Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)
11,637,095 edits
m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)
rm vandalism/malformed nom that never existed
 
Line 89: Line 89:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Zamos}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Zamos}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Y Gabriela}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Y Gabriela}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uniting_Friends_in_America}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Avari}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Avari}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Prosser's website}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Prosser's website}}

Latest revision as of 06:51, 8 July 2024

< April 2 April 4 >

Purge server cache

April 3

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

The result of the debate was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Students Living A Mission

[edit]

nn group, less than 500 unique hits Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 00:13, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  05:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda Shahaf

[edit]

Procedural nomination because a user has disputed whether a consensus existed to turn this into a redirect the last time we got into the whole York Region thing. The user has not only violated 3RR over it, but has registered new sockpuppets to keep reverting even after being blocked. Thus I'm asking for a new consensus: is this a keep, a delete, or a merge into Vaughan municipal election, 2006? No vote from me since this is a procedural nom, but I will say that I'm really not too clear on how we can consider unelected municipal council candidates notable enough for WP inclusion, when the very same city's actual incumbent councillors haven't been able to pass the AFD bar. Bearcat 23:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am relisting this on today's AfD page as there is currently no consensus, which does not help resolve the issue. No vote. Thryduulf 00:41, 3 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 02:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xm411

[edit]

Non-notable web forum Naconkantari e|t||c|m 00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Huh? I clicked that link and got 122,000 hits! --Icarus 07:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Results 1 - 10 of about 148,000 for "Xm411", sounds like a Keep to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, Google hits and Alexa ranks shouldn't be the only judges in a case like this. See WP:GOOG. I just listed my results to clear up the "only 10 hits" statement in the first vote versus the 150,000 hits thing. I prefer checking out distinct hits. But anyway, even without Google or Alexa tests, it doesn't meet WP:WEB. — Indi [ talk ] 12:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should we also delete Google for being an advertisment for a website? Ztsmart199.201.168.100 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria are required for an article about a website?


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ReturnPath

[edit]

Delete per WP:WEB and WP:VSCA. Alexa rank is 35,851. Royboycrashfan 00:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment do keep in mind that many of those hits don't have anything to do with this website, just because a site uses a common word doesn't make it notable as it turns up many google hits. Boneyard 08:38, 4 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 02:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California-Nevada Interstate Maglev

[edit]

non-notable internet pipe dream, no third party sources other than self-produced press releases 71.212.87.103 02:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing orphaned AfD by 71.212.87.103. No vote. Mithent 02:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This, at least the Nevada leg, is the only maglev project in the US that has funding. Given that it is the cheapest of the proposals to build per mile, the only interstate proposal, and the one with the most support from people and government it has a chance to become reality. How can anyone claim that only 3rd party sources are available when over $45 million for the planning phase was included in a bill signed by Bush? This maglev has not been ruled out as the major people mover to the new Las Vegas airport. Vegaswikian 19:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Still reads like a lot of crystal-ballism: "This is one of the most likely maglev train projects in the world", "it has a relatively high chance of being built..." Maybe if it could stick more to established facts: this is the proposal, here's what's happened. Fan1967 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If I'd known FreplySpang was going to add my comments above to the article, I might have phrased them a little differently. However, I stand by everything I said, and it looks like this has led to further improvements to the article; I hope this has made the case for keeping it conclusive. (I don't know why there's a fact tag on the "it would be the first long-distance line" assertion; there's presently only one such line in the world and it runs from an airport to a city center; this would be hundreds of kilometers long.) ProhibitOnions 22:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another editor has cleaned up the article some more. The quality of a stub is not a reason for deletion. A poorly written article on an encylopedic article should be kept and cleaned up, not deleted because of its quality. The article also has the correct tags and categories for future projects. Vegaswikian 21:06, 6 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' ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheiff

[edit]

Unverifiable neologism. Probably made up. DJ Clayworth 01:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, nice. T K E 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it's nonsence, not nonsense. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it's very much nonsense, not nonsence. JIP | Talk 19:08, 3 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 02:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sports management worldwide

[edit]

The company seems to have a degree of notability, with a few hits on google. But this reads like an advertisement, and was in fact written by the company owner's wife: Lizlash (talk · contribs). --BillC 01:14, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second thought

[edit]

The anon editor who added this AfD has told me that he/she is unable to complete the process by clicking on the redlink, since this counts as creating a new page, from which anons are barred. So, if possible, I'll take over the reins of this one, and say delete as dictdef per WP:NOT. --BillC 02:05, 3 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 ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Acorace

[edit]

Doesn't seem very notable. JW1805 (Talk) 02:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you go to the talk page, there is more info. But it needs to be wikified. Can someone wikify it for me? Also Elonka told me that I could make an article on this guy, so I did. So, he must be notable enough, right? Ust to let you know, he has a article in a book titled "New Hampshire Notables-1986". So obviously, he's notable. Icelandic Hurricane #12 11:04, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vít Zvánovec

[edit]

Although he is a wikipedian, his wikipedia activities alone do not make him notable. Bige1977 02:37, 3 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 Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. Redirects are cheap. :) Mailer Diablo 02:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaxley (Harry Potter)

[edit]

Yaxley is a minor character in Harry Potter. He already has his own subsection at Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter#Yaxley. Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 02:47, 3 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Engle

[edit]

Non-notable D-list Elmer Gantry wannabe. No actual accomplishments. Believe me, I checked this guy, fixed up the biased and poor language, formatted and wikified, researched publisher info on his vanity-press "publications", tried (and failed) to find citations backing up any claim to any level of notability (besides his website). I'm especially pissed because after all that, I decided not to AfD the article despite his clear non-notability, because, enh, too lazy. Response? Reverts with insulting edit summary, addition of more mendacious and biased material, refusal of editor to respond to polite requests to engage. Giving him a pass on his non-notability a mistake, I guess, so deletey-time. "Lou Engle is an influential leader" is just plain false. He's a nobody. More info on article talk page. Herostratus 02:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Looks like that 30K is really less than 700 unique hits for his name [2]. Fan1967 03:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be a fairly common name. Delete per nom. Notability doesn't seem to be backed up by the facts. Grandmasterka 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being clergy or publishing a book does not notability make. NTK 04:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The notability page establishes several consensus criteria for notability. Engle does not qualify by many of them, but does qualify by the criterion for published authors, and by the 100-year test. To illustrate the latter, I consider Engle to be analogous in his role and activity to Daniel Rowland. Anyone researching turn of the millenium American revivalism would be ill-served by Engle's omission from the history, 100 years from now. I'm sorry if the editor felt personally slighted by my npov smear comment, but the use of self-published appeared prima facie to be an intentional mischaracterization. Whatever the editors intentions were, I still consider the incorrect use of the term to be belittling. The deletion project also appears to be consistent with this agenda-based editorial plan. Please do not attribute to me edits which I did not make. Aminorex 19:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Aminorex is talking about is a message I left on his talk page taking him to task for an edit made by someone else, which I did due to a engregiously incorrect misreading of the page history. I apologized on your talk page and I apologize here, Aminorex. Stupid mistake, but why are you bringing it here? (I don't know what you mean by "agenda-driven plan". I'm an inclusionist, and I cleaned up the article and left it even though the guy is clearly non-notable; I only thought better of it when I saw it got messed up again and I saw a long stretch of edit warring, not worth it for a guy who's just not notable.) I don't know exactly how to characterize his publishing; it's a special case. He's certainly not published by normal, commercial publishing houses; They look to be small fundamentalist publishers. Perhaps "specialty publisher" would be the term, or maybe they are a form of vanity press. I used "self-published" and I guess that was a slight mischaracterization, but to leave the impression that he was published in the sense that we use the term for normal published authors would also be misleading. As to the main point, I'll comment below. Herostratus 19:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mention it here, because you made statments above which were based on that mistaken impression, appeared to contribute to the imputation that I was making edits which were mendacious and biased. I think it is reasonable to make a defense against such an imputation wherever it occurs, and I hope that any impression that I have undertaken mendacity or bias has been mitigated by your subsequent review of the actual edit history. —This unsigned comment was added by Aminorex (talk • contribs) .
        • I didn't mention your name anywhere above. I apologized again on your talk page, and will continue to do so as long as you wish, I guess. Herostratus 23:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No apologies are necessary, I merely wished to provide a refutation. We both understand the facts of the case. I appreciate your graciousness in offering an apology, but that frank mutual understanding is more than enough to gratify me.Aminorex 06:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would dispute that Engle is a "published author" in the sense that the term is commonly meant. Although I think its probable that his publishing houses exist in some sense, I sure couldn't find out much about them. This goes way beyond not having a web site; they don't seem to have a web presence. I think at least one of them is defunct. These are not big players in the publishing world. I don't know where the line between a vanity press and actual publishing house lies. As to the rest... the original article makes as his big claim to fame that he "organized" something called CallDC that got a crowd of "400,000". I couldn't find any mention in the regular press at all - not a clipping, not an 'also in the news' note, nothing. The only other real mention was in another fundamentalist website, where they gave the crowd as "75,000" and characterized Engle's involvement as being "among the speakers" at the event. And that's his friends. 75,000 is probably a great exaggeraterion itself, but who can tell since there is no mainstream press coverage of the event at all. For all I know it was 750. And remember, that's his main claim to notability that the article made. (Since then, more has been added, such as his being "actively involved in the leadership" of a planned future event, along with some frankly bizzare ramblings about theology. Whatever, but I hope any Keep voters also volunteer to re-clean and re-verify the article and keep watch over it (have fun), 'cause I ain't gonna. Herostratus 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Specialty presses are not somehow unreal by virtue of their specialized audience. Examples of specialized publishers which have wide respect are abundant, and many very influential works have been published by specialized or ephemeral presses. I agree that one of the publishers in question has been dissolved or, as seems more likely, absorbed into Destiny Image, and that none of Engles publishers is among the top tier; in fact they represent a subspecialization of Christian theological publishing, however, if there is a mall near your home, I'm sure that you could find many current titles published by Destiny Image, or by Wagner, in the Charismatic or Pentecostal interest section of a Christian book store. I don't think that the unverifiability of the attendance numbers of The Call gatherings is a strong grounds for refuting the notability of the organizers. I do have personal knowledge that Engle was among the organizers at The Call in Kansas City and in San Francisco. If his role in The Call D.C. was inflated by my edits, I hope to correct that error. I understand that the theology espoused is a minority one, but that doesn't impugn the interest of the topic to researchers. The movement represented is very real, has numerous well-known proponents, and certainly several hundreds of thousands of participants in North America alone (millions seems more likely to me, but my sampling is very unscientific, and certainly suffers from selection bias). While there are hundreds or thousands of leaders of local influence, Engle is among a handful with national and international influence of note. Others would include Goll, Joiner, Bickle, Cain (now in disgrace), and Strom (who has dissociated himself, but remains influential and is closely related, if no longer affiliated). The web presence of these people is very small, when compared to practical impact, and I think it is misleading to derive notability from Google statistics for this group. They seem to invest most of their efforts in speaking to sympathetic groups in person, and organizing on a face-to-face basis, and perhaps consciously avoid the web entirely, although I speak here in a hypothetical frame, as I have no actual contact with any of these persons, except as a casual observer of their activity and its consequences. I think the ongoing activity is also of interest, and substantiates the notability of the organizers. Aminorex 21:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've looked into this a bit more. It seems that Lou Engle was in fact one of the principal organizers of The Call D.C., as he was the person to whom the U.S. Park Service issued the permit which secured the Washington Mall for the event. The event is generally attributed to Engle and Che Ahn, in the literature. I personally consider organizing a national event attended by hundreds of thousands of people, involving thousands of local churches, and establishing cooperative links with dozens of national organizations to be a noteworthy accomplishment, whether one considers it favorably or unfavorably. Moreover, every indication is that Engle's activity is expanding and influencing a substantial youth subculture of "Riot Christians", through his involvement with Teen Mania and Rock for Life. "D-list Elmer Gantry" is a profoundly whiggish spin and does not accurately represent this persons role in U.S. culture. He speaks routinely to gatherings of tens of thousands of people. That makes him at least an "A-List Elmer Gantry". I would rather characterise him as a midpoint between Pat Robertson and Martin Luther King, Jr., but with much less media involvement than either of these two figures.—This unsigned comment was added by Aminorex (talk • contribs) .
    • I'm perfectly prepared to change my vote if you have any web sites or other citations you could share with us? I still don't understand why an event attended by "hundreds of thousands of people" would get zero press coverage. Herostratus 23:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note to inform the readership that I am engaged in collecting references in publications outside of the influence of organizations associated with Engle, and gathering verifiable facts to support the notability claim. I anticipate providing my results by April 16, since tax preparations are eating my head right now.Aminorex 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Herostratus' comments. Furthermore, Lou Engle isn't listed as a pastor of Harvest Rock Church... --Sam67fr 22:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments about notability; There is no doubt that books were published. But we have no way to know the audience of these books. About Lou Engle himself and the Call dc ... I can't find any real press coverage of that event and/or of Lou Engle involvement in it. I can't find any real press coverage of Lou Engle in any other major event. The only web sites I found that cover the man or the event are mostly self promoting sites.--Sam67fr 08:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In case the 700 Club reference is considered marginal (many non-notable people appear on the 700 Club, certainly), I would observe that he was also covered on ABC's Nightline in December, 2005, in connection with the Justice House of Prayer Project. He is also one of the organizers of Rock for Life, a series of rock concerts, mostly in California and in the U.S. rust belt area. This helps substantiate notability, in my view, since it influences a large audience.Aminorex 05:24, 6 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. JIP | Talk 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scotlandshire

[edit]

Article on a made-up term with no sources of evidence that the term is used, let alone worthy of an encyclopaedia article. All google hits seem to be 'silly use', and not that described in the article. Stringops 03:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:NFT. Royboycrashfan 03:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can assure you, the term is used. The introduction to this RfD is nonsense. I created this article on request. It is the title of a reasonably famous song, and you can see, google produces nearly 1000 hits. The term even appear on the lighly indexed google book search. [3] - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Pejorative, sometimes affectionate, term for "Scotland". -AED 08:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly in use - here are a couple of examples from the Letters Page of The Scotsman: [[4]] (needs free registration to actually read the relevant letters). I note that it also frequently pops up on forums, blogs, song lyrics and the like, so it is certainly a word of the populace at large. What I am fascinated to know is how, and why, it is being used in academic circles. --Mais oui! 08:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is nonsense there is no such term 82.36.107.54 08:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there certainly is such a term. An Siarach
    • Comment - Wikipedia is not a repositaary for every obscure term ever created and used very occasionally. I can't see how this term is notable. Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, such matters are subjective. It was clearly notable enough for you to list it for deletion. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just out of curiosity, does the term bother you for some reason? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This term doesn't 'bother' me; I simply don't think it's notable enough to merit a seperate article. As well as this, there's not much than can be said about it that can be made into anything other than a glorified dictionary definition. If it isn't deleted, the article will remain a stub. Stringops 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That sounds like a challenge to me! This is one of the great things about Afd - sometimes articles that survive the process go on to become really valuable additions to the project. From all I have read I think that there is a good amount of source material, and Calgacus says that he has some good material in his own library, which unfortunately he does not have access to at present. --Mais oui! 10:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you and Calgacus think you can make it into a worthwhile article, please go ahead. If you do, I'm happy to eat my words. But I can't really see how a single term and its (perhaps widespread but abscure) usage can ever escape being a glorified dicdef, however many quotations/references you may be able to add. Stringops 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 8 references found, dating back to 1992, in NewsBank newspaper archive (Times, Daily Record, Glasgow Herald). Example: "Even so we cannot be abolished, and Ramsay, among many others, helps prove it. The last opportunity to abolish Scotland or at least turn it into Scotlandshire, England came in his lifetime" - Portrait of the nation by a couthy son - Allan Ramsay, Sunday Times, The (London, England), August 9, 1992. Tearlach 10:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Important article which links in with Scottish history. Simply because it can be used tongue in cheek is no reason to delete. If WP can have articles on obscure anime characters that nobody has heard of then it should most definitely have articles on things like this. SFC9394 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - if the term has any genuine and notable relevance to Scottish history, then it should be merged with the History of Scotland article. As it stands, I can't see how a usefully-sized article can be created from it. Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the strangest argument I've ever heard. Should Scottish king then be merged with History of Scotland. On this logic, there would be no Scotland-related articles except History of Scotland. And as History of England "has ... genuine and notable relevance to Scottish history", should it be "merged" with History of Scotland? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia WP:ISNOT a dictionary. Yes the term is used, yes I use it myself however Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we should not be taking part in original research to build up articles - where are the sources, and "Scotlandshire is a term sometimes used": by who? Where? When? thanks/wangi 12:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - common phrase with history to be expounded beyond a dicdef. Vizjim 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Redirect to a new short section at Shire sounds a workable option. Vizjim 14:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but at least find a couple of respectable quotations to illustrate the term in use (The Sunday Times one would do for a start) otherwise it could only be a dictionary entry. Ming the Merciless 13:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Redirect to a new short section at Shire sounds a workable option. Ming the Merciless 12:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - should wikipedia have articles on every word in the Oxford English Dictionary, if ' a couple of respectable quoations to illustrate them' are provided in each case? This is not a dictionary for neologisms. Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (with rewrite) As noted, it's met all standards as not being a neologism. If the page is poorly written such as a dicdef, then it needs to be rewritten, but this would definately be useful as an encyclopedia article. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - what are the standards for not being a neologism? It doesn't appear in the latest edition of the OED, it gets fewer than 900 google hits (Englandshire gets 13,200 - so should that be included too? Franceshire gets 7,590, clearly a far more popular non-word; Spainshire gets 3,630!). If merely having a few jovial usages is grounds for inclusion, should we have articles on all of these 'notable terms'? Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The standards for not being a neologism are inclusion in at least a couple news articles back in 1992. How can it be a neologism when written 14 years ago? The usage of it has been shown to not be entirely jovial. Can you show me otherwise for Franceshire, Spainshire, etc? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very interesting. This is clearly part of a global, or at least European , phenomenon. Perhaps the whole issue of "shire-ification" deserves some Wikipedia coverage. --Mais oui! 15:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable neologism. Maybe add a paragraph in Shire to discuss the usage in things like Chiantishire, but Scotlandshire seems too obscure to rate even a mention there. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The google book search, lightly indexed as it is, shows the term in use in the 1940s. Now, I have no prejudices against neologisms, but even if I did, this one blatantly would not meet any neologism criteria. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shire and mention the term there along with other joking uses of -shire (much as Ben suggests). ProhibitOnions 12:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no problem with it having its own article. Wikipedia has articles on thousands of subject of little note to anybody, which go for years without content edits; this article, in contrast, is apparently of more note. Dumping it in shire could mean that it could be deleted, and if it were deleted, any vote supporting a redirect would be null and void, and the article could be reverted to its original content. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This term is not notable enough to have an entry here. U$er
  • Delete please. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of amusing terms. NTK 05:47, 8 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 nonsense. — TheKMantalk 05:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vpod

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Delete AlistairMcMillan 03:21, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starf*ck (party)

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SexPowerGod

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JIP | Talk 11:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conjugation of auxiliary Catalan verbs

[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. GfloresTalk 03:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. True, it's not fancruft. I would like to see them all in one article because they are all related. This deals with my previous delete vote, that we're not a bilingual dictionary. A merge is fine with me, but I find separate articles unnecessary. If you're learning a languague, an encyclopedia is not the way to go. This is my first time dealing with such an article, so it's a learning experience for me. T K E 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valuable language info, and well linked to other Catalan language articles. Agree with Smerdis of Tlön and Brian G. Crawford. -- P199 22:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, don't delete. LambiamTalk 04:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with the other Catalan conjugation articles. --moof 04:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - while I would like delete, there is apparently precedent. Wickethewok 06:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Maybe we could take this as an opportunity for us grammar-interested editors to get together somewhere else and discuss what constitutes "morphology cruft" in grammar articles and how to avoid it. I do agree that bare listings of morphological paradigms are not optimal for a grammar article, but it's often done. Ideally, the function of such tables should always be subordinate to prose descriptions of what is characteristic or special about a grammatical system. Lukas (T.|@) 06:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. As the grammar articles get larger, there will be natural breakouts such as grammar of Catalan verbs, and what-not. It is not cruft it is useful, encyclopedic, and judgmentally added. Carlossuarez46 20:07, 5 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 02:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time box

[edit]

Appears to be non-notable bandcruft. If it is decided to keep it, this article and timebox should at least reference each other, or perhaps a dab page created for them -- RoySmith (talk) 03:41, 3 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. Makemi 04:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV.com

[edit]

Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted material -Andrew120 03:36, 3 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 02:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Media iii

[edit]

Advertisement masquerading as an article. Some guy 03:51, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Juggernaut Bitch

[edit]

Is this notable? You be the judge. Gets lots of Google hits.(Has redirects too) DJ Clayworth 03:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it is a important part of internet culture, something does not need to be clever and artistic to be on wikipedia, there are articles on cumshots, various juvenile sexual acts, and much more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.135.64 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep This is notable. Its probably the most popular internet clip at this time. And its a very well written article. --Pal5017 05:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not the "most popular internet clip at this time," at best it is one of hundreds of currently popular clips. We deleted the Prime Number Shitting Bear as nonnotable, and small chance that the Juggernaut Bitch, clever and artistic as it is, will have the same staying power. Unless this gets picked up somewhere and becomes a true phenomenon, it should go. NTK 05:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone comes up with some sources. ( I really want to keep it, along with a lot of things, but we are trying to be an encyclopedia and that pesky WP:V et al get in the way of things like this. ) Also, I'm not sure I saw the same video that NTK did if he thinks it is clever or artistic. Kotepho 06:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said, "clever and artistic as it is," however much that is. ;-) It is not a great work of art, it is somewhat offensive and juvenile, but it clearly took either a good bit of work or some very fast-on-the feet improv. Obviously a lot of people find it funny. NTK 06:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dunno, I must be a little bit crazy, but who the heck are we to judge what is "artistic" and/or "clever"? If you think the humor is lowbrow or juvenile or "offensive" that's your opinion. The humor is largely identical to the types of humor found in Chappelle's Show, for example, and the video is WILDLY popular in the gaming community. I suppose the standup of, say, George Carlin is also not "clever" and "artistic," then? I also don't understand this "we're trying to be an encyclopedia" stuff. Wikipedia is never going to be an encyclopedia along the lines of Britannica, that's just the nature of the beast. And if we feel we need to live up to that standard of stick-in-the-assness, why have we not deleted every ten thousand word otaku article on Final Fantasy tertiary characters or on Warhammer 40,000 races? This is merely and completely a judgment call on the part of people who feel that the subject matter of this article isn't "highbrow" enough for wikipedia. What an irony. The Juggernaut Bitch article is well written (I know because I wrote it), and it accomplishes the rare feat of being complementary to the humor of its own subject matter. I'm so sick of the antiseptic cast that wikipedians seem to feel we need to throw onto every single article. What makes something really an encyclopedia is that the articles are not only informative, but interesting. Anyway, enough tirade. I think this is a keeper, unless we're running out of hard drive space of Wiki servers. RiseAbove 07:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hard drives are cheap. That being said, this article is severly lacking in the verifiability department. Have any reliable sources covered this video? Also FWIW I laughed quite a bit watching the video. Kotepho 08:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concerns, but what "sources" do we really need? This is a short film, created by fans. You can easily verify everything in the article by simply watching the film, which is linked on the page. Also, I'm still confused as to why this page has been singled out, as opposed to literally thousands of pages on Wikipedia that deal with subject matter much less widespread than The Juggernaut Bitch video (again, how many people really care about the vital statistics and motivations of Sephiroth, the main bad guy from Final Fantasy VII? And yet he has a frickin' saga for his page... Again, I call discrimination here, there seems to be a bias against this article because of the tone and language of the subject matter. RiseAbove 00:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you could source that from any number of game guides that are published. Also, I'm quite sure that FF7 is notable and will be remembered years from now. Kotepho 01:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Marvel comics (and their parodies) won't be? And while you tell me where you could find sources (i.e. games manuals) for Warhammer and FF7, you don't explain why this is relevant to this particular article; an article that concerns a subject matter not susceptible to being sourced. It's kind of like accusing a page on a fantasy novel for not having sources because there are no books of commentary written about that novel.RiseAbove 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, wikipedia does not strive to be a primary source. Kotepho 01:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm responsible for it, sizzlechest. Got something you'd like to say to me? RiseAbove 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What kind of wikipedia would this be if you don't have every information. This is by far the best written article describing the video, the humor, and it's viral pop culture. To have this page is an Honor to me for I created the juggernaut bitch. Is it historical? maybe. The page has even been googled alot since posted. It is well written to my suprise and might just get better as time goes by. It's a Keeper. STop tryin to stop my Juggernaut Bitch.

April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheJuggernaut (talk • contribs)

  • Keep What kind of wikipedia would this be if you don't have every information. This is by far the best written article describing the video, the humor, and it's viral pop culture. To have this page is an Honor to me for I created the juggernaut bitch. Is it historical? maybe. The page has even been googled alot since posted. It is well written to my suprise and might just get better as time goes by. It's a Keeper. STop tryin to stop my Juggernaut Bitch.

April 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheJuggernaut (talk • contribs)

  • Keep What makes Wikipedia cool is NOT the fact that it is a professionally monitored encyclopedia, but rather that you can find things here that other encyclopedias would not even consider. I feel that Wikipedia is the "free thinkers" encyclopedia and I would be disappointed if 'The Juggernaut Bitch' was deleted. This clip is gaining a huge cult following, and I would argue that it's even more American than apple pie! It simply DOES EXIST, so why not catalog it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheJuggernaut (talk • contribs)
I agree one hundred percent. RiseAbove 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Melchoir 20:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it unverifiable? Non notable perhaps, but unverifiable just doesnt make sense to me. Its a video, and theres a link to it, so doesnt that prove that it exist, and thus prove verifiability?--Pal5017 05:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With 200k Google hits this easily passes any bar of notability.  Grue  21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 22:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep, with a vengeance. What “sources” are required beyond the video itself? Nominating this page for deletion is an unfair and irrational attack. The only motivation I can see for the “debate” here is the video’s trespass upon the humorless and politically correct sensibilities of the self-consciously high-minded. Wikipedia is populated by hundreds of ludicrous pages authored by pathologically obsessed fans of some inane enclave of gaming or popular culture (I think more pages are devoted to Final Fantasy minutiae than are afforded the plays of Shakespeare). These pages seem to survive the cut through pure teflon blandness, but when the subject involves humor of a highly vulgar (though hardly immature) color, out come the censors, knives sharpened, to cleave us all to some imagined standard of lofty gentility. What it comes down to is, Wikipedia functions as a repository of knowledge. This page provides entertaining, yet NPOV, description of an extremely popular internet video that does, in fact, exist. I see no reason this fact should be expunged from the social record, especially since precedents have now established that Wiki has plenty of tolerance for internet memes (and for countless subjects far more asinine than this page.) Wiki articles are not guesses as to what future historians might find of interest; they are written for the benefit of people today. And the fact that the page enjoys Google hits and redirects suggests that people are finding use for it. Spotlessmind
I particularlly like this article and I think it is pretty good. I just think it is better suited for Everything2 than something that is trying to be an encyclopedia. Kotepho 01:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Spotlessmind, and I would like to say further that his argument is not only well reasoned, but also well written. Why indeed, are some things designated "acceptable" for Wikipedia, and others, of seemingly the exact same pedigree, deemed only acceptable for Everything2? Kudos to you, SpotlessMind. RiseAbove 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is where our policies such as verifiability and no original research come in. Kotepho 02:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So... what if I were to write a few articles commenting on the video? If we then cited them in the page, would it suddenly and magically transmogrify into a page worthy of being on wikipedia? This no original research and citing sources stuff seems arbitrary and easily manipulated. And, regardless of the policies of wikipedia, the fact remains that MANY people use it as a "first stop" for information, especially on subjects like this. Are we going to actively destroy an informative article that could be helpful and interesting merely because it does not follow the letter of the law? If we are, that's a waste and a low down dirty shame. RiseAbove 02:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pretty much, yes, we will. Perhaps instead of numerous impassioned pleas for Wikipedia official policy to be ignored in this case (more or less because, well, you wrote the article and you like the subject matter), you could devote those energies to verification of the video's notability. Many people do use Wikipedia as a first stop for information, and they trust Wikipedia's usefulness for that because there are policies to trim out ephemeral, self-promotional fancruft. RGTraynor 14:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you have abandoned common sense in favor of obdurate and irrational adherence to bureaucratic stipulations. I submit the following:
Verifiability- Video is linked at bottom of page. Video exists. Quotes listed on page are reproduced as heard in video. Verification complete.
Notability- 200,000 hits within 2 weeks. Clearly popular. Do you, then, presume to decide what is “notable” for the rest of us, over the actual usage practices of the people whom Wikipedia serves?
I once ran up 5,000 hits in a single hour on my personal website just to see if I could do it. Your own site's counter on how many hits you claim to have isn't in of itself proof.
Considering the page achieved significant hits before this ridiculous controversy broke out, Occam's razor would suggest that the hits were acquired legitimately, rather than being the result of an hour-long coordinated effort by a 40 man team hitting refresh to drive up the hits on a Wiki page for absolutely no reason. Spotlessmind
Also, please provide some evidence of RiseAbove's connection to the video to support your claim of self-promotion. He has never suggested he was involved in the video's production. And further, please provide the address of the company from which you mail ordered your magic crystal ball, so I can verify the ephemeral nature of this video. Spotlessmind
Spotlessmind, you're my hero. Also, for the record, the video has been viewed close to 2 MILLION times on YouTube. That's not counting Google Video, and every other video site on the net. Clearly notable. Clearly verifiable. And, by the way, anybody who "ran up 5,000 hits in a single hour on [his] personal website just to see if [he] could do it" is somebody who's rational judgment should be questioned, to say the least. What did you do, just keep hitting reload 5,000 times in a row? WTF? RiseAbove 19:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. — ciphergoth 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest providing an argument next time, rather than a meaningless appeal to ridicule. It is just as obvious to those of us who oppose you that it should be kept. Spotlessmind
  • Comment: Speaking of verification, this talk page is obviously Savethejuggernaut's first edit, and Spotlessmind has made four other contributions in a year. RGTraynor 19:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does that make any of their arguments any more or less true? Again, this comment is further evidence that you and those like you are motivated solely by emotion and bias, and not on logic or empiricism. That ain't the way to run an encyclopedia. Also, I noticed you haven't responded to my previous citations about YouTube or your 5,000 clicks on your own website. Can I assume you're conceding those points? RiseAbove 21:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Spotlessmind has made four other contributions in a year." That clears up the issue of whether you can count. But I'm interested to know what relevance this has to your argument. Spotlessmind
Wow. I guess I didn't know that if Zybergoat hadn't heard of it, it wasn't notable. Except... that lots of people not named Zybergoat have heard of it. RiseAbove 00:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't adding that to say it's the reason for my vote. Not every little thing on the Internet deserves its own page in WP. Far more popular memes haven't netted a notice on WP, and I can't see why this should. But thanks for the borderline personal attack. It's well-appreciated. --Zybergoat 02:57, 5 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 banished to the Phantom Zone. DS 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunstone (comics)

[edit]

Non-notable. Article states that this is only mentioned once in a comic with no specifics. Some guy 04:07, 3 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starchild (libertarian)

[edit]

I nominate this article for deletion because I fail to see how the subject in question is notable. When using Wikipedia:Notability (people) as a guide, this individual does not hold office, and doesn't seem to get that much press.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:22, 3 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 Merged with Sun Certified Professional.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J2EE certification program

[edit]

Badly named title, no content, if notable at all belongs under a Sun article, but there's nothing left to merge. NTK 04:23, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brasilia Tropicalis

[edit]

Video game in development by a couple of guys for some contest. They don't even have a publisher. And, icing on the cake, zero google hits. Extreme delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. as unverifiable WP:V.--Blue520 04:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, WP:SOFTWARE, and WP:Crystal ball --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonnotable, ad, etc. NTK 05:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable, unverifiable, crystal ball, advertisement, and probably vanity too (how else could the editor know so much about a game that hasn't been released yet?) --Icarus 08:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, lack of verifiabilty. --Alan Au 09:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nn game, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 13:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although props to the article writer for having the stones to declare a subject with zero Google hits "notable." RGTraynor 16:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article author here. Can't argue the standards by which a deletion is judged, but some clarification is in order. (1) I am one of the developers. (2) All three of us are industry professionals working full-time on VC-funded games. Googling my screenname 'Darien Kane' will return some articles and past projects by me. (3) JogosBR ('GamesBR' in Portuguese) is an initiative from the brazilian government to award original game proposals, game demos and complete games with robust cash investments (link is provided). I'm not affiliated with the government, but given the novelty of this practice, I believe JogosBR should in fact have an article of its own. (4) The prize encompasses self-publishing (hence the 'TBA' on the 'Publisher' field). (5) Zero Google hits is due to zero advertisement. (6) The notability of this article is not anchored to whether or not the game gets released or wins the contest (i.e. crystal balling); rather, it lies in the PhotoRank feature - which represents a paradigm shift in our industry - and to a lesser extent, in-game pedagogy. These two topics have been sparking debates among our peers, fans, collaborators and overseas partners (hence me posting on en.wikipedia.org instead of pt.wikipedia.org). I'm willing to rewrite the article to reflect that its less of an ad and more of a case study in social computing and e-learning (at least in Brazil). Thiago Aiache 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promo spam. David Hoag 07:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have vigorously revamped the article to focus on the issues surrounding the game. Please review. Thiago Aiache 12:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I just did reread it, and found no external links or references that would establish the notability of the game ... nor, with zero Google hits, am I much surprised. Since Brazilian sites reflect on Google -- I have an ex in Sao Paulo with whom I am in touch -- it seems to me that Occam's Razor applies: plainly this "PhotoRank" is an extremely flawed yardstick by which notability can be gauged. Perhaps you could supply some links pointing out where these debates are actually taking place? RGTraynor 13:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I can only link to the lecture transcripts from the event where these issues were first debated, in middle March. It was the 'Conferência de Desenvolvedores de Games-Rio', which literally translates to Rio Game Developers Conference. The site is www.cdgrio.com.br. Transcripts (rather lenghty ones) are in Portuguese, but your friend from São Paulo can attest to their legitimacy. If this is still insufficient proof of notability, I can only ask that the article is moved to my User Space, as per one of the editors' suggestion. I kindly request that a redirect is provided, as I have linked the article on the document we submitted to the JogosBR contest. Thiago Aiache 19:59, 4 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dakkie

[edit]

Could find no evidence this is a real art technique. Googled 'dakkie contrast', 22 hits, "dakkie" itself yields some 22K hits, but most seem to refer to a proper name. "dakkie cinematography" (with no quotes) yielded 5 hits. Finally, the page does not link anywhere.-- Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:42, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galesburg shower

[edit]

local slang, not in widespread use. Zero google hits. Montco 04:55, 3 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.

Galesburg shower

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Yamaguchi Ghost Story

[edit]

Can find no evidence of notability. Zero hits for "A Yamaguchi Ghost Story", "Concrete Canvas" Static got 123, but none seem to be related to anime. "Shishido Takamitsu", the work's creator, yielded one hit.-- Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:10, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of 21st century fighter aircraft

[edit]

This article is almost entirely original research, and when viewed against the other articles in Category:Military comparison has no stylistic or content similarities. This is the type of article that should be read in air combat magazines or written by pundits, not the type that belongs in an encyclopedia. ericg ✈ 06:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm ambivalent about this. In its current form I have no problem deleting it. I had been planning on changing it to an article on 4th generation fighters; trimming out most of the comparative aspects but keeping the basics, the comparative costs, and the DERA study. --Mmx1 06:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see that there are parts of the article which need some help with sourcing, NPOVing and general cleanup. On the other hand, in some sections the article actually contains a fair amount of external links which provide sources for the claims. I think that deleting the entire article would be too drastic a measure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete current incarnation as original research, but I would probably keep a retitled, rewritten (npov) version of this article. --Alan Au 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sjakkalle. Encyclopedic subject, but requires major rewriting and page-splitting. Twinxor t 12:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sjakkalle. Needs cleanup and a total rewrite. Current state is definitely unacceptable. --Terence Ong 13:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs a very heavy rewrite and serious trimming. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I find it encyclopedic, but it needs citations. If there were a military/war CotW it could make an interesting project. — RJH 14:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Topic itself invites Original Research. del per ericg ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a technical measure. It seems that this article is going to be renamed 4th and 5th generation fighter aircraft or something similar sometime in the future. The new article should probably incorporate the factual things from the current article. Of course, I only support keeping it in order to provide non-Admins easier access to its factual statements. Otherwise, I fully support deleting it. Ingoolemo talk 16:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, move to User Space in preparation for new article I've had resistance in changing the status quo, deleting would remove a lot of that resistance. Since I proposed the renaming, let me take it, work on it, and move the new content to the 4th gen fighter article, while keeping this deleted to stanch any effort to keep OR. I think we're all agreed that this article in its current form and title invites OR, but has some useful information. I think this is the best way to satisfy both viewpoints. --Mmx1 18:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The section on the DERA study needs to stay, but some other subjective information needs to be removed. --zeroyon 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it will be difficult to separate OR, but this is not an emotive topic, unlike a comparison of sportspeople or politics.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:34, 4 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of Death (beer)

[edit]

This binge-drinking article failed speedy because Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day is not a criterion. Failed {{prod}}. Now at AFD, trifecta complete. Delete. stillnotelf is invisible 05:59, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy McAllister

[edit]

No evidence or claim of notability. Alai 06:34, 3 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, appears to be WP:POINT. Stifle (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Corn Ceremony

[edit]

because a German English Administrator is unable to verify the content from Germany (since no Cherokee Live in Germany) and has placed a prod on the page, which means it probably doesn't belong in the Encyclopedia Asgaya Gigagei 06:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • delete - Unverifiable from the Country of Germany. unsigned by Asgaya Gigagei Keep provided inaccruate information from Google is not associated with Cherokee Tribe since the materials placed by Isotope23 refer to the Oneidas, a tribe that lived 1500 miles north of the Cherokee -- and is totally inaccurate of Creek, Cherokee, and Seminole culture. Asgaya Gigagei 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may or may not have noticed on the Talk page that I requested that subject experts add subsections on each tribe's specific Green Corn ceremony practices since they are so divergent (provided the information can be sourced per WP:V. Right now I've taken it back to a very general stub.--Isotope23 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia articles need to be properly sourced so that the information in them can be verified whatever country you live in. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Keep Isotope23's cleaned up version. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tag for sourcing, and edit out unsourced material. whether or not Cherokee live in Germany is completely irrelevant. It's verifiable from "the Country of Germany"... with a little website I like to call "Google" [7]. The basic premise of this article can be sourced very easily. Some of the info appears to be WP:OR and simply needs to be removed. In fact this could easily be expanded because other native cultures besides the Cherokee celebrate the Green Corn Ceremony. deletion isn't necessary... cleanup is.--Isotope23 16:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also googled on the phrase "Green Corn Ceremony" and found any number of hits relating to Native American celebrations. Creeks and Oneidas were also named as having this. Should be more comprehensive and give sources, but what's here seems plausible. Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination by multiply-blocked sockpuppet. Article could use improved sourcing, but is perfectly encyclopedic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I should also note that when searching for "Green Corn Ceremony", you only get 444 unique hits. Royboycrashfan 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - AfD proposer is the only delete vote, and he's both rescinded his delete vote and been blocked. Jeff was probably trying to bring WP into disrepute by deleting more or less reasonable (though certainly not flawless) articles--Aim Here 09:48, 5 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim White (role-playing author)

[edit]

Evidently a vanity article (at least it's an up-front one), no evidence of any actual notability. Alai 06:43, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy in the buff

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Ricky81682.  (aeropagitica)  12:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mungery

[edit]

Delete - at first glance I thought it was nonsense. I think its an advertisement though... maybe...? Wickethewok 06:55, 3 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 recreated content. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planehugger for the last decision. Rossami (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planehuggers

[edit]

This article was speedily deleted twice, and was then reposted yet again. I've changed the re-nomination to a AfD because I think that it's worth discussing. I do not know what the original reasons given for the speedy nomination were, but my guess is that it's because it's a neologism. Icarus 06:55, 3 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. DS 18:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crust bucket

[edit]

Delete - definition only. Most likely crude protologism. Wickethewok 07:19, 3 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 (creator request). – Sceptre (Talk) 14:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starsiege Vehicle Configuration

[edit]

It's sort of weird nominating my own page for deletion. This was the second article I wrote and at the time I was new and not familiar with all the policies. Looking back at it now, it seems to be mostly fancruft. I'm obviously biased, as I wrote it, so I'll let others decide. Some guy 07:32, 3 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 Article was Speedy Deleted by User:Elf-friend at 22:28, 3 April 2006. Reason given was "This article provides no meaningful content". I'm just closing off this discussion. -- Saberwyn 11:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The aladdin

[edit]

Delete - seems like there should be something explicitly saying on WP:NOT that WP is not UrbanDictionary 2. Wickethewok 07:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete - If 'donkey punch' and 'glass bottom boat' are allowed in the hall of wikipedia i see no reason why The aladdin should not be allowed. It is a common term which is used collqially in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.97.183 (talk • contribs)

  • I call bullshit on the above claim, because I've never heard of it. Seriously, this is a dictdef. The majority of the top google hits when searching ["The aladdin" sex act] refer to either the casino, the fictional character, or the Disney movie; making this an unverifiable dictdef. Donkey punch has this nice "Cultural references" section which contributes to its inclusion by referring to when the term appears in tv shows and other media. Delete unless verifiable by a reliable source. -- Saberwyn 08:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Aladdin, Las Vegas. WP:NOT a slang dictionary, and the only reference is a link to urbandictionary.com. I'm suggesting redirect because with "The" pre-pended, I think of the casino. Alternately, delete. --Alan Au 07:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dont delete" - Still didnt answer the question of why if there is glass bottom boat and donkey punch, and dirty sanchez (all which are slang) then why can there be no aladdin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.97.183 (talk • contribs)
    • The Donkey Punch and Dirty Sanches phenonema are externally verifiable through the use of reliable sources and references to in several major film and television works. The Alladin isn't -- Saberwyn 08:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Donkey punch has a large section discussing cultural references, which lend notability to the topic. As for Glass bottom boat, I've removed the dictionary defintion from the disambiguation page. The Talk:Dirty Sanchez (sex) page also contains some information about why that article was kept. However, until the article contains more verifiable information about its widespread use, I consider it to be too much of a niche topic. As an additional comment, the article is poorly named (but that's easily fixable later). You may also find the Wikipedia:Importance page useful. --Alan Au 08:14, 3 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 to La casa de Bernarda alba. JIP | Talk 08:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernarda alba

[edit]

Delete/Redirect - looks like a playbill from some production of a play.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JIP | Talk 11:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Bleszinski

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The law to cut federal state party-funding in Belgium

[edit]

Delete - probably a newspaper article or something. Not encyclopedic. Wickethewok 08:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The text we're hosting is an unpublished compilation/résumé of texts, mainly newspaper articles. The political plot evolved during a period of time in Belgium. The individual articles in Dutch were not important enough to publish in English, but the whole of the story certainly is. This text offers the whole of the information in an encyclopaedic way. --Jvb – April 3, 2006
  • Delete, just a collection of statements and quotes, possibly a copyvio. Even if it is valid, the article needs to be renamed. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:33 (UTC)
What do you think about: The Belgian "dry up" law, see: [8] Could this perhaps be a better name? --Jvb – April 3, 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Loo

[edit]

The content looks like a church brochure promoting the pastor rather than a neutral article. But more importantly, I don't think the biography of the pastor Kevin Loo warrants an article on its own in wikipedia, as currently there is no significant or important detail about the pastor. He is at the moment a senior pastor of a local church in Malaysia, like many other senior pastors around the country. Atticuslai 08:09, 3 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 Merged with Sava (mythology).  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'i

[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:26, 3 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iva (mythology)

[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment. It shouldn't be too hard, however, to confirm that it is in fact a real myth, which I haven't been able to do. Bucketsofg 18:10, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hine-Kau-Ataata

[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later comment: suggest rename to Hine-kau-ataata after afd process Kahuroa 18:04, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Havoa

[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:28, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ele'ele

[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 3 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 Renamed as Hāhau-whenua  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahau-Whenua

[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:28, 3 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 Renamed as Auahitūroa.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auahi-Turoa

[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:34, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaheva

[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:34, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aremata-Popoa and Aremata-Rorua

[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:34, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atonga

[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avaiki Tautau

[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 3 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 Renamed as Pulotu.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulotu

[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 3 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. There's not much to keep but feel free to create a page saying eau is French for water! kingboyk 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eau

[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment. If we were able to find the sources of this myth, we'd be arguing to keep it. The problem is that there are several Polynesian myth articles that seem to have become so garbled by someone that we can't figure out where it's come from. Bucketsofg 22:35, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoeitu (second nomination)

[edit]

Finally...This is the last of the 54 Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kong Hee

[edit]

Notability not established. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Loo --Alan Au 08:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Founder and senior pastor of City Harvest Church Singapore. That's notable, considering how "huge" City Harvest is in Singapore[9]. --Dodo bird 09:42, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Film Stars

[edit]

Original research, ranking of "great film stars" not based on any published ranking, merely on reasoning set up by editor. Ckessler 08:53, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog-Rock

[edit]

Non-notable, unstable neologism. Haakon 09:03, 3 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 Merged into List of minor characters in Saved by the Bell.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Nerdstrom

[edit]

Non-notable character. Ckessler 09:13, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

County flower

[edit]

This article is being used as a promotional tool for a charity. Outwith Lancashire and Yorkshire there is zero "tradition" (a much abused word) of county flowers in any other part of the UK, and there never can be in Scotland, because the counties which could have adopted them were abolished over 30 years ago. Mais oui! 09:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. First Bwithh deleted all the references to county flowers from relevant articles, citing this AfD, despite the consensus being clearly in favour of the retention of the article. When I replaced the mentions, Mais oui! went through them adding {{fact}}, with the edit summary: "citation needed: at what date adopted? by whom? Plantlife? Liverpool County Council? Noddy?". Given that each article linked to county flower, which has adequate citations and explanation, this was absurd, and I've been removing the templates. I don't know why this has aroused such strong emotion in these editors, but would they please leave articles alone at least until this AfD's over, and prefereably afterwards? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions of the county flowers have been spammed into the lead sections of UK county and city pages - at most, this may belong , with the disclaimer that this is not an official emblem, in a trivia section or a flora section; nothing more Bwithh 03:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete No such thing exists in Cornwall - I agree with the above comment Biwizz 07:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first two paragraphs, as it describes what a county flower is without mentioning its contest, but Merge the rest into Plantlife. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 07:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tidy up and explain context. A contemporary competition is still notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Also needs to be gereralised to include County flower systems outside UK. Lumos3 08:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; in many counties, such as Oxfordshire, the county flower was chosen by the public in a campaign supported by wildlife trusts and the like. I see that Bwithh has been deleting mention of county flowers from articles, citing this AfD, despite the fact that consensus is curetly clearly for keeping the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep County flowers exist for counties in other countries too. I added details of a few to the page. The competition is notable enough for inclusion, assuming proper explanation is given. --David Edgar 10:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Interesting to see the information together on one page. FloNight talk 17:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs cleanup and explanation of context. Johnwalton 18:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep in so far as this article is factual information. However, I am sceptical that the edits to individual county pages (and pseudo-counties such as Birmingham which apparently has a county flower despite not being a county!) to record these flowers are appropriate as these flowers have no official recognition or historical validity. Valiantis 18:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Wikipedia is not here to "make the world right" or the way any particular wikipedian would like it to be. Whether Mais oui! disagree with the concept of county flower is academic. In any case, no harm would be done if the sentence "Following a campaign by Plantlife," precedes mention of county flowers in any county articles. Regards, Asterion 02:40, 8 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shompet

[edit]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, slang, or idiom guide. --Hetar 09:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete post transwiki. --ΜιĿːtalk 09:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete: If this is not a dictionary, so we shouldn't have anything about "Apple" or "tree" or "carrot" or ... . This is an information guide, about what does something mean and where it is used. Don't try to be effective!! This Article is great and it is common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad3d (talk • contribs)
  • Don't Delete: per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad3d (talk • contribs) Multiple "vote" from this user stricken per AfD etiquette.
  • Neutral, could be notable, would like to see an actual source before believing notability. Appears to be more than just a dicdef. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:40 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete: Check the Encyclopedia's meaning in Wikipedia. You'll see: "The encyclopedia as we recognize it today developed from the dictionary in the 18th century.... an encyclopedia seeks to discuss each subject in more depth .... Some works titled "dictionaries" are actually more similar to encyclopedias, such as the Dictionary of the Middle Ages, the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, and Black's Law Dictionary ...". So as we see here, an Encyclopedia is an advanced dictionary. How you say "It is not a dictionary"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad3d (talk • contribs) Multiple "vote" from this user stricken per AfD etiquette.
    • Delete. While you defending your own article is understandable, Ahmad, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary is official policy and nothing against which can be argued, however much any of us might not want that to be the case. The Apple article describes what one is, not merely defines it. There's nothing to be described for the Farsi word for "stupid." Delete as dicdef. RGTraynor 16:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. If you need more examples of "There is something to be done with the farsi word Shompet, I'll give you some: Atom (is a word from Greek), Candy (is a farsi word), and ...
  • Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Esquizombi 13:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete: Ofcourse it is not a dictionary, because it is something more than a dictionary! and dictionary is a subset of Wikipedia.... If it is something different, then Why, apple and Tree and ... can be found in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad3d (talk • contribs) Multiple "vote" from this user stricken per AfD etiquette.
    • Comment If you look at the articles for apple and tree, they are quite obviously encyclopedic entries not dictionary ones. Esquizombi 14:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you look at the Wikipedia, you'll find out that it is a place that everyone can edit the entry. Why? Because everything need to be completed by everyone on the net. I'm sure apple and tree are not BORN like that, and they are abviousely created by someone and edited by others (exactly the same way that Shompet can be).
  • Delete. There's no potential for this to outgrow being a dicdef. Brian G. Crawford 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary/ dicdef. --Terence Ong 14:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef, and I've not seen any notability ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable, non-notable, 14 g-hits, those in English pertain to a eBay user name. Accurizer 21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and place the famous little tag for sources needed. --72.57.8.158 22:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can say Wikipedia is not a dictionary because, well, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, translating, slang or otherwise. It's an encyclopedia. Comparison to other articles stated above is irrelevant, as those are not dictionary definitions. This article, meanwhile, has no plausible expandability. If someone can satisfactorily prove this wrong, I'll reconsider. --Kinu t/c 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you look at the Wikipedia, you'll find out that it is a place that everyone can edit the entry. Why? Because everything need to be completed by everyone on the net. I'm sure apple and tree are not BORN like that, and they are abviousely created by someone and edited by others (exactly the same way that Shompet can be). —This unsigned comment was added by 194.225.24.3 (talk • contribs) .
    • Look, you're nearing the root of the issue. We can complete the article on apple: It's biological properties, its mythological and cultural significance all the way to Isaac Newton and so on. But can we complete "Shompet" to same degree? No. "It means stupid. It was used in a TV program often." Well, write about the TV program. That may be significant, and we can probably discuss how that TV program is relevant, and how it made everyone cry that word. Take a look at Pulttibois, which does have an article: You find that we don't, and bloody hecking well won't, have an article about "apuva." It would never grow beyond "It means 'help'. It was used in a TV comedy show. Everyone in Finland mentally under 12 years of age repeated the hell out of it." Are you starting to see the issue now? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Imarek 00:34, 8 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of distressed shopping malls

[edit]

Since the last time this article was nominated for AfD here, we've forked out the malls that are verifiably defunct, and no longer operating as malls or closed outright here. This addressed the concerns brought up in the previous AfD nomination. This article now contains only "distressed" shopping malls still open to the public, which is far harder, if not impossible, to objectively verify than defunctness. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. What exactly does "distressed" mean? In any case, it seems unverifiable and probably unmaintainable. Grandmasterka 10:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since identifying them seems rather difficult.. and as above, 'distressed' is never even explained (I assume it means they are on their way to becoming defunct?). -- Mithent 11:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the criteria for being on this list ("distressed"), is inherently non-encyclopedic. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:35 (UTC)
  • Weak delete It's a potentially interesting subject, but the content seemingly simply mirrors Deadmalls.com without adding anything to it from other sources. The parent article Dead mall really needs to be expanded commenting on the significance of the phenomenon before there are all the subarticles. But perhaps there should be some sort of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion about articles on malls on WP. Esquizombi 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We did start WikiProject Dead malls to attempt to coordinate efforts regarding these articles about dead malls on Wikipedia. Basically sets up a basic structure for articles and some "talking points" for such malls. Hopefully this will make things a wee bit easier in the future, as this does centralize some of the discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this mirror of blog site deadmalls.com. Labelling a mall as 'distressed' is POV, and changing it from the original would make it original research, as it is up to someone's interpretation whether or not a mall is 'distressed'. And it's a silly name. The only emotion malls feel is anger. Proto||type 14:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I like the list. However, I feel that it is of no use, isn't it listcruft? --Terence Ong 15:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete all malls! ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. this could be a categofy, but as an article it is patent listcruft. youngamerican (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. It's interesting, but I don't see how we can label a mall distressed and still be NPOV. BryanG 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, thanks to whom for straightening this out. -Will Beback 21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. There are reasonably objective criteria for a 'distressed' property most of which are unavailable to the general public. There are a couple of malls that have defaulted on their mortgages. Others have extremely low (less than 60%) occupancy. Most of that information would take so much time to research that I doubt anyone has done it here. I certainly can't fathom what criteria was used for inclusion here. Montco 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: "Distressed" is too vague. Even a specific meaning (say, vacancy rate), might or might not be notable with respect to the local economy. And the one mall on the list that I can really make an informed opinion on is not distressed by any standard. Peter Grey 03:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 20:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd personally have to go with the delete side. I think there's a too-high degree of subjectivity involved, and a too-low degree of verifiability. Plus I just don't think it's that important, and while I may be wrong I don't think WP has ever established a consensus that all shopping malls are legitimately notable. For what it's worth, the only mall on here that I could speak to at all (Whitby Mall in Whitby, Ontario) is one that I don't think would merit an article even if it weren't on some people's subjective lists of "distressed" malls. Bottom line, this just doesn't strike me as being a particularly notable or encyclopedic list. Bearcat 02:47, 7 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Johnson

[edit]

This one is interesting. The article, as it now stands, is comple vanispamicruftisement. Google reveals 360 hits for "Stan Johnson" and "Prophecy Club". I'm really not sure if the host of a 15-minute show is notable. (I co-host a 15 minute show on KUOM, although that's local, and this appears to be national.) No vote. Grandmasterka 10:26, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-pub

[edit]

I don't believe this term is in terribly widespread use, nor how it could grow beyond a dictionary-style definition. Joyous | Talk 11:09, 3 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 lies, lies, and more lies. DS 19:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Coyne

[edit]

BS - not a 'billionaire' and NN. James Kendall [talk] 11:09, 3 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 Everyone loves Magical Trevor, cos' the tricks that he does are ever so clever. Speedy deleted. Esteffect 22:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaded (definition)

[edit]

Moved to Wiktionary: Wikt:jaded Dangherous 11:34, 3 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 (3 or 4 to 1, plus a notable game does not per se make the software house notable). kingboyk 02:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockingham Software

[edit]

NN games company. For a company that has supposedly been around since 2001, they only get 342 hits. Drat (Talk) 13:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Cricket Manager is notable in the game community (though not as much as Football manager) ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. There are many tiny development studios which manage to put out a game or two. But whereas the game might garner some notability, the studio behind might not. It would never pass WP:CORP in a million years. - Hahnchen 19:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In response to Hahnchen: The gaming industry does not work like the music/movie industry. If a game gets notability, the developer (note not the publisher) automatically gains notability. It's different than say a music CD where if an artist makes a hit, the studio he recorded in isn't notable. But with games, the design studio to a large extent is synonymous with the game itself, and hence a game, whether notorious or critically acclaimed, earns it's developers notability. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm a keen gamer and drop in at WP:CVG from time to time. This is not a notable gaming company, I could rolloff quite a few unknown development studios who only managed to put out 1 or 2 titles, and I don't think they're notable enough. Neither of their games has made an impact on the wider gaming industry, and it's not like they have the greatest output either. There are mod teams more notable than this. As opposed to SwatJ, I'm saying that not every software house is notable. - Hahnchen 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see why WP:CORP shouldn't apply to software studios too, and its criteria are not met here. Sandstein 09:30, 8 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv-Goraksha Babaji

[edit]

subject is non-notable 999 13:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People moving comments around on this vote page need to kindly knock it off. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my nomination, subject is non-notable. Google returns only 63 hits [10] which seem to be contained on less than 20 distinct sites. See also related non-notable page which was up for AfD recently [11] -999 13:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is suspected to be yet another attempt at "sneaky vandalism" per WP:VANDALISM by user:Adityanath as another of his sockpuppets. This article has major significance as a subject two huge fields of spirituality: Kriya Yoga and Nath Sampradaya. This article has probably about two dozen unique references to ancient and modern texts, and to major modern topics that bring up hundreds of thousands of Google search returns for keywords such as "Kriya Yoga", "Mahavatar Babaji", "Gorakshanath", "Yogananda", "Gorakhnath", "Nath Sampradaya", "Shiva", "Trimurti", "Yogiraj Gurunath", etc. Hamsacharya dan 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Dan, you are being paranoid. I had nothing to do with this nomination. To show my good faith, I will abstain from voting. —Adityanath 15:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. That an article was typed up with many external links or that terms used within it have numerous Google search returns are in of themselves unimpressive. Whether the subject is notable ought to be the question, not whether its inventor claims parallels to other subjects which might be. RGTraynor 17:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - This man was the beginner of a huge hinduism subsect known as Nath. He is like the Jesus or Mohammed or Abraham of this subsect which has hundreds of thousands of followers worldwide. He has written a number of books including Goraksha Samhita, Goraksha Gita, Siddha Siddhanta Paddhati, Yoga Martanada, Yoga Siddhanta Paddhati, Yoga-Bija, Yoga Chintamani, and has started numerous practices such as Laya Yoga, Hatha Yoga, etc...Please see variants of his name Gorakhnath which gives around 32,000 links [12]Gorakh Nath which gives over 9000 links [13] Gorakshanath [14] which brings up 575 on google, with Shiv-goraksha [15] which pulls up 622 pages on google. This article is HIGHLY notable in Indian religion - everybody in India knows who this person is, and there's about 15 major pilgrimage sites associated with him - this figure is well known and has been written about in countless ancient texts (which unfortunately do not have representation of Google yet), and several modern ones, as is evidenced by the content of the article. There is no reason to delete this article. It is only being listed out of spite from an editor that is being investigated for sockpuppeting. Hamsacharya dan 18:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Other variants:
          • Shiv Goraksha Nath
          • Shiva Goraksha Nath
          • Guru Gorakh Nath
          • Guru Gorakshanath
          • Shiva Gorakshanath
          • Gorakh Baba or Babaji
          • Goraksha Babaji or Baba
        • 'Comment - you have to put multi-word subjects in quotes, properly done, "Shiv-goraksha" has 97 hits [16]. —Adityanath 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Urr ... no. This is a bit of a bait and switch. I read through both articles, and as far as I see, "Shiv-Goraksha Babaji" isn't the historical 11th century religious figure Gorakhnath. It is an alleged spirit that some guru claimed visited him around 1960 and claims is Gorakhnath, only he felt like renaming the spirit. That information from this article might be useful in the Gorakhnath entry I'll leave to others, but claiming Gorakhnath's notability for this article is tantamount to me writing a vanity article about my cat claiming that Jesus is possessing her, and declaring my cat's article notable because Jesus has a whole whopping lot of Google hits. RGTraynor 13:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC) In light of Dan's information I change to Weak keep and redirect to the more notable spelling. I also caution dan to not make accusations about sockpuppetry unless you're prepared to take them to WP:RFCU. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as primary author Hamsacharya dan has changed his vote to delete. ---Baba Louis 03:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Delete per nom. or merge but only to Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath per RGTraynor's insightful analysis. Does not belong in Gorakshanath who was an historical individual.. ---Baba Louis 16:38, 3 April 2006 [reply]
  • Keep - No issues requiring deletion. unsigned comment by 129.188.33.221 (talk · contribs)
  • Keep What a surreal AfD. Anyway, the article is almost unintelligible to the casual reader and needs cleanup, but Google convinces me that this is a (at least somewhat) notable figure. Sandstein 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gorakshanath. If you read the article, it's apparent that this is just another name for Gorakshanath, among many other variant names and spellings (see 'Other Variants' above). It's even stated in the article: "Shiva-Gorakshanath (Guru Gorakhnath)". ॐ Priyanath 21:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep or Merge with Gorakshanath or Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. This information is much more in depth and well researched than what is on Gorakshanath page. Adityanath created this page when he didn't know anything about the subject - I had to come in and clean it up in addition to what was already there from Hamsa Dan. It should have never been created but immediately been integrated with one of the two pages above. It's ridiculous that it's even on AfD. This is an enormous subject in India. There are probably about 30 books written by or on the subject before 1800. Most of them are in sanskrit and haven't yet been translated. Kalagni Nath 23:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge, as per Priyanth (or Kalagni Nath). --moof 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentDo not consider on any point of serious scholarship to merge this article with the Gorakshanath article. Gorakshanath was an influencial Indian personality who lived between 700-1000 years ago. Gorakshanath is dead. Shiv-Goraksha Babaji is a fictional character, the ultimate meat puppet a few people are attempting to breath life into. We have limited antecdotal reference to Shiv-Goraksha Babaji and no facts whatsoever of "his" objective existence. To say with a straight face that Gorakshanath is the same being as Shiv-Goraksh Baba one must be culpable for supporting the concept of physical immortality. This idea would be laughed off most WP articles in a heart-beat. There is no reason it should be considered here. Chai Walla 22:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 68.127.175.116 18:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 67.36.189.228 19:55, 8 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milos sadik

[edit]

Can't find any evidence of notability. Google search doesn't come up with anything. Was prodded but tag removed by article's author. Spondoolicks 13:54, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Dlugoss

[edit]

Non-notable per WP:BIO, garners a 40 upon googling. Previously {{prod}}ed, removed by User:204.39.88.246. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:02, 3 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.
GNAA AfD Nominations

1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | 10th

11th | 12th | 13th | 14th | 15th | 16th | 17th | 18th

10 GNAA AfD nominations pool | MfD of pool | 2nd MfD of pool

Deletion review | 2nd | Jimbo on GNAA deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Nigger Association of America

[edit]

Non notable troll organization. We really shouldn't be feeding the trolls by having an article about them. This article feeds them, so it should be deleted. CouchPerson 14:13, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godstomper

[edit]

Vanity page for non-notable band. No entry in AMG. —Chowbok 14:30, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy 3. Hoffman

[edit]

Nonnotable. This person appears to be locally known, but certainly not notable enough. Jogloran 14:48, 3 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 me. Pepsidrinka 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Avery

[edit]

Surely NN? Seems like a regular guy to me, and definitely not a topic of encyclopaedic value. James Kendall [talk] 14:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who the fuck are you to decide what is of encyclopedic value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Gaius Baltar (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 11:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Zamos

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable individual/incident. — WCityMike (T | C) 15:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you want to just propose that all the articles I've started be deleted I can provide you a list. I think Zamos is notable. It takes a lot of guts to do that. Google returns 10K hits for "David Zamos"; story was picked up by dozens of major outlets in several countries. Mateo LeFou 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably a keep, then. — WCityMike (T | C) 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your other claim re: Google, there are only 137 unique results for "David Zamos" and "Microsoft." See Wikipedia:Google test, the subsection "On 'unique' results", for reference. — WCityMike (T | C) 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep notability due to media interest Deli nk 16:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've added a reference to an article in the Chronicle for Higher Education to the article, which I found in Lexis-Nexis. Ideally, I'd like a few more articles, too, but this one is for me (barely) enough. Bucketsofg 16:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep For reasons alreayd stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangman4ever (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Are we setting a precedent here? Are we saying that anyone who decides to sue a big company and gets a news article is notable? Since the suit was settled and the terms are secret, this sets no legal precedent. Unless Mr. Zamos intends to make suing companies a habit, can we assume that the 15 minutes of fame are nearly extinguished?Montco 23:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I thought anyone who decides to sue a big company is notable I'd have to start up a few hundred articles a day. But when someone singlehandedly gets one of the richest companies in the world to back down in a legal fight it's pretty notable.Mateo LeFou 13:53, 4 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 Rodrigo y Gabriela.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Y Gabriela

[edit]

My own fault. Article already exists at Rodrigo y Gabriela. But the existing article doesn't show up when searching for 'Rodrigo Y Gabriela' so I started up this one. They're quite similar articles anyway. Modular. (Talk.) 15:52, 3 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. DS 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Avari

[edit]

Despite good attempt at creating article, clearly fails WP:BAND. Trivia section is going to BJAODN; rest is going nowhere. Daniel Case 16:08, 3 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. DS 18:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Prosser's website

[edit]

Some websites you don't need to look up their Alexa rating to know they fail WP:WEB. You just don't. Daniel Case 16:20, 3 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. —Xezbeth 09:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siege (game)

[edit]

Non-notable game mod. Prod removed by same user who removed prods from other gamecruft game mods currently on AFD. Quale 16:32, 3 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: Vanispamcruftisement, CSD A7 . – Sceptre (Talk) 15:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magrudergrind

[edit]

Vanity page of non-notable band, added by user who is only using Wikipedia to promote his own obscure projects. —Chowbok 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - plenty of google hits, but reeks of vanity. Big in albania 11:47, 5 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy urbanization

[edit]

Original research, otherwise nothing else that couldn't be merged into new urbanism or its related articles. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 16:41, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern Felt

[edit]

{{{text}}} (Nominated for deletion by 141.161.112.132)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Lodge of Canada

[edit]

unnecessary redirect page (grand lodge of canada suffices) —This unsigned comment was added by Osgoodelawyer (talk • contribs) .

My point is that there is an uncapitalized redirect, and if one types in the capitalized phrase, it goes to that page, and redirects from there, making the capitalized redirect page unnecessary. See "grand lodge of ontario" and how it will redirect anyone who enters "Grand Lodge of Ontario" in the same way. Osgoodelawyer 23:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that that only works in the search box, and not if there is a direct link to Grand Lodge of Ontario. Still, it's unlikely that someone would create a link to the incorrect page, but if you don't mind having multiple redirect pages, I'm cool with that. Osgoodelawyer 23:07, 3 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 move to wikt is the obvious choice, but it already has a def there. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outwith

[edit]

The article is still a dicdef. It is already in wiktionary. There's no need for a tiny stub saying exactly the same thing in wikipedia. Stringops 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed...though it was nice while it lasted :)Tom 17:45, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Rosen

[edit]

Some faint claim of notability (published photographer), but no sources other than personal web sites. Strong suspicion of self-promotion. Alai 17:43, 3 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 Redirected to Wayne Dyer.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne dwyer

[edit]

This page was a spelling error for an entry on Wayne Dyer. A Wayne Dyer page already exists and the content was merged. Sandwich Eater 18:10, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Teachers

[edit]

Prodded and then de-prodded by User: Monicasdude. This documentary has no IMDb entry, leading me to doubt its notability and verifiability. Delete --Hetar 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep nomination bordering on bad faith, since the explanation here is different than the same nominator's prod comments. And would it kill him to do a Google search? [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Obviously notable as award-winning television series. Can we just close this now? Monicasdude 18:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? a bad faith nomination because my prod comments were different than my AfD comments? I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy stating that these have to be exactly the same. My original prod comment was, "does not meet notability requirements." Of course, my prod was promptly removed because you said that it did, "not indicate why TV documentary series would be nonnotable." So now, when I explain why I think its nn, you accuse me of a bad faith nomination? --Hetar 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both of you, deep breaths: assumptions of good faith all round will help everyone. Thanks. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. My experience has been that when the AfD nominator names the editor who object to a prod or speedy listing before discussing the reasons for the nomination, it's a personal deal, not related to the appropriateness of the article. And IMDB isn't exactly where one would expect to find info on Canadian TV documentaries. If the nominator had assumed a minimum of good faith to begin with, he'd have done more than a superficial check; nothing about the article indicated hoax or negligibility. Monicasdude 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sourcing provided and perhaps consider adding those sources to the article to prevent future AfD. No need for speedy unless nom wants to withdraw or it's a very obvious all keep opinion... and per Redvers, looks like some people need a hug.--Isotope23 19:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously the article needs expanding, but notability seems clear. Gwernol 20:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, of course. Samaritan 07:45, 7 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; leaning to keep. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Gurudev Mahendranath

[edit]
In which case it would be appropriate to create a new article once that has actually happened. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Sneftel 19:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You are correct that 'The Scrolls of Mahendranath' has no ISBN but some of the contents are previously published works (magazine). — Nathhere 13:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - This author was also published in numerous periodicals in the 1970s and 1980s, including the British magazine Values, the well-known British magical journal, Sothis Magazine and the NYC-based but seminal Mandragore, and there is a recent article about him in the Ashe Journal of Experimental Spirituality, as well as the other publications mentioned above. He is known as the founder of two different organizations, AMOOKOS, which is the subject of the book Tantra Magick by Michael Magee, and the International Nath Order which is still active. ---Baba Louis 21:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom Kalagni Nath 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I get 9140 hits on Google [26], to be precise :-) -999 02:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The cited references of Baba Louis for the authors works are valid as are a number of others. The Author appears to be considered for deletion soley due to the lack of an ISBN number. Is it not true that an ISBN number can be applied to any collection of ideas, with the sole requirement that a collection of dollars be applied to the ISBN number? I don't believe the lack of an ISBN number is topical here. We have instead a published author and historical personality who has influenced many people. There is no valid criterion that this article be cited for deletion.216.39.162.241 06:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I found this delete discussion while working on the Gorakshanath and Matsyendranath articles. Both use this author as a reference and link to this page. Checking what links here, it appears that 11 articles of varying degrees of significance link to this page. Ekajati 16:32, 5 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Idler

[edit]

Hoax/vanity/non-notable etc, but claims notability. No Google hits.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Idler is an amateur body-builder who has won over 70 competitions. He also has won Two-National Championships for Tiddlywinks. He deserves as much recognition as anyone else on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by user:MoHills (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeshore Catholic High School

[edit]

Non-notable? Modular. (Talk.) 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, notable is not part of deletion criteria. For great justice. 18:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School's webite: [27]

Website with #1 ranking: [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mroll (talk • contribs)

  • Strong KeepI am truly disappointed in this nomination. This is a nomination to pick on the newcomer. Really we have school articles (thousands). By deleting this article you are inherently trying to make a precedence to delete 350 some articles that exist on schools (and that's just in Canada. Get real, get a pro-active wikilife! Become a creationist and start adding to article instead of looking to destroy them. Not only that but I as per WP:DP there are no real valid reasons to delete this. I strongly consider this nomination to be wrong. I also believe that as nominator you should retract this afd and furthermore I suggest that you the nominator add {{Category:Canadian school stubs}} to the bottom of the article so next time you'll remember that school do exist!!! It looks like this... (stub categorisation removed to stop afd from looking like a canadian stub article - BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard) --CyclePat 23:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - the templates really {{Canada-school-stub}}. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article exists as a vanity article for the school's football team only. Isotope tried to improve the article. We both said that you can't dedicate an article to a football team. The person who posted this article continually reverts our edit deleting this line "This entry is dedicated to the 2003/2004 Lakeshore Catholic Gators Sr.football team, the #1 ranked football team in the country!" Opblaaskrokodil 23:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the notability question for a moment, lets assume this gets kept because those interested in school inclusion are rendering opinions. I simply want to issue a challenge to anyone voting Keep to monitor this article and protect it from it's creator, who basically created it as a vehicle to publicize the Lakeshore Catholic Highschool 2003/2004 football team. I've tried to edit the content so it's at least a real school stub... but I can't sit here and engage in an endless edit war with the creator by myself.--Isotope23 00:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alrite, its more of a encyclopedia post now no?

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 2 Skulls

[edit]

Utterly unencyclopedic nonnotable gamer cruft. A list of secrets and how to find them in Halo2. Wikipedia isn't some GameFAQs rubbish. About as notable as List of secret exits in Super Mario World, or List of GMan sightings in Half-Life. - Hahnchen 18:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is aimed at Hahnchen for his rude, vulgar description of something that needs nothing more than what Gwernol wrote. I'm interested; why did you search for this page if you didn't want the information held within it? Do you randomly search pages to delete? Do you not have something more constructive to do? Such as write an article? Or donate to charity? Do you know how long it took me to write what is there? Sure; delete it if it's unencyclopædic (you spelt it wrong by the way), but after reading how you assert yourself I can't help thinking how little (if any) value to mankind you'll be. I don't want to be a part of something designed to share knowledge if it causes those who think they know best to adopt a discourteous derogatory façade simply because they don't approve. This page is publicly viewable so I can't show as much impoliteness as I would like. Good day to you Sir Специајіист горизонтајіьній создатејіь 01:55, 8 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario-All Stars 128

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:52, 3 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 09:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haterhouse

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable venue. Only 24 Ghits for "Haterhouse" (and 117 for "Hater House") discospinster 18:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User "Discopinster" is clearly not the sole objective force in deciding whether or not this venue is "notable." This venue has meant a great deal to very many people in michigan, and the subjective nature of a claim such as the one made should be reviewed. The entry "Haterhouse" has recently been edited, sources cross referenced and many internal links added (all of which obviously qualify to have their own wikipedia entries.) reconsider this, please.

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Sceptre (Talk) 15:19, 9 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. —Xezbeth 10:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rupam

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political landscaping and urban design in Ireland

[edit]

This article is equal parts POV and complete rubbish. It previously survived an AfD, the result of which was No Consensus. Stu ’Bout ye! 19:08, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Thomas Schmidt

[edit]
Relevant policies: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BIO, WP:BAND, WP:VAIN

Numerous users have expressed their concerns about the notability of this person, as evident in the edit history. Apart from having been a TV production assistant, he does not seem to be notable in any way (says Google). The assertions in the article are rather vague and unsourced; he probably also doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Sandstein 19:14, 3 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 WITHDRAWN. Not gonna get into the mess that led to this AFD, but nobody wants this deleted now, so kept it shall be. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Haldane

[edit]

Non notable. The only notability criteria provided is that the subject is sister of someone and daughter of someone. --Ragib 19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the information establishing her notability, I withdraw the nomination. However, I'd like to point out that a request for notability is not subject to constant, unexplained reverts and reason for launching personal attacks against the nominator, and also a vaguely worded link which doesn't provide any info doesn't establish the notability of a person. Thanks. --Ragib 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as nominator. --Ragib 19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanity page!!! (oh yeah, she's been dead 70 years). Oh and she has an entry in Britannica?. Sorry, not good enough for round here then. Someone needs whacking with a cluestick. — Dunc|☺ 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I tagged it requesting the original author Duncharris (talk · contribs) to provide reasons of notability. Rather, the user reverted the tag 3 times, and replied sarcastically to the request on his talk page. The author is not willing to provide any justification of notability at the time of nomination, rather than ad hominem comments. --Ragib 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment you put this on here despite being shown the above link to Britannica. That's vandalism in my book. (originally I applied Hanlon's Razor, but I think someone has a grudge). So speedy keep it is then, and make that a big cluestick. — Dunc|☺ 19:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - bad faith nom resulting from a disagreement over article tagging. The article was nominated for deletion after a third party pointed out that she has an EB article [30]. Guettarda 19:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep bad faith nomination. Also, she is notable for among other reasons being the first female justice of the peace in Scotland. JoshuaZ 20:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I'm not compeltely that this was bad faith, so I am just going to invoke WP:AGF. JoshuaZ 20:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, if she is the first female justice, add that link. I nominated the article based on this version, and I fully stand by my nomination. WP:V fully states that (WP:V#Burden_of_evidence) The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. Also, Any unsourced material may be challenged. I challenged it, and wasn't satisfied with notability, and hence nominated it here. If you add further verifiable references to the notability, my position is subject to change. Thanks. --Ragib 20:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated the article after the link to the EB article was provided. You nominated this article for deletion despite having this information - it was with that information that you asserted non-notability. If you made the nomination in good faith, you are asserting that this fails to meet the standard of notability. Since you had this information when the nomination was made, either she is still non-notable with this additional information, or the nomination was made in bad faith. Guettarda 01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does the link in question show?
The younger sister of the statesman Richard Burdon Haldane and the physiologist John Scott Haldane, she was educated privately. For much of her adult life she served on various advisory and regulatory boards for nursing. Influenced by the English housing reformer Octavia Hill,.
What notability or additional information does it show? I read this and was not convinced of any additional notability issue, and hence made the AfD nomination. How does having the link make my nomination "bad faith"? I agree that with the information (first women J.P.) later added by JoshuaZ (talk · contribs) establishes notability, and on that point, I'm happy to remove the AfD nomination, but in now way does the EB link establish her notability. Thanks. --Ragib 01:48, 4 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; 3:2 to keep. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EForward

[edit]

Non-notable?


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

The result of the debate was consensus goes to merge, but all four band members have pages, and I'd hate to discriminate. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Moore

[edit]

I believe this was a nnbio at some point, it's been vandalized dozen of times, and I can't make sense of it now. I still believe it's a nnbio, but I'd like to have feedback-- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:45, 3 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 bad faith nomination by unsigned user. Capitalistroadster 22:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wedgie

[edit]

It encourages other's to copy this prank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunger (talk • contribs)

  • It's still very informative. I just read the word 'wedgie' in a dilbert strip and I had no idea what it means (I'm not an native English speaker), so I looked it up on wikipedia. This article was very useful to me. We could delete any articles about something bad with the exact same argumentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.54.253 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, looks like WP:NFT but is well sourced (even in Merriam-Webster!). Slightly haphazard nomination by a new contributor. Sandstein 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. "Enabling bullying" is not a criterion for deletion. Would be a keep otherwise, as this is probably one of the oldest pranks in the book, even cites pop culture references (which it probably does not need to verify its existence anyway), and the criteria at WP:NFT do not refer to things that have entered the mainstream (see the section entitled "The right way for things made up in school one day to get into Wikipedia"). --Kinu t/c 20:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable prank. Cultural references abound (here's my favorite). —Chowbok 20:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per above, a useful reference to a cultural staple. Gwernol 20:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per above as well. This is a very famous prank, almost a classic. It doesn't even relate to, on any level, WP:NFT. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bgnkid : I like wedgies, especially ones done to fat guys. This article should be kept to inform people on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgnkid (talk • contribs) 14:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary minded Italians of the inter-war period

[edit]

This is at best a list and ought to be moved from its ridiculous namespace. However, since there is no criteria for inclusion, other than being "revolutionary minded", it's hard for me to see how this could be transformed into an article of encyclopedic value. There's no context, and no solid or useful criteria for inclusion or expansion. —thames 19:52, 3 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.

I own corrientelatina and its not an ad. all that is facts. Alexa doesnt mean anything. their ranking are based on people that have the alexa toolbar and is easily cheated. we are reputable and hate the fact that you guys don't do any research. Alexa? lol. give me a break. you can email me directly instead of saying "eff ads" sitting behind your computers not doing any research. check our facebook (blue check verfied) check out spotify (verified) come on. do some research before you call me spam! rich[at]corrientelatina.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.65.2.119 (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=from website owner

[edit]

I own corrientelatina and its not an ad. all that is facts. Alexa doesnt mean anything. their ranking are based on people that have the alexa toolbar and is easily cheated. we are reputable and hate the fact that you guys don't do any research. Alexa? lol. give me a break. you can email me directly instead of saying "eff ads" sitting behind your computers not doing any research. check our facebook (blue check verfied) check out spotify (verified) come on. do some research before you call me spam! rich[at]corrientelatina.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.65.2.119 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Corrientelatina

[edit]

Advertising. Doesn't seem notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and thus what the site "will become" doesn't interest us.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:43, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go Lin

[edit]

Unverifiable, person's name and none of the listed films google. Accurizer 20:46, 3 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, CSD A7

3 horsemen

[edit]

One use neologism for 3 members of a highschool team. Delete per WP:NEO.--Isotope23 21:01, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muriel McCormick Hubbard

[edit]

No assertion of notability except being granddaughter of someone famous. This alone doesn't deserve an article.  Grue  21:04, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathilde McCormick Oser

[edit]

No assertion of notability except for being granddaughter of someone famous. That alone doesn't deserve an article.  Grue  21:05, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-gi-oh! strata

[edit]

A little bit of nonsense (is this some Mary Sue fanfic?), and a little bit of duplicated content from Yu-Gi-Oh! and Yu-Gi-Oh! GX. kelvSYC 21:15, 3 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/Withdrawl --lightdarkness (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ice age 3

[edit]

Crystalballism, per WP:NOT. I added a PROD tag, but creator then placed {{vfd}} on the page. I've fixed the tag, and brought it here. lightdarkness (talk) 21:18, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amorea (band)

[edit]

Non-notable band, most probably a vanity page. Chairman S. Talk 21:34, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HYMPS

[edit]

The original article was a neologistic acronym for Harvard, Yale, MIT, Princeton, and Stanford universities. HYMPS + Yale gets 3 Google hits (though a different permutation of the letters, HYPSM + Yale, at least gets 375). After a failed prod, the article was rewritten about a group of primates and appears to be a complete hoax; their discoverer, "Richard Kopolovski", for example, gets zero hits. Delete. ×Meegs 21:35, 3 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Services Catering and Transportation

[edit]

Advertisement, non-notable company. SCHZMO ✍ 21:42, 3 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. Flowerparty■ 01:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buu is hatched

[edit]

A Dragon Ball Z episode. However, none of the Dragon Ball Z episodes have their own pages - they are all summarised on their Saga page, Majin Buu Saga in this case. Hence Delete. -- Mithent 22:08, 3 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 - nomination withdrawn. Mindmatrix 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe (disambiguation)

[edit]

Pointless DAB. Only one real article with this term. Precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distant Early Warning (disambiguation) — P199 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my submission for deletion after Mindmatrix re-org and additions on April 6. -- P199 17:58, 6 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. Flowerparty■ 01:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Whitfield (conductor)

[edit]

This page was written by the person it's about(he even signed it at the bottom), and he doesn't seem to be notable. Foxmulder 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, while I was putting it on the AfD page someone has done a lot of wikifying (it was on the "wikify" project page), but if you go back to the original version it's obvious that it was written by the person it's about. Foxmulder 23:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable bio, doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. --lightdarkness (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request clarification Endymion Ensemble has several CDs, appears notable. Is his role as conductor just related to Endymion, or has he conducted larger ensembles or notable orchestras? Does Whitfield have any CDs as a bassoonist? Also, Amazon has a John Whitfield who appears to be a cellist. Probably a notable classical musician pending a bit more WP:V. Thatcher131 00:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this article only needs a little WP:V and seeing as most people don't follow WP:DP I will assume this nomination is frivilous. The step that should have been taken is underline in WP:DP and that would be to add {{cleanup-verify}} to the article. --CyclePat 00:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, you're probably right. Sorry, I did read WP:DP before I did this, but I don't have any experience with AfD and I guess I missed that. Yeah, that is what I should have done. I guess I overreacted when I first saw the old version of the page. I mean, the guy has the nerve to write an article about himself, and he doesn't even format it properly, you know what I mean? Anyway, sorry about that...hope this doesn't end up wasting too much of anyone's time. Foxmulder 02:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Monicasdude 02:26, 4 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 Redirected to 2003 Invasion of Iraq.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Iraqi Freedom

[edit]

delete. One does not need a separate artricle for American propaganda buzzword. There already is Iraq War. Mukadderat 00:28, 4 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Tornaghi

[edit]

A goalkeeper for Internazionale Milano F.C.'s youth squad who has never played a first team match. Absolutely non-notable, IMHO. See also players' notability. Angelo 00:30, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_3&oldid=1233275393"