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously original research. Skinmeister 21:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cool (aesthetic). They're both pretty short articles, and the distinction is pretty vague. This article seems to only exist because one editor is steamed that there's a white character (Fonzie) as one illustration of what she thinks should be an all-African concept; it's a classic POV fork. Any properly-referenced facts here should be kept in the combined article. *Dan T.* 10:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Sorry, but that's about the most absurd comment yet. I have no objection whatsoever to the Fonz being on the page. The character is a perfect example of pop-culture cool. After all, it'd be pretty silly to contend that "cool" has been assimilated into mainstream American culture and then object to images that support that fact. My point -- again -- is that, with this vote, many are, in effect, saying that an article on cool as a legitimate, indigenous cultural ethos that is an underlying value in African society with regard to personal comportment, interpersonal relations, functional art, music, dance, etc., has no inherent value. And that most certainly is not the case. Cool in the African context would merit an article had there been no trans-Atlantic slave trade and no consequent infusion into American popular culture. It is complex, with pervasive implications in virtually all forms of indigenous African cultural expression. There is ample information about cool in African culture that is clearly not POV; it is the result of scholarly inquiry and rigorous research. Some of those sources have been provided on the talk page. The contentious subject is, in fact, pop-culture cool -- which, does not render an examination of cool in traditional African societies or in the African diaspora POV or superfluous. Quite the contrary. Further, an examination of pop-culture cool in its various permutations and disparate meanings is not critical to an examination of African cool. Far from it. If anything, the parent article to one on pop-culture cool should be one treating the African cool aesthetic. Deeceevoice 13:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the subject has value or not is a subjective question(personally, I would say that African cool was indeed at the origins of the American cool...but of course thats my POV), which can be addressed from all angles on Cool (aesthetic).--Urthogie 13:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But who are you? The point is no one should care what you think when it comes to this matter -- I know I certainly don't -- because you have no expert opinion, no credentials and, as far as I know, no objective basis upon which to make that claim. If you said you didn't believe African cool was the source of pop-culture cool, my response would be the name. Who cares? The point is there is ample, sourced, credentialed, and widely respected/accepted expert opinion and research which does examine cool in the African context, and that is the subject the candidate article for deletion seeks to address. Deeceevoice 07:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even though there's disagreement over whether it should be merged or deleted, please note this: Both involve a deletion. We can easily allow for both by simply creating a subpage with the current content, for possible use later, and deleting the article.--Urthogie 10:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a subpage -- and place it where? And who will find it? IMO, that's a silly approach. Either there is value there (as in any article) or there isn't. Keep the article where people can find it, keep the applicable tags and solicit people truly interested in the subject matter to contribute to improve the piece -- not just hack it up or obliterate it. Deeceevoice 15:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the community consensus thus far. Is it very likely that it won't be merged or deleted? No. So that's why I'm suggesting you take a precaution.--Urthogie 15:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This article needs some work on it. As a newcomer it is very difficult to understand exactly what is meant, and it seems to treat the whole myriad of different African cultures as if they were one. For now, I think it should be a keep pending an eventual merge with Cool (aesthetic) once sources are found to show how the first inspired and led into the second. David | Talk 15:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't. But there does seem to be a degree of continuity across certain indigenous/traditional African cultures. The elements addressed in the aesthetic are observed and recorded internationally, and among various peoples. Apparently, the phenomenon isn't even limited to strictly what is thought of generally as West Africa -- something that surprised me when I first encountered the information -- from various sources. Deeceevoice 15:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close as no consensus. At first glance seems interesting, quite clearly not speediable. Emotions in the discussion above are clearly running to high to reach consensus in short order, so keep by default. Martinp 16:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really think so? Of people participating in the discussion, I count 2 3 who want to keep it, including the author. The two speedy keeps appear to be an objection to the nominator, so I wouldn't personally count them if it was me trying to close this Afd. Consensus seems to be forming already. Maybe a few days time will make it more clear. Friday (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm counting at least thirteen deletes, the three strong keeps could be counted (though one supported merge initially). Most of the merges and deleters seem to say the same thing -- the article should no longer exist. Justforasecond 18:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. While the article needs work, there is nothing here that qualifies for deletion. I also object to any attempt to "discount" the two speedy keeps because their objections are to the reasons this article was brought up for deletion. That is a valid reason for objecting. In addition, the rules state "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action."[31] While votes may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin, to do so in a case like this where there is no clear consensus strikes me as bad faith. If I was the closing admin, I would not discount their votes.--Alabamaboy 16:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, including my own vote there are three strong keeps, two speedy keeps, then the rest of the votes are split between delete and merge. Sounds like no consensus to me.--Alabamaboy 16:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from the discussion, the mergers and deleters are saying many of the same things: As an insufficiently verifiable, POV fork article, it should not exist on it's own. But, sure, this isn't easy. I hope the discussion runs long enough for a rough consensus to form and whoever closes this actually reads it rather than looking at the long discussion and slapping a "no consensus" on it. Friday (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging and deleting should mean the same thing to a beauracrat-- deleting. A beauracrat wouldn't be involved in the merging part. If we want to merge the text we could just copy the content over to a subpage.--Urthogie 18:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and barring that Merge. The article certainly needs work and better citations, but it should not be deleted. Its topic is definitely worthy of an encyclopedia article. Yom 16:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An article on the book would be acceptable, but an article on a philosophy which may or may not exist and its existence is solely based on that one book, is not verifiable and therefore fails the polciy at WP:V. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the consensus is that its a POV fork that doesn't deserve its own article. Therefore I think it would be irresponsible of any admin to keep it.--Urthogie 18:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the consensus is not that its a POV fork and I find your comment that it is "irresponsible of any admin to keep it," made after asking me to reconsider my vote, insulting. The article needs a lot of work but it is a valid article. In addition, Robert F. Thompson's article is extremely well known and has been reprinted in a number of places (for example, here [32] and here [33]). The problem with this article is that instead of actually seeking consensus a small number of editors ON ALL SIDES OF THE ISSUE continually attack each other's assertions. As for more references to prove the validity of this subject, try these:

Healing Wisdom of Africa by Malidoma Patrice Some, Tarcher, 1999, pages 191-92, where it says, "...people show admirable dexterity in appearing cool." The text refers to the African cultural concept of appearing perfectly in control even when adrift in confusion.
Cool Pose : The Dilemmas of Black Manhood in America by Richard Majors, Janet Mancini Billson, Touchstone; 1993, page 57, where it states, "John Janzen dates the phenomenon of cool in Africa back to at least 2000-3000 B.c." The book also has a section on the "The Roots of Cool in African Culture," which can be read online at [34] (log-in to Amazon.com required).

Do I need to go on? This is a subject that is in the academic literature. Based on just a few minutes research I pulled up these two additional references and there are more out there. I suggest we work together to improve this article and move past personal disagreements among the different editors here.--Alabamaboy 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alabamaboy: We know that its an existant theory. However, the page isn't called Cool (theory of African origin).--Urthogie 20:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's just ridiculous. The article is about the cool aesthetic in the African context -- as is made clear by the article's title. There is no doubt that cool in the African context is a cultural ethos indigenous to Africa. You're making an argument that is clearly inappropriate to this article; it belongs in Cool (aesthetic). Deeceevoice 21:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then rename the article Cool (African aesthetic) since it sounds like the word philosophy is what everyone is hung up on. If, as Urthogie admits, this is a recognized "existant theory" then there is no reason to delete the article. Instead, rename it. That seems like a good way to achieve consensus. I also repeat my statement that EVERYONE who has been arguing about this article for the last few months seems to be way too caught up in it. Perhaps arbitration is needed. --Alabamaboy 21:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what I've suggesting from virtually the very beginning. Read my comments here and on the discussion page (in bold)! And "African (aesthetic theory)"? (below) -- forget it! Deeceevoice 23:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even should there be something justicable here, this matter would, I think, be seen by the ArbComm as altogether inappropriate for arbitration; surely mediation or RfC apropos of the preferred title would, should the article be kept, be better. Joe 22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Alabamaboy, the appropriate title would be Cool (African aesthetic theory). The title Cool (African aesthetic) implies that those scholars are correct; when, of course, noone can be verifiably correct about a subjective aesthetic.--Urthogie 22:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool (African aesthetic theory) would be fine with me. And yes, mediation would probably be better than arbitration (I should have said that to start with). What amazes me, though, are the endless round and round arguments so many people have been having about the minutia of this article, both on this discussion and the article's talk page. Almost reminds me of items on the list of lamest edit wars ever. Notice I said almost. But if consensus isn't reached soon here, I could see all of this eventually making it onto the list. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not! Cool is not a "theory"; it is a clearly identifiable aesthetic in African societies/cultures. How and why is such a subject in an African context somehow not as real, not as substantial as similar phenomena in a European/neo-European (white) context? This is clearly an intolerable, utterly nonsensical double standard that will not be tolerated. Unless and until all articles treating aesthetic relativism and similar subjects have "theory" tacked onto them (e.g., "Aesthetic relativism (theory)," even articles treating other non-concrete matters such as "Physics (theory)," "Psychology (theory)," "Prayer (theory)," "Religion (theory)"), then Cool (African aesthetic) is perfectly and imminently appropriate/valid. Deeceevoice 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is faulty logic. Athiests know prayer exists; they know religion exists. Anti-psychologists recognize the existence of psychology. But many people don't recognize the african aesthetic as existing. The people from that college put it perfectly: "seminal ideas have to start somewhere." Guess what, that place isn't here: It's called original research.--Urthogie 10:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False. Cite one informed person who says there is no such African aesthetic. And "many"? Who are the "many"? I've provided a number of sources referring to a generalized African aesthetic that exists across nations, across tribal groupings. How 'bout you find half that number? In fact, what people on the face of the earth do not have an aesthetic sense/aesthetic standards? Are you telling me that African societies are somehow exempt from the rest of humanity in this regard? And on what basis are you -- or is anyone -- qualified to make that pronouncement/assumption? Abject ignorance? Possibly ethic bias/racism? Sorry. That doesn't count. Uninformed opinion and ignorant/racist bias carry absolutely no weight here, thank you very much. Deeceevoice 10:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't verify that the aesthetic exists. You can only cite theory and opinion. When you present such theory and opinion as fact, its original research. If this article does stay, I'll make sure it no longer breaks that policy either.--Urthogie 10:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't responded to my challenge. "But many [emphasis added] people don't recognize the african aesthetic as existing." Find a knowledgeable, informed source who denies the existence of such an aesthetic -- and on what ground(s). And then find me half as many who take that ridiculous position as the number of sources who maintain that African peoples, like the rest of humanity are capable of, and, indeed, do, have aesthetic sensibilities, and that many elements are held in common among certain societies. (Good luck.) I'm really interested to know who would dare make such an assertion. I'm waiting.

And let me refer you to Japanese aesthetics. What? No insistence that there be a "theory" tacked on to that piece -- or that it be deleted?

Again, I'm waiting. Deeceevoice 10:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article deals with explaining terms and influences. Nowhere does it make unverifiable and unfalsifiable claims. For example, its a fact that buddhism has certain tenets. It's a fact that Geido refers to the arts. All of them are verifiable facts, rather than original research. Your article here makes unverifiable claims such as "cool is feminine energy."--Urthogie 10:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still Waiting (but not holding my breath). Deeceevoice

If "Cool (African philosophy)" doens't exist except on wikipedia, who would go through the trouble to write up a paper saying it doesn't exist? See the No true Scotsman fallacy and remain civil. Justforasecond 21:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord! I just read your earlier post in its entirety. Uh ... I suggest you look up the term "original research" in the Wikipedia context. :p Deeceevoice 10:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to verify my view-- I'm not the one with the unverified article.--Urthogie 10:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're amusing me now -- but not sufficiently. Still waitin'. What say I come back in, say, a day or two and see what mental cretin you've managed to come up with who says there is no African aesthetic? You say there're "many." Finding one or two -- even three or four, then -- should be no problem fuyyah. TTFN. :) Deeceevoice 10:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but usually people start dissing a theory once its gained some degree of popularity. I don't think there's been much commentary on this original research yet.--Urthogie 10:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question could someone please tell me what this article is talking about, or is supposed to talk about? It just seems to jump around randomly without ever making sense. Kotepho 23:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to the extent to which my distracted, half-hearted (and, admittedly, half-a**ed) changes to the article earlier today may have contributed to your confusion. I realized I really had absolutely no time to devote to the article and had succeeded in not only making the article less coherent, but in screwing up the footnotes, as well. I've reverted the article back to an earlier version. Please see this page's discussion page for more information. Thanks for stopping by to inquire. You reminded me that I'd neglected to go back and do the revert this a.m. (I was interrupted by a series of phone calls and a courier at the door -- and it completely slipped my mind.) Deeceevoice 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all neologisms in the face ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was posted by Deeceevoice at talk:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy)[35] Just received an e-mail from the professor cited above (the one doing research into cool in African American literature), Jacqueline Goldsby, Univ. of Chicago. Here is what she wrote, in part: I skimmed the debate at the Wikipedia website, following the link you provided. Since I'm just embarking on my own research into the concept, I can't offer the kind of definitive sourcing you need. The bottom line is, that neither Deeceevoice, nor Jacqueline Goldsby who is researching the concept, are able to offer any other sources than Thompson. This article was already renamed 4 times in an attempt to find a title that fits DCV'S original research. That's not how an encyclopedia works. I concur with Zoe: An article on Thompson's book would be acceptable, but this is a POV fork article on a philosophy which isn't verifiable. CoYep 13:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it exceedingly telling what CoYep doesn't report of my e-mail exchange with Professor Goldsby. She writes:

I'm struck that the contributors to the debate are so hostile toward Robert Farris Thompson's discussion of "coolness" in Flash of the Spirit. That book is recognized by scholars as *the* definitive treatment of African-derived art forms and practices across the diaspora. Thompson's credentials are impeccable, as is his scholarship. It's specious for your opponents to dismiss the idea of "cool"'s Africanist origins simply because only one (English-language) text addresses it. That's often the case in scholarship. After all, seminal ideas have to start somewhere.

And while Goldsby refers to "that book," Thompson has written several celebrated and acclaimed monographs addressing African aesthetics and the aesthetics of African cool on the African continent and in the African diaspora, as well.

CoYep's contention is absurd on its face. I've offered several such sources on the discussion page. Many of the sources which CoYepu attempted to debunk, discount or flat-out mischaracterize still stand, as any quick perusal of the discussion page readily will reveal. Further -- again -- Thompson's works on African art and African cultural aesthetics are seminal in the field, accepted and respected -- as they have been for more than 40 years. And the contention that the article is a "POV" fork is specious and an obvious red herring. Deeceevoice 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the woman doesn't understand Wikipedia's policy on "no original research". That is, we dont allow "seminal ideas" to "start" here. Lol.--Urthogie 14:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is apparently you who fail to grasp the scope and breadth of Thompson's scholarship. I don't know how many times one must state the facts. This man has had material on African art and African aesthetics and African cool in publication since (as near as I can figure) 1964 -- likely before you were born. I myself been acquaintaed with his work and reputation as a well-known authority in the field since 1974. Wikipedians seem to be just about the only people who claim to know anything about the subject who don't seem to know anything about the man. And the fact that this is the first you have heard of him and his important work does not render his voluminous work "original research" -- not by a long shot. Sorry, but the laugh's on you. Deeceevoice 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but the laugh's on *you*. Remain civil deeceevoice. Justforasecond 21:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying his research sucks or anything like that. I'm just saying that you need to treat his opinions as subjective. You cant verify the truth of his research.--Urthogie 15:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Even a professional researcher know of only one book -- even then she doesn't call it a "philosophy" and there's a good likelihood it's a forgery or she was mislead (she hardly "skimmed" the discussion and she mentions the hostility towards thompson -- huh?). I can't believe DCV is making everyone jump through hoops on this. She described her motivations for creating the page -- it is a POV fork. She supported merge but when it looked like her POV might not get enough attention when merged back in she changed her tune to "strong keep". Websites outside of wikipedia have started to notice DCV's activities. [36] Just end this article. Justforasecond 15:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JFAS for that thoroughly absurd and totally off-base assessment. I think it speaks for itself. (What? Mentioning the website and its misrepresentation of that particular matter once already wasn't enough for you? Why not just flat-out accuse me of fabricating the communication altogether? Here's a suggestion, JFAS: try debating the matter on its merits, rather than trying to fabricate scenarios of "forgery" and grandstanding. Just chill. Some might misinterpret the kind of nastiness others have become accustomed to from you as desperation. Deeceevoice 15:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jusforasecond, we're well aware of your vendetta against Deeceevoice, give it a rest, would you? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you go back to k5, Tex. - FrancisTyers 01:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the article into Cool (aesthetic) and delete the original. I'd also like to point out that a lot of the references to African 'philosophy' should really be to African-American culture. - Richardcavell 10:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, IMO, no. The article addresses only the aspects of African-Amerian culture that are expressions of the African aesthetic of cool. There are other clear expressions of this aesthetic in the African diaspora, as well -- in Caribbean and Brazilian cultures, specifically, where the imprint of Africa remains more pronounced -- which the article has yet to treat. But there are, indeed, manifestations that have become part of the pop-culture cool aesthetic, such as male machismo (which, though grounded in African cool, is not part of it). It is a product of the African-American experience and a survival response to slavery, oppression, etc. These "mutated" or descendant forms of cool more properly belong in an article treating African-American culture -- or, to the extent to which such expressions have been assimilated across ethnicities into mainstream American/pop culture (in the case of cool machismo, in bad-boy/anti-hero personas and archetypes) even better, into an article on "Cool (pop-culture aesthetic)" -- the "Cool (aesthetic)" article renamed. Deeceevoice 12:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. I still don't think the article is distinctive enough from Cool (aesthetic) or other pop culture/African American articles. It's well written, though, and it's worth keeping the copytext. - Richardcavell 12:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually because the text introducing/delineating the elements of African cool was deleted, along with subheads where the information had yet to be written. The basic framework of the article was gutted months ago. There isn't sufficient information remaining in the article to help people understand that point. But the sources I've provided above do allude to those elements -- if you're interested in checking them out. And much of it is really distinct from and more meaningful than the pop culture phenomena/expressions of cool. A merge of the two articles is basically saying the underlying cultural aesthetics of much of black Africa do not merit a separate article -- when that certainly is not the case. The concepts and values involved and their myriad forms of expression throughout portions of Africa and the African diaspora are certainly complex enough to need that kind of space and separation to be detailed and explained.Deeceevoice 12:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No external cites, OR.Or Merge with Cool_(aesthetic). -Msoftmouse 17:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the introduction

Such a delightful example of very impressive and quite meaningless gobbledegook should not be lost to mankind 82.38.97.206 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)mikeL[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; although it doesn't seem it, all the keeps are puppet infested. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pace (Slang Term)

ATTENTION!

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

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

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

An edit summary admits that this is a protologism. -- RHaworth 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Me and my friends came to New Orleans to volunteer cleaning the city. We heard the term 'Pace' throughout the 2 weeks we were there. We brought it back to Boston, and the term has been spreading in New England ever since. -- [[User:# Juiceonyourface|# Juiceonyourface]]

Keep The term pace has become an important part of the culture of post-Katrina New Orleans. Deleting it would be an injustice to the city in this sensitive time. --MVK

Keep This article refers to the culture of New Orleans and Tulane University, therefore should remain. Cowbellion 21:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pace has become a legitimate phenomenon in New Orleans, especially in the Uptown area around Tulane University. It is not merely a word, but a movement. Your feeble attempts to have this article deleted just to stroke your own inflated ego are neither needed nor warranted. Take your pettiness elsewhere. And yes, you may consider yourself PACED. -- Wstaffor

Delete as non-notable neologism. Or protologism, depending. Urban Dictionary is a more appropriate place for this. --E lkman - ^(talk) 19:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You know what, I think you're right. Maybe everything you don't care about should be deleted from wikipedia. I KNOW! Maybe we should rename it Elkmanpedia! That way it can only have topics that the MIGHTY Elkman deems reasonable. Get a life, and consider yourself PACED as well. -- Wstaffor Note: User:Wstaffor already voted above. --Metropolitan90 05:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the page should be kept up. Though I don't attend Tulane, I do live in the New Orleans area, and I've heard this around town quite a bit. The character Turtle on "Entourage" has forcefully said "Pace" upon exiting a room and may have originated this usage. While "pace" is definitely a neologism, I disagree that it is a protologism because of this source. Furthermore, since this is a reaction to the growing, post-Katrina changes besetting New Orleanians--e.g., "My house in Lakeview got paced in the storm."--I think pace takes on an important cultural context and is thus just as appropriate on Wikipedia as UrbanDictionary. Admittedly, the definition is vague and needs to be refined. -- CBowes

Delete clearly not verifiable and highly likely to be non-notable. The author(s) of the article need to provide independent verifiable sources if they want to avoid deletion. Gwernol 20:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary. Fishhead64 21:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even an urban dictionary definition for this. needs sources Tyhopho 22:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Aplomado - U T C 23:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pace is a slang term derived from esoteric Cajun/French vernacular. Only recently has it been resurrected by twenty-somethings native to the area and entrenched in Cajun culture and history. With the geographically diverse blend of undergraduates at Tulane University, the term has spread as far west as Bellevue, WA, and as far north as New York.

This unfounded criticism of Cajun jargon is a direct insult to the unique culture and lifestyle of Acadiana already diminished by two devastating hurricanes in August and September. Surely, one from across state lines, and certainly national lines, would not be able to trace its word-of-mouth origins. GoPaceYourself

Keep This is legit. Travisjj
Delete. Even if this is a legitimate slang term, the article is just a dictionary definition-type entry. (I don't know how to verify it, since "pace" is a common English word anyway.) If the word is worthy, submit it to Wiktionary instead. --Metropolitan90 01:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdef, neologism, bored-college-kid-cruft -- GWO

Keep All these deleters are the biggest chili doggers ever. PACE. Jimmy 8:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment This comment was actually left by 129.81.248.124 whose only contributions are these two comments. The signature is faked. Gwernol 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete my culture like Katrina deleted my city. Serioulsy. TNT 9:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment This comment was actually left by 129.81.248.124 whose only contributions are these two comments. The signature is faked. Gwernol 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the reasons noted above. Eron 14:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term pace is a legitmate slang term originating in New Orleans, LA and has been adopted by people from Washington state, New York, Miami and Dallas. Just because you do not understand the significance of the term yet does not take away any of the merit of this entry. There are certainly people out there that do not know what bling bling is either but that entry is in wikipedia and has been for awhile. PACE! --TheKingOfNOLA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.81.74.125 (talk • contribs) .

Keep I am still very intrigued by this page. It is inappropriate for me to modify the original definition, but I urge the original poster to do so to reflect both a more specific denotation and the reasons we have defended "pace's" use. By the way, it is also possible that "pace" in this context could have originated from "hale and pace," the cockney rhyming slang for "face." Thus, the expressions "I paced my face" and "I have to pace myself before I *pace* myself." I would appreciate if the people pushing for deletion would be more descriptive in their reasons, instead of just insulting the people who are defending the listing. What exactly are you looking for in regards to "pace's" relevance, and what would satisfy your need for outside sources? No matter what verdict Wikipedia decides upon, it is entries like this that define its relevance. Either it is a democratic medium for the progression of knowledge and culture, or it is as pedantic and intolerant as a first grade teacher. I think deleting this entry would be a line in the sand pushing Wikipedia into the latter group. User:CBowes Note: User:CBowes already voted above. --Metropolitan90 05:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is it inappropriate for you to modify the page? If you think it should be kept, and if you can modify it to improve the chances that it will be, be bold. As to satisfying the need for outside sources, a good place to start would be reviewing the verifiability policy. Eron 17:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also note that user CBowes has voted twice in this discussion. Gwernol 20:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep I have updated the article to better reflect the cultural nature of the word. Whoever wrote the original article obviously did so in a hurry. I hope this new version will change the minds of some of you. User:Wstaffor Note: User:Wstaffor already voted above. --Metropolitan90 05:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Although an annoying term because of its stunning popularity in Post Katrina New Orleans, "Pace" has certainly become terminology on par with such early 90's California surfer lingo as "rad" and "awesome." Urban Dictionary, while also an appropriate location for the terminology, doesn't provide enough credence for terminology being used by an entire culture's population. -WLW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.81.125.59 (talk • contribs) .

Keep Please don't get pretentious and pace, pace. At the heart of the matter for those of you shouting "delete" is that you do not live in New Orleans, where the term has its origins, and you have no compassion for just how paced your city can become when it's hit by a hurricane. Do you really feel any better when you kick those who are down? Is there a reason why we can't have our culture displayed in Wikipedia? I think not. Please, just give pace a chance. -Dgran

Comment You most certainly can display your culture here. It's just that this particular article might not be the best way to do so. Eron 21:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable protologism. Pretty much the entire article is unsourced, and much of it is probably original research. -Colin Kimbrell 21:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pace is sweeping Uptown New Orleans and elsewhere as fast as any slang term in the past quarter century. It belongs on Wikipedia, and if wikipedia decides to "pace" pace, then it will be missing a prime opportunity to keep up-to-date with pop culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lewlou84 (talk • contribs) 13 April.

Keep I believe Pace is an important new term both for New Orleans and for all of Louisiana. As a resident of Baton Rouge I can attest to having heard the term Pace on several occasions which proves that it is not just a local phenomenon. Pace is becoming an important part of Louisiana culture and is proving its viability by spreading to different cities and even different states. To delete this term would be both close minded and intolerant. RockerBT 22:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unstable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without the word pace I would not have been able to complete my thesis for grad school.

And now my work is being published. This alone should be enough to keep pace. VF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.81.185.149 (talk • contribs) .

Delete as unverifiable neologism and original research. Hammer Raccoon 17:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non-notable slang neologisms. Sandstein 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending third-party reliable sources. We need proof beyond word of mouth that this exists. Ziggurat 21:05, 18 April 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. – Rob ert 15:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beechdean

Blatant advertising. Created by Andreruss who has contributed nothing else and which looks like an amalgam of the founders' names (Andrew and Susie Howard). Seem to have forgotten their password because editing continued by Ice cream who has contributed nothing else. (I am prepared to be told they are notable even so - but we should not support their guerrilla marketing practises. Meanwhile, Beechdean hasn't the funds to advertise on television. They turn to guerrilla marketing to promote themselves. [37]) -- RHaworth 18:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP, and the article doesn't make a case for its notability otherwise. --E lkman - ^(talk) 19:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and E lkman - ^(talk)--Tollwutig 19:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles like this make me laugh. Aplomado - U T C 23:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. I did have to revert page blanking. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 13 April 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 Jim Jarmusch. I didn't smerge the incident with his son into Tom Waits, as it doesn't seem notable enough to appear in that article, though it is in Jim Jarmusch. The content (all one line of it) can still easily be seen by bypassing the redirect if anyone disagrees. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sons of Lee Marvin

A joke amoung friends and not real Mrebus 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jim Jarmusch, with a smerge of the incident with Marvin's real son to Tom Waits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Colin Kimbrell, but only verifiable information. Delete if unverifiable. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've seen both Waits and Jarmusch make mention of aspects of this before, so at least some of it should be verifiable. -Colin Kimbrell 20:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. It can be verified, Jarmusch, Waits and Cave have all discussed it in interview. It's a joke organisation but it's still significant pop culture, providing commentary on the artistic relationship between Waits and Jarmusch. That it was even proposed for deletion is preposterous. If it is going to be merged, than it needs to be put with Jarmusch, and the other pages need to reference it, but I think keeping the original page as the best option. Robinoke. 15 April.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shitmix

Delete A non-notable neologism, non-verifiable. Clearly non-encyclopedic. Had been speedied once, prod'ed twice (both times the author removed the prod notice without comment). Gwernol 19:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation of previously deleted drunken party. Weregerbil 19:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 19:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete previously deleted page. Some guy 20:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4. Lbbzman 22:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and protect as WP:CSD G4. --E lkman - ^(talk) 22:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a speedy delete. The previous deleted version was a speedy for having no context. This article does have context. However, it should be deleted per WP:NFT or WP:BAI (third-from-last bullet). Stifle (talk) 00:46, 12 April 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 and protect. Slightly different from the versions deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Carlow Crab but equally short on references. -- RHaworth 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C@rlow Crab

Delete As far as I can tell, this is a hoax. The limited Google hits are either to Wikipedia or apparent spam comments on Amazon. No verifiable links to the supposed show. There are a number of related pages in the process of being created that should also be removed as part of this elaborate hoax. Gwernol 20:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Some guy 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Carlow Crab page was deleted. All occurrances of Carlow Crab that I found by Googling are created by users. It appears to be a hoax. If an external link for the series or a network that hosted any of the shows can be be produced, then keep, otherwise it's a hoax. --Walter Görlitz 20:17, 11 April 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 this discussion to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ed Poor/count strokes, where it should have started. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ed Poor/count strokes

I am taking the extraordinary step of nominating one of my own subpages for deletion. Tim Starling doesn't want it used any more, and that (for me) is reason enough.

But it's really because it does arithmetic in a hideously cumbersome way to support date math. It was originally intended to help with time zones and calendars, but the experiment got way out of hand. --Uncle Ed 20:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Delete. Since only three authors, not technically a candidate for {{db-author}} but pretty close.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy U1. Lbbzman 22:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ed Poor. ~~I wouldn't object to a speedy under User criterion 1 (owner request for user-subpage deletion).~~ (Don't delete until date-math code is replaced in other articles, per Ed's comments below.) Barno 22:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (modified 12-April)[reply]
- I wondered, upon first reading this AfD title, if this might be a user subpage supporting his research into the notability of adult film stars. Barno 22:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per request. I checked the page history, though, and there were some notes about it screwing some things up. Also, some pages link to this template. If anyone else is using the template, I'd make sure they have some other option -- or if it's just infeasible, then remove the usage from those pages altogether. --Elkman - ^(talk) 23:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I tried the "what links here" tool and saw a long list, but most were Ed's subpages or Talk pages. There are around a dozen including "date math" where there might be an include-template tag that needs to be removed. Barno 23:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be on WP:MFD? Stifle (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reason I didn't simply blank the page was that so many other templates depend on it. And these templates are involved with timezones and all. We need to consider the implications. Otherwise I'd simply dismantle the whole set of Wikipedia:date math templates.

Tim Starling's new PHP support for evaluating math expressions is expected to replace the "count strokes" thing. I'm hoping for a smooth transition. Please help me make it. --Uncle Ed 01:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Has User:Netoholic seen this? —Ruud 03:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it has been implemented in the code base. We don't really need 70K templates. Kotepho 10:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not an article, so it should not be on AfD (the A is for articles, and this is not an article). Userpages go to MfD. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 13 April 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 Kotepho 20:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla Tokyo SOS

While browsing through the accompanying articles I noticed that wikipedia also has a page for Godzilla:_Tokyo_S.O.S., which appears to be a more detailed description of exactly the same movie.

Somehow one movie has gotten two pages...

Should we not delete one of them?

The exact link of the duplicate page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla:_Tokyo_S.O.S. Jack-McLangley 20:09, 11 April 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, withdrawn by nominator. NTK 16:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WRCG-AM 1420

No real content. It doesn't seem significant when googling PhiJ 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are much smaller stations with articles on wikipedia; this is a 5000 watt station in a medium sized market. The page was lacking content but I added the station box and cleaned the page up a little so I feal it no longer warrents deletion.--Tdl1060 22:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per User:Tdl1060. When this article was proposed for deletion, it was a pretty poor stub, but it's showing signs of improvement now. As far as I understand, broadcast radio stations are notable. --E lkman - ^(talk) 23:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up with evidence of how this is any more important or special than the radio station generated from K or W followed by three random letters. Stifle (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just about to withdraw my delete anyway, but AFDs shouldn't be closed early for a withdraw unless there's no other deletes. See Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep licensed radio station, per precedent. Haikupoet 03:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haikupoet, but rename WRCG-AM or whatever the standard is. youngamerican (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Actually it's been renamed to WRCG (AM); the link in this AfD is a redirect. Haikupoet 02:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A bit better layout is needed maybe, but otherwise it is ok... grafikm_fr 08:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I withdraw it from AFD, or does it have to go through? It is now a lot better than when I first saw it here! --PhiJ 16:37, 13 April 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 (also after discounting anons). Kusma (討論) 02:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghosts of Libertatia

ATTENTION!

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

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

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

Non-notable student organization, exists almost exlusively at one school, no notable activities. Some guy 20:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete As a UVA student, I've never heard of this organization or seen its logo on Grounds. It may be ultra secret, but not having ANY evidence whatsoever of any actions internal or otherwise, I must urge deletion.
Strong Delete I have also never heard of this secret society. A secret society is difficult to verify indeed, but they have to have done SOMETHING visible or note worthy to truly exist. As a student at the University of Virginia, I can say I've never heard anything about this alleged secret society.
Strong Delete Never heard of this secret society, nor seen a single symbol around Grounds at the University of Virginia (may indeed exist elsewhere, but not here). No verifiable activities, as far as we know it could be one person commenting on wikipedia. Other secret societies have been documented at least by the school newspaper, or are found in the University Guide Service handbook, but this one is neither. Probably just a handful of wannabe students that do not accomplish anything.
Keep, Point taken, however it is more widespread that some secret societies that have been listed and asking for the notable activities of a secret society is difficult to satisfy. I suppose this makes the verifiability suspect, but perhaps the minor publishable activities and enough votes to keep will suffice. $mashkan 17:24, 11 April 2006
I personally know of 3 schools where the ghosts are operating. GMU in Fairfax, VA for example. They do funny/cute things to make people think about liberty, or how global capitalism has brought them the comfortable lifestyle they are used to. Now if I could just find any members, so I could join... Mrbren 17:20, 11 April 2006
- Comment: User's only contribution. Some guy 22:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also know of several schools where the ghosts seem to be active, most notably at VCU in Richmond, VA. Though their activities seem to be only moderately 'visable', logos pasted around campus, for example, Smashkan makes a point that they are more widespread than some other secret societies that have articles on Wikipedia. Verifiability, to me, is the only questionable criteria for this article and given that I am the third person to have witnessed their activities, I vote to keep it posted. Sireza 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User's only contribution. Some guy 22:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, unverified except multiple word-of-mouth. No sources cited; only external link is a fiction novel by William S. Burroughs, better known for his heroin gonzo stories. From the Publishers Weekly review of Ghost of Chance on Amazon: "It opens as Captain Mission, an 18th-century pirate, founds Libertatia, a utopian colony on Madagascar dedicated to protecting the indigenous landscape and lemur population (lemurs are known by island natives as "ghosts")." User Sireza is encouraged to review Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources policies. Past AfD debates on secret societies have resulted in deletion except where a ton of published (and not just self-published) stuff exists (such as Skull and Bones). Can you show something more than "a bunch of rich kids are putting stickers and coffee around a couple of campuses"? Documentation would make WP's community more likely to come to a "keep" consensus. Barno 23:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Secret societies are inherently unverifiable. Stifle (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits on Google web search or Google News. Not verifiable. Ande B 04:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I reviewed the verifiability policy, and have humbly accepted User Barno's point. According to Wikipedia's policies, unless something is published on this society, I understand the support for deleting the article. I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is a "bunch of rich kids", though. Even if it was, I don't see the relevance. Sireza 01:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey so I'm gonna go nuts and say delete... basically because unless there's media coverage, secret societies don't get on wikipedia... which makes pretty good sense. Hey, you UVA kids see the living wage stuff? I'm totally making pamphlets for the market wage. Ghosts saw enough of this crap at VCU, now here?! ARGH. $mashkan

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler house

Residential house, doesn't assert notability. Some guy 20:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Williams College (and crop about 70% of the present text). --Fuhghettaboutit 21:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAI. No objection to merging. Stifle (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or slight merge as non-notable. Sandstein 19:19, 18 April 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 -O bli (Talk)^? 22:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snuff Daddy

Delete, non-notable, possibly advertisement? Bill Sayre 20:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - notability claimed in article is clearly nonsense. Article itself borders on patent nonsense. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 20:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Utter rubbish. --Doug (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Complete Bollocks. I do enjoy though the novel spelling attempts of those who flail at words they've only ever heard: "MACHEVELLIST TECHNIQUES" indeed.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:22, 11 April 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. RobertG ♬ talk 09:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Island Census

Delete. This is a minor element of a TV show and not worthy of a separate article. Even within the Characters of Lost article it is close to being fancruft. Rillian 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - this content was already part of Characters of Lost and has been restored there. Rillian 21:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Characters article is long enough. --Ton e 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a potentially unlimited list of articles possible for Lost; we've got to keep that list focused on the important stuff, not just proliferate articles. -- PKtm 22:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These kinds of articles put focus on quantity over quality. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A brand new article is not necessary. The information is contained on the Characters of Lost page. Danflave 20:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also far too close to OR. It's a nightmare for WP:CITE! TheGrappler 23:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Rillian. it's just a tv show. Munckin 07:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Danflave. Sweetie Petie 17:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is not neccesary. The census in the main characters article is enough.--Gonzalo84 19:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Characters of LOST article. Most of the info is overlapping, but there are some things that were removed from the "characters" page and put here. If this page is so "offensive" - just return these things to their original location... Alinor 19:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Characters of LOST article. Kant2k6 18:11, 17 April 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 as an attack page and blatant nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe (talk • contribs)

Jeffrey Montgomery Burns

A libelous piece of trash, to be sure! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokeisit (talk • contribs)

Delete. There is no real claim to notability except by association with the well-known Manning and it is Manning, and not Burns, that is the subject of much of the article's text. He was born, worked briefly as a cameraman on the periphery of someone famous, was fired, and died. The unsourced vitriol doesn't help either.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:14, 11 April 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 both articles. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mescalinum Music Research and List of Mescalinum Music Research releases

Non-notable record label, only one page of Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the only direct Wikipedia:Notability would be "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture". -> It covers more than ten reviews of their releases in German underground electronic webzines and print-magazines in a time period of less than one year Link and is featured at discogs.com Link PhilippN 21:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Wikipedia is not Mescalinum Music Research's website. Stifle (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 19:24, 16 April 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 per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car Crash Television

Non-notable group, vanity article. Also, the term "Car crash television" more commonly refers to a very bad or shocking programme, rather than some obscure band. If this group ever becomes famous, then a more suitable page could be recreated. DWaterson 21:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn. --Ton e 21:32, 11 April 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. Kusma (討論) 02:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pobal Scoil Iosa, Malahide

Non-notable school. I put up a "explain significance" tag twice but the author apparently disagrees so I'll just take it here. Some guy 21:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Istrancis: Hi, I'm the author of this article, and I note that there seems to be a problem with it. It's my first article, you see, and I'm probably missing a couple of rules etc. Sorry if I've caused you trouble, but I just thought that it'd be nice to have my school on Wikipedia. If you want to delete it, that's no problem, but I'm still not sure what I should do to fix it. I guess it's not really all that significant, as I said I just thought it'd be a nice entry, but if there's any way I can improve it, please let me know.

Weak keep it almost meets WP:SCHOOL and it could use some sources. It seems to be copyvio from the school's website though. Kotepho 22:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I didn't even know there was a WP: School. However, the page states it is a rejected and inactive policy. Some guy 22:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was rejected because the opposing camps were irreconcilable, but high school articles are never deleted. Something like 300 in a row have survived their nominations. Hawkestone 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should we just make an article on every secondary school in the world, then? Nothing in the article is notable, nobody outside the immediate region would care about it. Some guy 07:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was rejected but even in that case it is de facto keep from no consensus. Personally, I think schools are more notable than articles on every train station and bus line that people are doing. I don't really have a problem with having 10 million articles on schools, podunk towns, TV episodes, etc as they aren't really hurting the encyclopedia. Kotepho 11:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Istrancis: Listen guys, thanks a lot for your help and all on this, but I think that the best thing to do is to just delete this article, and I'll go through the rules and stuff, get a little more experience and see if there are any articles I can edit, and then maybe I'll come back and post this article again. But for now, sorry for causing you trouble, and thanks again for your help! Bye for now.

Keep As with all secondary schools. I have explained to Istrancis that it is the nominator who has made a mistake as to Wikipedia practice rather than him.Hawkestone 00:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing really wrong with the article. Stifle (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Istrancis: Thanks a lot for checking this out, I really appreciate it you nob end!

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Proto as an article whose only content is links elsewhere. Stifle (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of string quartets

A list with only one blue link, inactive for months. The one blue should be made the cover one at the moment. --Ton e 21:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Empty--Zxcvbnm 22:07, 11 April 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. – Rob ert 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial mills

Fan site of Scott Mills, no more notbale than any other fansite; covered by an external link and sentence on his page, which is generous enough as it is. Robdurbar 21:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indications of meeting WP:WEB. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or merge into Scott Mills. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 15:03, 12 April 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 and redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Sloychuk (politician)

NN article that seems almost for sure to be a vanity article. Does not meet WP:BIO, only claim to noteability is having run for the NDP in Red Deer and community consensus in the past has been that failed electoral candidates do not get articles unless they're noteable for something else (which he's not) pm_shef 21:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there's absolutely no community consensus to delete their articles. At the very least, if candidates at the national or state or provincial levels, they're merged and redirected into articles on X party candidates in X election not covered elsewhere. You cannot delete the original article because you have to retain its edit history under GFDL. This campaign to put such subjects through afd is completely inappropriate. Keep or merge. Samaritan 22:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keepp or merge per Samaritan. Ground Zero | t 23:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge at worst. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I realize that not everybody agrees on the notability of unelected political candidates, the precedent has already been set that federal candidates are entitled at least to inclusion in a merged list. Either keep or merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election; precedent already excludes outright deletion as an option. Bearcat 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Please do not keep. Commons has 308 seats. US House has 435. Conservatives, Liberals, NDPs, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and independents add up to a lot of losing canidates. A huge number lost the only election of their lives, and will go back to obscurity. Unless an individual has other notability, or made the campaign notable in some way, they should not have permanent articles. Fan1967 01:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election as should be done with all other failed candidates without other serious clims to notability. Luigizanasi 05:51, 12 April 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 (necessary merging has taken place) Proto||type 12:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Barsky

NN. Running and losing in multiple election does not give one a claim to noteability, that has been established in the past. Since that seems to be his only claim to noteability, he doesn't meet WP:BIO. pm_shef 21:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus is clear that unsuccessful candidates in national elections pass the bar, at the very least to be merged and redirected to (not deleting the original article, to save the edit history per GFDL). ~~Having run for multiple parties in multiple elections, there's no immediately obvious destination, but~~ if that'll be the only way to retain the information, merge. Samaritan 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC) ...and if so merged, per Bearcat below. Samaritan 00:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at best to an article about the election. Prefer delete. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I realize that not everybody agrees on the notability of unelected political candidates, the precedent has already been set that federal candidates are entitled at least to inclusion in a merged list. Either keep or merge into a Green Party candidate list (I'd be inclined to consider that his most notable electoral attempt, given their popular vote totals in '04/'06 compared to the National Party's in '93, or CAP's ever...or what the hey, copy and paste the same blurb into every relevant candidate list); precedent already excludes outright deletion as an option. Bearcat 00:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. There are too many of these losing candidates with no other claim to notability. Fan1967 01:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. Should also be mentioned in Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election along with other defeated candidates. Luigizanasi 05:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged this page with the 2006 Green Party candidates page, in accordance with Wikipedia precedent. Nothing more to see here ... CJCurrie 20:05, 12 April 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 Angelina Jolie. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zahara Jolie-Pitt

Non-notable bio.--Fallout boy 09:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angelina Jolie. Lbbzman 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per {{db-bio}} - pm_shef 22:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An article with external links to articles from major news sources primarily discussing its subject is in no way a speedy candidate. Samaritan 23:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Jolie. Per Lbbzman. → J @red 22:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to Angelina Jolie. Consensus at WP:BIO is that non-notable relatives of notable people go in the notable person's article. Stifle (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's a baby, for God's sake. "loves giraffes, and coos whenever she sees one"??? Oh, please. Fan1967 01:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mama as per Brooklyn Beckham MLA 09:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like Brooklyn got un-redirected after the last AfD. Fan1967 15:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wow, that's a surprise - I just made an assumption that the very recent AfD would have been kept in place MLA 15:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like some people disagreed with the redirect, and the page wasn't protected. Fan1967 15:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment where are all the redirect advocates when nn "royal babies" articles are AfD-ed? I guess the blue blood keeps us down. Carlossuarez46 20:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Royal babies are notable because they are in the line of succession. --Eivind ^t ^@^c 00:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to mommy. ---Eivind ^t ^@^c 00:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect --Durin 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect -Fadookie ^Talk 10:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jolie, although to be fair there should also be a mention in Pitt's bio. Ziggurat 21:07, 18 April 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 Angelina Jolie. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maddox Jolie-Pitt

Non-notable bio.--Fallout boy 09:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angelina Jolie. Lbbzman 21:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per {{db-bio}} - pm_shef 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Being the offspring of famous parents is no basis by itself.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An external link to a BBC News article about the article's subject is an assertion of importance or significance. No vote at the moment, besides that it is not eligible for speedy. Samaritan 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to Angelina Jolie. Consensus at WP:BIO is that non-notable relatives of notable people go in the notable person's article. Stifle (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mama as per Brooklyn Beckham. MLA 09:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Angelina Jolie per MLA or to List of children used primarily as fashion accessories. youngamerican (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Angelina Jolie as per Stiffle MikeMorley 19:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment where are all the redirect advocates when nn "royal babies" articles are AfD-ed? I guess the blue blood keeps us down. Carlossuarez46 20:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Angelina Jolie as per mentioned WP:BIO consensus. Brooklyn Beckham is no longer a redirect, though. -Fadookie ^Talk 10:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Angelina Jolie per Stiffle (although I do like the "List of children used primarily as fashion accessories" idea). (Hm, isn't the other parent someone famous also?) (Don't delete entirely, as I myself once looked up this entry; a redirect to either parent would have been fine though.) -- Orbst 20:16, 17 April 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 Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Barendregt

NN former election candidate, never having received over 1% of the vote is hardly a claim to noteability. Seems to be vanity, certainly doesn't meet WP:BIO pm_shef 21:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lbbzman 22:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's accusations any given article on an unsuccessful political candidate in Canada is vanity violate assuming good faith. Here it impugns creator CJCurrie, a nonpartisan expert on Canadian political history and one of the best Wikipedia editors I have ever come across. Checking the history to see who has contributed to an article is about the least respect a nominator should have before putting it to everybody's attention on afd, and certainly before lobbing such a charge. Samaritan 23:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did say "seems to be", but I do apologize if I was mistaken. Still, the rest of my points still stand. Doesn't meet WP:BIO - pm_shef 23:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I realize that not everybody agrees on the notability of unelected political candidates, the precedent has already been set that federal candidates are entitled at least to inclusion in a merged list. Either keep or merge into a CHP candidates list; precedent already excludes outright deletion as an option. Bearcat 00:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's some other claim to notability. There isn't. Merge if you can find an article for his party. Fan1967 01:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is one, at Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. Fan1967 02:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the article. Nothing more to see here ... CJCurrie 20:09, 12 April 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. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Baldasaro

Title is about one person, but article seems to be about two seperate people, both of whom are equally NN. Probable vanity article, I can't see how they meet WP:BIO in any possible way. pm_shef 22:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Provincial notability is not enough.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Baldasaro and Tucker run the Church of the Universe, a new religious movement with an article of its own! This should plainly merit a merge at the very least. Baldasaro is one of the handful of Canadian marijuana activists persistently in the news for something - two Google News hits this very moment. Samaritan 23:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fughettaboutit. Stifle (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I realize that not everybody agrees on the notability of unelected political candidates, the precedent has already been set that federal candidates are entitled at least to inclusion in a merged list. Baldasaro was also briefly a candidate for the leadership of the Progressive Conservatives in 1998; AFD precedent has always favoured inclusion of party leadership candidates. So I'm inclined to the keep, but if this absolutely has to go I could live with a merge into either Church of the Universe or a Marijuana Party candidates list. Precedent already excludes outright deletion as an option. Bearcat 00:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one should be kept. The article has been in need of improvement for some time, but Baldasaro is a notable enough figure -- he runs a religious movement (of sorts), is a perennial candidate for public office and, as Bearcat mentions, tried to run from the PC leadership in 1998. CJCurrie 20:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as mildly notable, although I admit my insinct is to delete anything that includes "eccentric" and "marijuana" in the first paragraph... Sandstein 19:16, 18 April 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 Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Atkins

NN, no claim to noteability beyond having run in, and lost, a number of elections (which has not been considered sufficiently noteable on Wiki in the past). Possible vanity article, clearly doesn't meet WP:BIO. pm_shef 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ex post facto crystalballism. --Fuhghettaboutit 22:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I'm aware of absolutely no current precedent supporting deleting failed candidates in major elections where they may be merged into X party candidates in X election pages. I don't like that alternative myself, in large part for candidates like Atkins where they've run in multiple elections. But it's far, far better than deleting information. Historians today are interested in national elections 100 years ago, and information about candidates assists their research. Historians 100 years hence will be no different. Samaritan 22:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failed candidate. Merge if you must to a list of minor/failed candidates. Stifle (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I realize that not everybody agrees on the notability of unelected political candidates, the precedent has already been set that federal candidates are entitled at least to inclusion in a merged list. Either keep or merge into a Christian Heritage Party candidates list; precedent already excludes outright deletion as an option. Bearcat 01:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been merged. Nothing more to see here ... CJCurrie 20:15, 12 April 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. - brenneman ^{L} 05:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Metroid series characters

Merged into Creatures in the Metroid series, useless incomplete list-cruft.--Zxcvbnm 22:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finish merge and then delete. Batmanand | Talk 23:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone added more things to the list, but I'm positive that a list of all the creatures can be found on another website. You can delete it whenever you want.--Zxcvbnm 01:03, 12 April 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 (e) 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OT5

Slash/fanfic cruft. Delete. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 129 member community [38]. Patently not-notable, WP:WEB failure. --Fuhghettaboutit 22:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fughettaboutit. Stifle (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This may be fancruft. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fan fiction? Obvious delete. Friday (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fancruft. NN The JPS 12:15, 13 April 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, defaulting to keep. Kusma (討論) 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to Star Trek in South Park

Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and unencyclopedic. Jersey Devil 22:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --blue520 05:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precident set in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/References_to_Star_Trek_in_The_Simpsons EnsRedShirt 06:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete this indiscriminate and unencylopedic collection of information and then delete References to Star Trek in The Simpsons. MLA 09:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and renominate References to Star Trek in The Simpsons for deletion. --Optichan 16:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and thank all the good people who voted to keep References to Star Trek in The Simpsons -Acjelen 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EnsRedShirt. This article is no better than Thalian chocolate mousse. --69.158.73.9 22:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is the above user's second edit. [39]--Jersey Devil 03:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment So I forgot to log in. Sue me. (69.158.73.9)--LuciferBlack 17:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Set phasers on delete. A bad unencylopedic article is a bad unencylopedic article, regardless of the presence of other bad unencylopedic articles. --Calton | Talk 04:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per simpsons precedent. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic Westfall 17:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid subarticle of References to Star Trek. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and the Simpsons analogue too. Sandstein 19:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EnsRedShirt - the arguments for keeping precedent are valid and apply here as well. Crito2161 18:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —LrdChaos 20:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and quit saying unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a clone of Britannica.--God Ω War 06:22, 17 April 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. – Rob ert 15:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16th March 2006 Navi Mumbai riot

Seems to be a non-notable event, although I'm not positive. See also the bottom of Talk:Holi. Melchoir 23:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By the article's own admission, this was "a minor riot." Of all the riots and disturbances that take place all over the world every day, I hardly think this one is deserving of its own article. Aplomado - U T C 23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Stifle--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 03:08, 12 April 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. There is no "cast biography" on that page as yet to merge to. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Bolton (reality TV star)

This page is about one contestant on a UK reality TV show called "Beauty and the Geek". None of the other contestants have a page as of yet; and this is for a good reason. The show is not hugely popular, and the contestants are not, and have not become, celebrities. It really is a fly-by-night type of notability. Also, it may be a vanity page (user's contributions are to the show and the college Edmund is from); but I am willing to assume good faith, and say that it is written by a loyal fan. However, he is just not notable enough, IMO, for inclusion. Batmanand | Talk 23:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the show is still running on Channel 4, having completed its run on E4, it's possible that the participants may become more notable very soon. However, at the moment, I agree that delete is most likely. DWaterson 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slight merge and redirect to Beauty and the Geek (UK). No noticeable fame outside of this show. Stifle (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beauty and the Geek (UK) as a contestent with no notability MLA 09:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge the article has been created by a fan and supporter. I can see the argument for deletion, but IMO it should stay. Sebstuart 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Watching the show it is clear that Edmund is one of the more notable characters. He has already been on Richard and Judy and Harry Hill's TV Burb (both quite mainstream shows) and he has given interviews to national and local newspapers. To delete this article before the terrestrial showing of BatG runs its course would be a travesty.

It has been written by the good people of Downing Collge, Cambridge, who have also set up "www.edmundbolton.co.uk"

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of themed timelines

Delete There is little in this list that isn't being done by Category:Timelines and its subcategories. There are a few entries that link to timelines that are inside articles, but I also found quite a few links to sections that don't exist (and removed the links in that case). JeffW 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Category:Timelines. Stifle (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. This is very useful because it's all on one page. Quite different from the categories and not at all redundant. Would possibly support deleting the categories though. -- JJay 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe there are quite a few timelines in the category that aren't in the list. If they were added wouldn't the list become too long and need to broken up? Then it wouldn't all be on one page anymore. --JeffW 16:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Anyone can edit wikipedia so if there is something missing, by all means, add it to the list. It's your participation that will help this list expand over time. -- JJay 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point, which was that if all the timelines are added to the list that should be (it doesn't matter by whom) then the list will be too long to be one page anymore. Thus the argument that it is all on one page is a red herring. --JeffW 00:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When it gets that long where it is almost complete then we can examine our options such as deletion. For the time being, considering it is all on one page and far from complete, deletion is obviously premature. Of course, it is also possible that many of our existing timeline pages would themselves be merged or deleted over time, thereby eliminating the risk that the list would ever achieve a length that would even suggest the need for deconsolidation. Not that this is intended in any way to disparage the often very real benefits derived from spinning-off articles and lists. Despite your well-meaning question that seems to view AfD as a discounting mechanism establishing a net present value for articles based on future editing flows, my personal timeline for forming an opinion on AfD only runs for five days. Put simply, I am uncomfortable with a capital sentence rendered for alleged future crimes. In the present case, now well beyond my timeline due to the quite unfortunate initial close, no crime has been committed so the judgement must be to acquit. -- JJay 02:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Little in the list?? I think this matter is resolved. Please remove the AfD tag Slicky 13:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole sentence is "There is little in this list that isn't being done by Category:Timelines and its subcategories." When you read the whole thing the meaning is different then when you pick out bits and pieces from it. --JeffW 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per JJay --myselfalso 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is the same as the Timeline category. Unmaintainable as is and would be much better suited being merged into the category as either pages or subcategories. Radagast83 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was raised at the Administrators' noticeboard (permalink) and on Deletion Review. Restored and re-opened without prejudice.

For previous existing backlinks I removed see here for edits with summary "removed red link (themed timeline)."
Also here for redlinks removed by User:JeffW in this period.

brenneman ^{L} 03:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This can divide the lists by type of list, something which categories cannot yet do. As such, this is actually currently more useful than the category! Grutness...wha? 06:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean, what types of lists? A category can easily by subdivide by several different criteria, something a list cannot do without repeating entries. I know that there are several entries on the list in question that are repeated under two headings. --JeffW 13:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I usually deplore lists, but this is useful. Eusebeus 10:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you usually deplore lists, and how is this one different? --JeffW 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its not an article, it is a navigation help - and better than the Category which should link to this... Lundse 10:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But a category is also a navigation help, so how is the list better than the category? --JeffW 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see absolutely no legitimate reason to delete this perfectly good, well establiahed article. I commend Aaron Brenneman, the original closer, for listing this very controversial deletion close for review, but I do strongly recommend that he seriously consider that he is permitting his own personal views on deletion to influence his closes. There was in the original discussion a strong consensus to keep, which he appears to have completely ignored. This is not the way to close a deletion discussion. --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any arguments here other than that the list is well established. Why does the age of the page matter? --JeffW 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How on earth do you interpret 3 delete votes against 3 keep votes as a "strong consensus to keep"? — Haeleth Talk 14:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How on earth was it originally closed as "delete"? -- JJay 14:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If its 3 delete and 3 keep, it means that it did not reach any concensus (50% delete). A concensus of 75-80% (same as RFA) to have the article deleted. When it's no concensus, its automatically a keep. --Terence Ong 14:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Semantics. The original comment said "strong concensus to keep" and you yourself said that there was no concensus. --JeffW 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good list. --Terence Ong 14:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's it? --JeffW 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lists of lists/timelines are quite possibly the most pointless thing anyone could waste their time creating here on wikipedia. Now why isn't this a "No Consensus" result yet?--Isotope23 15:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hope you will reconsider, bearing in mind that lists are not pointless when used as navigational tools. Lundse 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And so is a category. Why do you think a list is a better navigational tool? --JeffW 18:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly... this should be a category.--Isotope23 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just compared them, the list is easier to navigate from, the category seems a mess. I am no expert, but unless the category can be made as easy to use as the list, it seem something useful is lost if we delete it. Lundse 09:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. An immensely-helpful resource for researchers, as many articles aren't categorized appropriately and many users don't browse category pages. Policy isn't an end in itself, but an means to an end. If you guys aren't sure what deleting the list will accomplish, then why vote to delete it? I'm sure someone will just ignore all of us and delete it anyway, though.--Primetime 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a perfectly valid, verifiable, and useful list. Lists can do many things that categories cannot: they can have redlinks to help direct people to articles that need creating; they can be sorted and organized in arbitrary ways; they can be annotated. Finally, they can eventually strive to be made into a featured list. Turnstep 23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, lists can do many of those things, but it has been around for years and no one has put in the effort to have it do any of those things. If no one is willing to put the effort into the list, maybe the list isn't worth the effort? --JeffW 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't consider than an issue. Just because a page has not reached its full potential is no reason to delete it. Turnstep 00:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has use beyond basic category. StuffOfInterest 18:41, 25 April 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. Kusma (討論) 02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana)

POV rant, abuses people, unencyclopedic, listed here because others and I have attempted to save the page with past edits. As an admin, I cannot speedy delete since the edit history is too long. It needs group consensus here. (NOTE: This is only for a partial deletion of the article's history, not a vote to get rid of any future article with this name) Davodd 23:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (revised 00:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per precedents of schools AfDs. Joelito 23:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana) and look at its history. Instead of the knee-jerk "It's a school, therefore it must stay" mindset, I urge you to re-think this vote. I understand the importance of schools and school-related articles, (I initiated Wikiproject:Schools more than 2 years ago) but this article and its archived edit history is clogging the WP servers with obscene name-calling, libelous comments, and attacks on real, living people. That is exposing the WP Foundation to possible legal action. It needs deleted and started over from scratchwith a cleansed history. Davodd 23:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~If it is going to be kept on the basis that schools are ipso facto notable it needs a total rewrite.~~ Metamagician3000 23:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is it so hard to revert NPOV edits? BTW, I got rid of the libelous material. Aplomado - U T C 00:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are voting to keep his article - which was started as a vandal's attack and its archived edit history is clogging the WP servers with obscene name-calling, libelous comments, and attacks on real, living people. That is exposing the WP Foundation to possible legal action. - Davodd 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time, delete the libelous info and move on with your life. Sheesh. Aplomado - U T C 00:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I am trying to do here - but you are voting to keep them. Davodd 00:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the entire article, I'm talking about just the libel. If you would take a second to look at the article, you would see that the libel has been removed. Aplomado - U T C 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you have only been a member of Wikipedia for a couple of months. The libel exists archived forever and publicly viewable on Wikipedia servers in the article's edit history. I am trying to get permission to delete the parts of the history that are libelous. Sorry for the confusion. Davodd 00:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your condescending remarks notwithstanding, I know perfectly well that the history is available. It's not necessary to delete entire articles every time something libelous happens to show up in them, which is all the time. Aplomado - U T C 01:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if you were offended. I am not asking to delete the article - I am asking to selectively delete various vandal-type edits from multiple IP addresses, sockpuppets and known vandals while keeping the legit edits. 01:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep per WP:SCH. Stifle (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SCH says nothing about keeping article histories of school entries that started out as vandalism but have too many edits to qualify for speedy delete. Davodd 00:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no objection to a partial history deletion. Stifle (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High school. The reasons put forward for deletion carry no weight. Hawkestone 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, welcome to another new user! I hope you stay and help Wikipedia improve for years to come. I am only seeking permission to clean up the article's history - not prevent any article about this school in the future. Thanks, and sorry for the confusion. - Davodd 00:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are better avenues for this. If you delete the history, what's to stop someone from sticking that nonsense in again and fouling things up? Aplomado - U T C 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally these are caught early on. But occasionally we need to go through this process - particularly if an article doesn't get the attention of our vandal fighters from the get-go. Davodd 01:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rfrisbie^talk 01:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current attack-free revision per precedent, but delete the history. Note: the history of an article with such libel can and often is deleted by an admin, selectively, without an AFD. AFDs are just for total removal of an aricle. So, please don't even wait for this AFD to finisih, and purge the attack history. I'm sorry, but I've seen this selective deletion with other articles (during an AFD, or after a keep), and just don't see the big deal. --Rob 03:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep Can you show some precedence for deleting article history? The way I see it that would remove all evidence of user contribution to the article, both positive and negative and therefore defeating the purpose of the Wikipedia licence. I also think this article should be kept, and users who vandalise warned or banned. Deleting article history isnt going to stop them. Tyhopho 07:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Recently I requested it to be done for Roy Gordon Lawrence. I think GFDL is a a concern. But this has solutions:
  - Mere lists of facts aren't copyrightable. Most of this article, is that, and as such, its not a concern
  - If the good content is substantially different then the bad content (e.g. a total rewrite) it's a new work. This is just like if you take contents from an external web site, and totally reword it. That's ok. Basically, I'm saying the vandals have a copyright, and works derived from that, but not works that aren't derived from it. The fact two versions exist in the same article's history, does not mean one was is truly derived from another (retaining mere facts does not count).
  - We can record a list of edits (user id/datestamps) in the talk page, for attribution purposes
  - Finally, given that there is so little content, if any admin wishes to, without an AFD, they can just go ahead and delete the article *while* immedidately remaking it with new content (e.g. a substub).
- Finally, I welcome any admin to interpret my vote to mean I want the attacks gone, and I want an article for this school to exist, however that is accomplished, whatever has to be done. --Rob 08:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is precendent for deleting edits from history such as personal information in edit summaries and in cases of WP:LIBEL. Even if an admin cannot undelete only the top revision a developer can fix it, but I don't think this is that important. I agree that what you suggest would be advisable, but I'm sure people are breaking GDFL with history deletions, cut+paste moves, and other things so I'm not sure people care. Kotepho 11:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As much as it pains me, WP:SCHOOL is now established policy. And the history, even if "libellous" (which I doubt), does not leave us open to legal threat. Batmanand | Talk 08:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not policy, it's just that a cabal of users steadfastly refuses to accept that fact. Just zis Guy you know? 09:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't a policy on schools, but there is precedent. As for the silly cabal comment: Jimbo said we aught to allow articles like this (minus POV and attacks, of course), so I guesse he must be in on the "cabal" as well. --Rob 09:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate as a stub or Treat as copyvio (blank, rewrite on /Temp, delete and replace with /Temp). Kotepho 11:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the libel. Newspaper semi-covers it. I'll look for more stuff from periodicals such as the supposed NYT article. Kotepho 11:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [40] [41] [42] [43]. Kotepho 11:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — PoV issues are not a valid reason for a delete. Valid High Schools are notable institutions IMO. :) — RJH 15:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't the right process. CalJW 01:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For future reference, this (WP:AFD) is not the place to bring an article that requires cleanup. Silensor 02:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you don't live in NACS school district you could not possible understand the context of this and that this article, in fact, is a quality well-written piece on how the school is viewed. It is neutral and considers both sides while portraying what the media has reported. Keep it as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.193.210 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: No, actually your edits are extremely biased and will be reverted by me every time you add them. You are well on your way to a ban if you continue. Aplomado - U T C 19:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: That User is a repeat vandal, part of a teenage sockpuppet cabal and already has been banned. - Davodd 19:49, 14 April 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. – Rob ert 15:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earthdramon

Delete, Rumored Digimon means no verifiability, no source, no nothing. Recently information was added to the article that there appears to be no data anywhere or pictures of this Digimon. -- Ned Scott 23:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable, and I don't think individual Digimon should have articles anyway. Stifle (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Er, how are we supposed to prove the existence of this Digimon? --Optichan 16:41, 12 April 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. - brenneman ^{L} 04:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander J. Rudall

Possibly vanity page, lack of notability or verifiability Harris 07:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a very important person in east cheshire, well known and loved. Refer to http://www.stjohnscapsmacc.school.cheshire.org.uk/htmpages/pintro.htm
Delete unless it can be proven through the use of verifiable information taken from reliable, third-party sources that the gentleman above meets the criteria for inclusion listed at the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline, and/or at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guideline. -- Saberwyn 13:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saberwyn. Consider userfying if person is a Wikipedia user. FloNight ^talk 02:11, 18 April 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.

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {| width = "100%"
 |-
-! width="50%" align="left"  | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 10|April 10]]
+! style="width:50%; text-align:left;" | <span style="color:gray;">&lt;</span> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 10|April 10]]
-! width="50%" align="right" | <!-- [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 12|April 12]] --> <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
+! style="width:50%; text-align:right;" | [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 12|April 12]] <span style="color:gray;">&gt;</span>
 |}
 </div>
 <div align = "center">'''[[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|Guide to deletion]]'''</div>
-{{Cent}}
+<!--{{Cent}}-->
 <small>{{purge|Purge server cache}}</small>
 == [[April 11]] ==
 <!-- New votes to the bottom, please. -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number 53 (webcomic)}}
@@ Line 78: / Line 77: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun City Palm Desert, California}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Die Ritter von Bork}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scuffleball}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scuffleball (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Product Software Pricing}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloggy style}}
@@ Line 84: / Line 83: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Dangerously}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights in the United States(second)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second thought (second nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dartmouth Seven}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperion Solutions Corporation}}
@@ Line 93: / Line 91: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAMM}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Patti}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LONG ISLAND CLUB SCENE 1970-1989}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Itani}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D-Mat}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road 34 Bike Bar}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Deegan}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Randall}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CR Comics}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obvi}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TGSN}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Scherer}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Dawkins}}
@@ Line 111: / Line 105: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystick Krewe Mush}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Screen of Death}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Dukes}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackness scale}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame... reasons}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iscathamiya}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Psoas Muscles and Abdominal Exercises for Back Pain}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Lendt}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Believe: The Ballads}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupid Kids}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na Pal Gyi Shwebomin}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Pal Gyi Shwebomin}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy) (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pace (Slang Term)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beechdean}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert_S._Ross}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sons of Lee Marvin}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shitmix}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swords of the Ancients}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C@rlow Crab}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Ed Poor/count strokes}}
@@ Line 135: / Line 123: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler house}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snuff Daddy}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crenoid}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Island Census}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Montgomery Burns}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mescalinum Music Research}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Car Crash Television}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleap}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pobal Scoil Iosa, Malahide}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of string quartets}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unofficial mills}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey punch (third nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Sloychuk (politician)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Blaikie}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Barsky (2nd nomination)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Barsky}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahara Jolie-Pitt}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maddox Jolie-Pitt}}
@@ Line 155: / Line 139: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Metroid series characters}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OT5}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Queensland Cowboys History}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Star Trek in South Park}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/16th March 2006 Navi Mumbai riot}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Bolton (reality TV star)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of themed timelines}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthdramon}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander J. Rudall}}