Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 9: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:01, 10 March 2006

< March 8	March 10 >

Purge server cache

March 9

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

The result of the debate was keep moink 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaczism

This article was speedied as "recreation of deleted content" but it isn't the case. The previous, speedily deleted version was:

Kaczism-a term connected with Lech Kaczynski who is a Polish politician and the president of the city of Warsaw,Poland; strongly Catholic and homofobic,didn`t let to organise a gay&lesbian parade in Warsaw saying it`d be a parade of perverts and saying that if his part takes control it`ll be a "dark night for gay people".

So the word Kaczism describes the typically Catholic Polish attitude towards gay people.

which doesn't have much in common with the current version. The slogan is really used in Poland.

Keep Ausir 15:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if what you say is true. Royboy crashfan 20:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recentism. Quip made up by a member of parliament doesn't generate encyclopedical term, fortunately. If the word will be still used after the current president leaves his office it will be notable. The Polish article suffers from constant political disputes and survived VfD cca 50:50, the Czech version is verbatim copy of the Polish one. Reaganism, Clintonism, etc articles do not exists and Kaczyński's brothers are even less likely to be a motive for seriously accepted politological term. Pavel Vozenilek 23:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ Keep ~~that at least one reference is added where this slogan is used. If Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy merits an article, so does this if it is an actually famous political phrase.~~ Staxringold 00:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some external links (in Polish). The interview actually even references the Polish Wikipedia article about kaczism :). Ausir 00:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know my vote won't count (myself being an anon), but if Bushism is a valid Wikipedia article, why shouldn't be Kaczism?
- Don't Forget Poland -- GWO

Well, the bushism is IMHO quite questionable (will anyone remember it in 10 years?). If this approach is taken to extreme articles about -isms for every current president/prime minister/controversial politician would mushroom here, with associated wars and other fun. Instead of sopaboxing time should be spent on article improvement, e.g. Jarosław Kaczyński is low quality stub. Pavel Vozenilek 13:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we'll see after few years (historic reason). Don't push daily policy in encyclopedia. --MaNeMeBasat 07:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course this should be kept. Polish political terms are just as meaningful as their American or Australian counterparts. -- JJay 12:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay 80.177.152.156 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I can vouch for the fact that it's a real term. Glad the first version of the article was killed off, though. ProhibitOnions 22:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Wall of Voodoo Cyde Weys 00:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of voodoo

Delete Page already exists at Wall of Voodoo -LichYoshi 00:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wall of Voodoo, plausible search term. Royboy crashfan 00:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Why is there this insistance on caps sensitivity? Wall of Voodoo, wall of voodoo, etc. should all be the same page without a need for redirects. Шизомби 00:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect Obviously. Fan1967 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per Fan1967. F e tofs ^Hello! 00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Change of venue to WP:RFD — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Zophiel

DELETE Zophiel page is a disambig page I created this page to link from their to a page to contain Zophiel the angel/demon. I then found that he is listed under Jophiel hence this page isn't needed anymore as Zophiel links directly to Jophiel now. Someone removed prod without checking who created the page etc so can only delete this way now. Sorry for my cock up, contact me on my talk page for more info cheers! Shimirel 00:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Taking this discussion over to RfD. Royboy crashfan 00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this be at Redirects for deletion (Royboy beat me!)? F e tofs ^Hello! 00:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has been carried over to RfD. Please vote there. Royboy crashfan 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Bismarck Public Schools --Cyde Weys 00:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bismarck public school system

Delete. This article merely recreates the already existing article Bismarck Public Schools. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 00:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . If you so wish, create a redirect to the actual page, but I don't think it's really necessary. F e tofs ^Hello! 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, no need to redirect. Royboy crashfan 00:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this is a plausible search term. Capitalistroadster 00:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect same as above --Leopold Samsonite

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bicky satchmo

Neologism/slang from a small circle. FreplySpang (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Tonywalton | Talk 00:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless neologism dab page. Royboy crashfan 00:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely worthless. Postdlf 00:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero Ghits. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day - Fan1967 00:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NFT. Jude(talk,contribs) 01:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 01:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Staxringold 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It made me laugh, but too obscure for an entry. Not even listed in Urbandictionary.com Wiederaufbau 02:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sophomoric trash. Moe Aboulkheir 02:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncylcopediedic and makes no sense. The Republican 03:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeing this die makes me Bicky Satchmo. Accurizer 04:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apollo58
Delete per all above, and put this out of its misery per WP:SNOW. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Samir ∙ T C 08:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Adbarnhart 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:36Z
Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kismet Avatar Chat

Appears to be advertising for a non-notable freeware program which has yet to be released. Delete. Fightindaman 00:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prerelease from yesterday linked [here]. Distribution page release later today after we take care of some bugs uncovered via the prerelease. BTW: 100 IRC client pages mostly 'nn' and you want to give us trouble about over our article? Gipper 17:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB and WP:NOT. Royboy crashfan 00:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. mikka (t) 01:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't intended as an advertisment. The next public release (for a major milemark 2.0) is friday, we just wanted to get the page up here while we were thinking about it. This chat system has been around for years and is hardly 'non-notable'. Our main page has a Google page rank of 4 or 5 depending on the month we have well over 1000 registered members and have been releasing free tools on the internet since 2000. If there is something wrong with the way the page is worded, feel free to edit it. I honestly don't have the extra time to play cat and mouse over it. Thanks. Gipper 01:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Staxringold 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --kingboyk 02:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, to be judged after it is actually released. Deizio 02:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 02:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmourned Apollo58
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 15:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sorry. nn. Compu terjoe 21:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:37Z

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as WP:CSD A7

Bell work

Describes a practice of an individual teacher in a single ~~elementary~~ high school. FreplySpang (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be Speedy delete as WP:CSD A7, then, wouldn't it?. Tonywalton | Talk 00:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me, thanks for the reminder, Tony! FreplySpang (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and BJAODN. Cyde Weys 00:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Wikipedia is still not for things made up in school one day - Fan1967 00:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is a disservice to the growing ambition and search for information of this encyclopedia to delete any formally presented, valid material, no matter how small.
BJAODN. It's unencyclopedic, but somewhat amusing. Royboy crashfan 00:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. kingboyk 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mayne

minor English politician. His claim to fame seems to be that he's chairman of a local division of his party. The only thing offered up for verification is that he's listed here as a supporter of a national politician, along with tons of other people. I don't see that he comes close to meeting WP:BIO standards for inclusion. Friday (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - being the chair of a constituency association is not notable. Humansdorpie 22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I m Daniel Mayne, this page is completely untrue, the “claim to fame,” is rubbish. This is someone’s idea of a particle joke, I do have a keen interest in politics but it seems someone has taken it too far, I would be grateful if the page could be deleted as soon as possible (— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.141.164 (talk • contribs) )

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e athphoenix ʕ 00:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Royboy crashfan 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ,nn. F e tofs ^Hello! 01:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, doesn't meet WP:BIO. Speedy? Jude(talk,contribs) 01:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. mikka (t) 01:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as everyone has said, nn. Staxringold 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not close to WP:BIO Deizio 02:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- In my opinion fails Wp:BIO Reyk 03:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed, per nom, nn -- Samir ∙ T C 08:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Side Padawons

Delete. Non-notable. Google gives "about 55" hits. Hbackman 00:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 00:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things you made up on a camping trip. Eivind 01:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Eivind. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 01:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally nn. Staxringold 02:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 02:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with all the above, nn -- Samir ∙ T C 08:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable local camping group. JIP | Talk 15:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Localzuk ^(talk) 15:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:37Z
Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I realized that after I'd already put this page up. I always forget that proposed deletion exists until I've created an AfD. I'll try to remember in the future. Thanks for the heads-up. Hbackman 03:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 09:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gaetano Morales

Self promotion, non-notable Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for copyright reasons if nothing else. Fair use text is not valid on Wikipedia. Stifle 01:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e athphoenix ʕ 00:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 00:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Delete as copyvio. Jude(talk,contribs) 01:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promo of a nonnotable guru. mikka (t) 01:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for double whammy nn copyright issues. Staxringold 02:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bullshit. Moe Aboulkheir 02:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shouldn't we blank the page and add {{copyvio}} while the AFD is pending, especially since (according to the talk page) the subject has asked for the article to be deleted? --Allen 03:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio -- Samir ∙ T C 08:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete NSL E _(T+C) at 08:39 UTC (2006-03-14)

Salad Fingers theories

Alright, to put it simply, this page violates no less than three wikipedia policy, WP:NOT, Wikipedia:No original research and NPOV. This page is also Un-encyclopedic as, with no official "interpretation" from the creator, there is no basis other than a few peoples opinons. I would suggest cleanup, but I honestly doubt that cleanup would fix the problems inherent in this page. As nominator I vote Strong Delete -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 00:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. F e tofs ^Hello! 00:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I like it when the red links come out. Шизомби 01:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. mikka (t) 01:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Staxringold 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a separate page and no real need for redirect but recommend author/s merge the best of it into the main article before it gets flushed. Salad Fingers is quality. Deizio 02:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 02:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all non-original research into Salad Fingers (mmm Rusty Spoons) --Midnighttonight 07:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR, the previous VfD [1] was marred by multiple socks. -- Samir ∙ T C 08:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 15:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a fine article. A lot of work went into it. It deserves a place on the web. But not here, it's original research. Sorry guys. Herostratus 23:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC) N.B. For reference I counted the votes on the previous AfD's:[reply]
- Closing August 24 2005 - 2 delete, 1 delete-or-merge, 2 merge, 1 abstain. Deleted.
- Closing August 31 2005 - 6 keep, 10 delete, 5 merge, 1 keep-or-redirect (??), 1 abstain. No consensus.
- Closing December 14 2005 - 8 keep, 12 delete, 1 merge. No consensus.
- This AfD (so far) - 10 delete, 1 merge.
- Giving a historical total so far (granted that people problably voted more than once, but that probably balances out): 14 keep, 34 delete, 9 merge, 1 delete-or-merge, 1 keep-or-redirect, 2 abstain.
Delete original research. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:37Z
Delete per nom --kingboyk 08:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is really overanalysing the saladfingers series of flash movies. It smacks of original research and borders on patent nonsense. Something that I would expect to find on a salad fingers fan forum, bordering on fan fiction. - Hahnchen 01:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator of previous AFD which was no consensus. NSL E _(T+C) at 02:45 UTC (2006-03-11)
Delete Original research. Chairman S. ^Talk 08:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 WP:CSD A7. mikka (t) 01:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poopoobutta

Delete. Vanity/Hoax. A whopping total of 4 google hits, and, get this, they're all from www.myspace.com. EdGl 00:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 00:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. Fan1967 01:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I looked over the article and its history and there is no claim to notability whatsoever. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Or move to Uncyclopedia. --Z.Spy 01:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable vanity/hoax. Jude(talk,contribs) 01:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - it's already tagged. Шизомби 01:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate: Beyond the Veil

This nomination really pains me, since I'm an avid Stargate fan. However, this is fancruft.JoshuaZ 00:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, WP:CRUFT, WP:NOT, WP:VAIN, and WP:VSCA. Royboy crashfan 01:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most of Royboy's list. Come on guys, I want to keep something today before I go to sleep! F e tofs ^Hello! 01:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. We must be doing a good job today if we haven't had any keep votes. Royboy crashfan 01:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruftiest of crufty cruft. Fan1967 01:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. Jude(talk,contribs) 01:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is still a work in progress, as my staff begins helping contribute on this site. What specifically are you objecting to, so that I might change it? Alexander Atreides

Alexander, you really shouldn't delete your own vote from this talk page. If you have had a change of heart you should list it here. As far as objection, read the guidelines linked above (WP:WEB, WP:CRUFT, WP:NOT, WP:VAIN, and WP:VSCA). Thatcher131 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that anyone has anything against you or Stargate, and its a shame that this is your first article. Wikipedia is sort of a peer-reviewed encyclopedia, with guidelines for inclusion that are broader than a paper encyclopedia but narrower than '{the whole internet}'.Thatcher131 02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can throw in my two cents, basically what it comes down to is that fan fiction is generally not notable, and we don't want to include it, largely because there's so damn much of it. Seems that half the internet is people making up their own Trek or Jedi or Stargate stories, or, in this case, making an RPG out of it. We could clutter up half of Wikipedia with various forms of fanac, and we really don't want to do that. Fan1967 02:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate to see Stargate cheapened like this. Very nn fancruft! Staxringold 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fancruft. obviously. Reyk 03:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stargate is quite possibly the best TV show of all time, and is quite encyclopedic. (We have a whole wikiproject on it.) However, this is not canon. This is complete fancruft. Not only that the content doesn't make any sense. Tobyk777 06:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Midnighttonight 07:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruftolicious -- Samir ∙ T C 08:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable play-by-mail group. JIP | Talk 15:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and royboycrash Localzuk ^(talk) 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-canon fancruft. Compu terjoe 21:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruftilicious! —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:38Z

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Arturo Moreno Ivanova

del perfectly nonnotable son of a Brazilian celebrity. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. mikka (t) 01:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Royboy crashfan 01:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable son of Mexican celebrity. The father, Cantinflas, was pretty notable. The son isn't. Fan1967 01:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Catinflas. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 01:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely nn. Says he's got 2 kids and a drug problem. Whoopedee doo. Deizio 02:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, after merging anything useful to Cantinflas Jude(talk,contribs) 03:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. You're all looking at it from the wrong perspective. If this was an American with the same level of notability, it'd be an easy keep. Everyking 03:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cantinflas. He's Cantinflas' son, after all. If John Wayne's kids made the news, they'd probably be on John Wayne's page. However, until he does something more notable than show up once in a while on Escandalo TV, doesn't deserve his own page. Same standard, I think, as would apply to American celebrity kids. Tubezone 05:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cantinflas per Tubezone. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the article to activate red links in the Cantinflas article as part of the ongoing effort to raise to FA status. I don't think Moreno Ivanova's drug problem or corruption are particularly notable, but I do think Everyking has a point. That said, I think merging this "daughter" into its "parent" would unnecessarily lengthen the article. However, the result of this vote will help to determine what else not to link, because if his son isn't notable, then his nephew (and the other links that are of equal note) sure isn't.--Rockero 08:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Often the solution to redlinks is to remove the link, rather than create the article. Many people are indiscriminate with linking far more than is needed. Fan1967 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, nn -- Samir ∙ T C 08:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Canadians voting on Cantinflas or his (adopted) spawn is about as valid as Mexicans voting on deleting Rachel Marsden (hija de la gran..) . Or maybe there's a Univision Canadiense running holiday Cantinflas film festivals (or a CBC Mexicano... now there's an interesting idea.. howzabout El Nuevo Show Rojo Verde or Esta hora contiene 20 minutos )? The point of the article as noted above was to eliminate red links. Some reference to MAMI has to be made in any comprehensive biography of Cantinflas. There's like, a kajillion Canadian-born Hollywood celebrities (there's an idea for a list! It'd be very long!) I bet a bunch have subsidiary links like Mario Arturo Moreno Ivanova... Tubezone 09:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - An unnecessary comment. Don't make fun of my country. He's a non-notable son of a notable celebrity, as judged by what's in the article. There wouldn't be an article on Rojo Verde's nn adopted son. It's independent of nationality. And there is reference to MAMI in the Cantinflas article. -- Samir ∙ T C 10:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - To me, reading the article, it seems like the guy is the subject of at least occasional media attention, that he is a public figure in some sense (a minor celebrity, perhaps), and there's stuff published that deals with him in a substantial way (namely a tell-all autobiography by his ex-wife—apparently he's significant enough that scandalous information of that sort matters to some people). That doesn't make him highly notable, but I think it makes him notable enough. Everyking 10:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leave a redirect to Cantinflas, where this guy is already mentioned. This is not a difficult decision to make. Proto||type 14:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per tubezone's comments Localzuk ^(talk) 15:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to Cantinflas as per tubezone. --BillC 22:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only is he the son of one of Mexico's cinematic pioneers, but the story of his adoption is interesting, and his scandals make headlines in Mexico, where they have even warranted a book. As a living person, he could still do something that would bring him either notoriety or more fame. Merging would unnecessarily lengthen his father's article--Rockero 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article itself is not complete. It does not mention the 11-year legal battle he fought with Columbia Pictures regarding ownership of Cantinflas' films, as well as family problems relating to Cantinflas' estate. He's made headlines in Mexico and as Rockero mentioned, he is the son of one of Mexico's greatest comedians and has much more notability than say, Pele's son, Edinho. Gflores ^Talk 17:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be kidding. mikka (t) 01:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I cannot understand these deletion votes, perhaps there is a lack of cultural understanding here? Strong Strong Keep. Joaquin Murietta 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most celebrities have children and grandchildren and bastards. A person is notable by what he is done by himself. Fighting to grab father's money is hardly a notable feat. mikka (t) 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep seems as if he might be vaguely notable in his own country Jcuk 21:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - sounds like something out of a telenovela, but looks like he has achieved notability or notoriety in Brazil. ProhibitOnions 22:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 existing article. mikka (t) 01:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varanasi Temple Bombing

Nominating for deletion.

Has no references.
Article already exists (7 March 2006 Varanasi bombings).

- Ganeshk (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Royboy crashfan 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per nom. F e tofs ^Hello! 01:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was 'delete all. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide Timeline

Timeline of Armenian Genocide Timeline_of Armenian Genocide and Attacks on Armenians Timeline_of Armenian Genocide and Forced Deportations Timeline_of Armenian Genocide and Ottoman State Timeline_of Armenian Genocide and Ottoman Military Timeline_of_Armenian_Genocide_and_Ottoman_State_Related_Activities Timeline of Armenian Genocide and Armenian Resistance force — copyvio. El_C 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have just now deleted Armenian Genocide and Executors as copyvio of the Armenian Youth Federation, Greece. See: tinyurl /luyb9. El_C 03:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have just now deleted Timeline of Armenian Genocide and Turkish War of Independence as copyvio of the ANI. See tinyurl /pj9c7. El_C 05:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete The specified pages are unique contributions of the author. As they are collection of dates and events, which can be find everywhere. It is the organization of the dates makes it unique. There is no page on the internet that organized these events within these categories. This set of pages are UNIQUE and not copyvios. Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanReference (talk • contribs)

This isn't a request for undeletion; the pages are not unique. A cursory glance reveals this. See tinyurl /qbrrd, for an example. El_C 03:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A text is copywritable regardless of the format and the way it is presented if it comes from elsewhere it is copyvio. Fad (ix) 21:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 01:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could make for one interesting article. Oh there's already one. Eivind 01:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's also its referencial basis: Ottoman Armenian casualties. El_C 01:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~. Certainly there is enough detail here for a very good Timeline of Armenian Genocide. These are rather too detailed, but they may be merged, and we should be careful not to lose the detail contained in the detailed timelines. bikeable (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to merge, everything has been copy-pasted from the Armenian National Institute's website. I might as well have speedied it, perhaps I should have, but I wanted a [single] reference; I wanted complete transperency (for nonadmins, who can't read deleted text). And it isn't like the ANI is likely to sue in the next few days (though I invite admins to speedy it immediately/early), or that they would have sued at all. The fact remains that it is outright plagiarism (that is, the real author/s are not credited — the author of the article is effectively claiming their work as his or her own; unless s/he is the author, in which case, now's the time to say so). El_C 05:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - I'm sorry, I missed the "copyvio" link at the end of your nomination, and didn't see the copyvio mentioned anywhere else in my cursory look. In that case, certainly they should be deleted as copyvio, unless ANI releases them under the GFDL. I would be very happy to see a recreated, and merged, Timeline of Armenian Genocide, however. bikeable (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all, per nom and Eivind. Jude(talk,contribs) 03:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all per Eivind.--Isotope23 03:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't vote because I refuse to vote when I somehow feel involved, it is a copyvio, the language is unencyclopedic, we don't need a dozen of chronological articles one is enought and probably should be written, but it should be worked, discussed before being submited. The main article still has issues to work on, a lot of issues, starting to work on multiple chronological pages, ane even one is still much too soon. Also, even if it was to be rewritten according to ANI website, I can source many timelines that somehow disagree with eachothers, a chronological article will require a lot, a lot of work even if it is not apparent at first, it will require to read various chronological tables and select those dates that correspond with eachothers. Fad (ix) 02:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a copyvio, it should be marked at such. In any case, requiring it to be "discussed before being submited" is hardly fair -- we don't require that of any other articles; we edit them as we go and improve them. It may be a lot of work, but it is most certainly encyclopedic. bikeable (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When it is a chronology pages meant to be an expantion of the main article on the subject, I think at least asking those involved in the main page is very welcome when the main page itself is controversial and prone to edit wars... starting a couple of timelines regardless if it is a copyvio is just not an OK thing to do, that they are copyvios make it even worst. Was it a documented encylopedic text prepared by the editor with a lot of sources, merging them would have been the solution, in this cases even when merging there still is the copyvio issue. Fad (ix) 03:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as copyvio. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 15:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: smell of copyvio, multiplying entities beyond necessity, missing encyclopedical format (explanation or hyperlinks are missing) and low quality generally. Pavel Vozenilek 23:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From author: The specified Armenian timelines are unique contributions of the author. As they are collection of dates and events, and it is the organization of the dates makes it unique to this author. There is no page on the internet that organized these events within these categories. [2] This would make the articles original research (in positive sense). Every article, ideally, should be backed up by verifiable references. If someone changes a number here how could one check validity? Pavel Vozenilek 13:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Centrist Party

Another non-notable upstart political party. Does not cite any sources besides its own website. —Sesel 01:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 01:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete 1800+ Google hits (which isn't that much), zero Google news hits. Seems to fall short of notability requirements. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 01:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 02:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. -- Krash (Talk) 02:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did some searches of election results and can find no evidence that this party has ever put forth a candidate for any major office. Unless a supporter can show evidence that this party has put forth real candidates for State or Federal office, I would say its not sufficiently notable.Montco 03:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time as it stands candidates or there is other verifiable evidence of its impact on political life. Capitalistroadster 03:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Montco. While political parties, even small ones, generally should have articles, calling this organization a "party" is stretching it. Note that the organization's official website has, in over a year and a half, only about 7,400 hits. - Jersyko·talk 03:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jersyko.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough. KI 04:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Montco. While most political parties are notable enough to have an article, this one is not (yet). E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert for extremely nn political party. dbtfz ^talk 06:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think it's notable enough, per Montco above -- Samir ∙ T C 08:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn party. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Localzuk ^(talk) 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN party. --AaronS 19:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per OhNoitsJamie Compu terjoe 21:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. kingboyk 02:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter3 Ltd

An unwikified chunk of advertising. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and WP:VSCA. Royboy crashfan 01:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 01:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sppedy delete as copyvio from [3], as well as advert, spam, and really, really clueless to just copy and paste their website contents here. Fan1967 01:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was fix the double redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean McVeigh

"Dean Royston McVeigh (born 9 June 1950) is an insolvency practitioner in Melbourne, Australia". In other words, he is a non-notable figure who has found himself involved in a notable event. That event is being covered at Melbourne University student unions, and Dean McVeigh redirects there. The article was previously nominated and no consensus was reached. Since then it has been the cause of much vitriol and disruption to the project. The page is protected and a redirect. I nominate that it be deleted, as non notable, and replaced with a redirect and that all concerned editors get back to work editing (and fixing their numerous double redirects). kingboyk 01:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article currently redirects to Student organisations at the University of Melbourne. History shows a rash of reverts, redirects and disputes. Interested parties would do themselves credit by agreeing to leave the page up until the AfD is over. Deizio 02:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody redirect this to Melbourne University student unions so as to avoid the double redirect? Royboy crashfan 02:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could of course, is that the intended destination? Or would it be an in-any-way controversial change? --kingboyk 02:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was merged to the student unions article as many editors deemed McVeigh to only be notable in the context of the MUSU liquidation and it allowed the removal of rampant POV. The only people strongly opposed to the merger were the editors who are named litigants in the legal proceedings as they no longer had a platform to criticise McVeigh's conduct. The unfortunate number of redirects and double redirects will be fixed once the reversion by a minority stops. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'll leave the redirect as is until this AFD has closed and you've sorted it out for yourselves. --kingboyk 04:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what this AFD is for as there is no article as such at present with this redirecting to the article that mentions McVeigh. The disruptive editors have abandoned trying to get the McVeigh article back up and are now focussing their attention on the merged article. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's an article. It's in the history, one rollback away. If this AFD passes, the article and history can be deleted, and a permanent redirect put into place, protected if need be. If it doesn't pass, well, that's for you folks to decide. I'm just a janitor. --kingboyk 04:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently protected. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the original version to be POV. In discussions, I favoured redirecting or merging to the University if it caused too much disruption. So I vote to redirect accordingly. Capitalistroadster 04:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)" . Capitalistroadster 04:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Melbourne University student unions. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article is a redirect and it is suggested that it be deleted and replaced with a redirect? The only possible reason to do this that I can think of is to make the history of the article unavailable to non-admins. I don't see why that would be necessary in this case. -- Kjkolb 06:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no concensus in the last AFD. I felt the issue should be settled. If there's concensus now (where?) that it will remain a redirect and remain protected then of course this AFD is pointless and can be withdrawn. That's all I'm trying to establish. --kingboyk 06:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that the redirect is currently protected which is probably the only reason some editors haven't tried to restore the article. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100% correct, thanks. --kingboyk 06:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. However, when an AfD results in no consensus, it usually is not renominated right away. Instead, there is a discussion of what is to be done or the issue is allowed to rest for a while. Also, if content has been merged to another article, it cannot be deleted, it must remain as a redirect to the article to preserve attribution for the GFDL. The edits of the contributors to the article must be visible in the history to non-admins. -- Kjkolb 11:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep locked as redirect. The information is where it belongs, in relation to the event. This person has no other claim to notability than being heavily involved in the event. By keeping it as a redirect, we solve the problem of recreation, and direct people to the events which is this person's sole claim to fame. -- Saberwyn 10:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The discussion seemed to start out "delete"-heavy and lean towards "keep" in the end. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians appearing on Beavis and Butt-head

Large unencyclopedic list. Doesn't even say what B&B thought of each song - it's just a long long list of which bands B&B happened to see on MTV (I'm assuming you know the show's format here).

Added: List of songs featured in The Simpsons, unencyclopedic list of songs which have appeared on the Simpsons. Delete both kingboyk 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Addition/del both --kingboyk 02:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Removed Simpsons as the debate is focussing on B&B. --kingboyk 07:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Informative, verifiable, and there are other music lists like this (List of songs featured in The Simpsons, List of songs featured on South Park, List of songs from Sesame Street). --TM 02:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standard of other articles is not a reason to 'keep', it's a reason to nominate the others for deletion too. I will decline, though, for the Sesame Street and South Park articles because they at least provide some context. List of songs featured in The Simpsons I will add it to this AFD. --kingboyk 02:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is not that the subject isn't worthy of an article but that there's no context you should take that issue to the article's talk page, not nominate it for deletion. If there's a reparable problem with an article then that's something to work on, not a reason to scrap the whole list. --TM 02:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already did, with no response. Therefore, as it fails to meet the rules (WP:NOT), rules which I did not write, it gets nominated for deletion. --kingboyk 02:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Music was a major part of B&B, which aired on MTV to boot. This is verifiable, useful information on a very notable topic. Staxringold 02:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love Beavis & Butthead, but I fail to see how this plain old list tells me anything useful, anything that I would expect to get from an encyclopedia. Add what they had to say about each song and it might be a different matter. For now it's just context free facts. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --kingboyk 02:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to understand the scope, style, or reach of a program that has a music break and is aired on Music Television without knowing what artists perform what type of music on the show. Any statement would merely be a generalization and original research, while providing the full list of artists and songs allows a reader to reach his or her own conclusions. Staxringold 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's verifiable in theory, but the page does not have details about where and when these songs appeared on the show (note, I don't think that would redeem it, but it would be just a weak delete for me in that case). The South Park page is at least well-organized and indicates episodes (a table might be better), but again, I'm not sure that belongs either. Шизомби 02:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schizombie. Royboy crashfan 02:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schizombie, Royboycrashfan. -- Krash (Talk) 02:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A table is something addable and fixable. I still hold my arguement that B&B probably has the best claim to needing a song list as it is based around music and shown on music television. Staxringold 03:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then add it and fix it and perhaps I'll reconsider. Although I'm fairly opposed to indiscriminate listcruft so I might be a hard sell. -- Krash (Talk) 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the episodes these are from, but surely B&B fans can work at that. I'll try putting a table together when I have enough time (I have to leave pretty soon). Staxringold 11:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cruft. KI 04:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I really enjoy this kind of trivia, as do many others, without episode references it is nothing but a random and incomplete list of bands of varying notability. -Dawson 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Dawson, it's rather useless without episode references. Perhaps if combined with an episode guide, I might go for it. It would also make a half-decent category. 23skidoo 06:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
B&B: it's not a bad list, but could just as well be a category (although we'd lose detail). As Staxringold has pointed out, B&B was pretty music-oriented, so I think this has some use -- weak keep. The Simpsons list is even more valuable, particularly the "Parody songs" part -- I mean, I had no idea that ""The Children are our Future" is a parody of an Ike and Tina Turner song, and my life is marginally enriched. Keep. (I don't think combining these two quite different articles into one AfD was super helpful, though.) bikeable (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'll remove the Simpsons one since most editors are commenting on B&B only. Let's see what consensus is on B&B first. --kingboyk 07:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it is a bit cruftastic, but I agree that the list is relevant given how central music was to the show -- Samir ∙ T C 08:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, listcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Beavis and Butthead episodes merely contain music videos, having a music video appear on the show doesn't make it any more notable. We could just as well have List of musicians appearing on MTV. JIP | Talk 15:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not be a collection of lists. The information should be included on the indivual bands/albums page not in one big list. Localzuk ^(talk) 16:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft... and don't bogart the nachos.--Isotope23 17:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful reference tool for self-obsessed Gen Xers that love to research their own generation (ie almost all of us). youngamerican (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though, as many people have noted, it would be much more useful if expanded. Adbarnhart 18:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft! Eivind 19:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per JIP. —LrdChaos 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they regularly showed several music videos in every episode. Multiply that by the number of episodes and you end up with an enormous number of musicians with little encyclopedic value to the list. Night Gyr 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Verifiable, not causing any harm, doesn't clearly violate any relevant policy. -ikkyu2 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable? Check. Maintainable? Hey, Beavis and Butthead isn't around anymore, so there are a finite number of episodes. Useful? Could be. Simply labeling something "listcruft" is never an acceptable argument to me. Grandmasterka 01:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not worth much, but harmless I suppose. Extensive and properly formatted, so it looks pretty exhaustive, the editors apparently seriously researched this.Herostratus 01:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this list both entertaining and useful. Even if you didn't appreciate the show, this list is harmless and fun. Maybe could be improved per suggestions listed above (adding B&B's reactions, episode refs, etc) but I don't think that justifies deleting the existing list; as pointed out some work obviously went into it and I think its useful in its own right. Kymacpherson 19:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An interesting list and certainly maintainable. Spearhead 23:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, per Ikkyu2. "Listcruft" and "unencyclopedic" aren't reasons. Kind of insulting, really. Snargle 02:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Grandmasterka. I hate B&B. Jcuk 21:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast Radio

Non-notable band that does not meet wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. They are yet to release their first ~~album~~ full length album. (failed {{prod}}) --Martyman-(talk) 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed nomination slightly as I think they may have released an EP already. --Martyman-(talk) 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Might meet criteria in a few years but not yet. --TM 02:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 02:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability asserted. Royboy crashfan 02:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy as nn band, no real assertion of notability. Defo not WP:MUSIC and plenty of crystal balling to boot. BandCruft. Deizio 02:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. No importance. -- Krash (Talk) 03:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BAND. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even close to WP:MUSIC unfortunately -- Samir ∙ T C 08:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn band. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Leidiot 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 16:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --AaronS 19:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn band Compu terjoe 20:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable musical group. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:39Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

Wilde-World

Seemingly non-notable blog. Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Delete. Fightindaman 02:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --TM 02:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, scatalogically specific vanity. Moe Aboulkheir 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:VSCA, and WP:NOT. Royboy crashfan 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Krash (Talk) 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Royboycrashfan -- Samir ∙ T C 08:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I can actually vouch for this article as it is my blog. The article itself was constructed by two University freinds turned hysterical fans/foes of the blog and while written in a rather ecentric way reflects the history and purpose of the blog quite well. Also scatalogically when looked up in the dictionary is a fancy way of saying that something is poo which isn't very nice for something that two people have put rather (too much) effort into. Also something which seems to be mocking the subject dosen't bring to mind vanity. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. Pudduh 14:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Fair enough this blog doesnt look noteworthy but it does have a cult following and has been featured in several issues of Aberdeen student newspapers "cogno" and the "the gaudie" for its satirical coverage of the RGU election.Mr-turisty 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Royboycrash's comments... Localzuk ^(talk) 16:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --AaronS 19:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like vanity as well as NN. ProhibitOnions 22:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 silly vandalism. Capitalistroadster 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Brundage

Not notable, possible hoax. Google search for David Brundage wrestler. CrypticBacon 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bollocks. Apparently he began pro wrestling at 10, was world champion at 12 (without ever being on TV), then retired from the ring to return to high school. Fan1967 02:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, bollocks. Feel stupider for having read it. Moe Aboulkheir 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Patent nonsense per timeframe of events. HoaxCruft. Deizio 02:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7/G1 Royboy crashfan 02:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:HOLE. -- Krash (Talk) 03:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 silly vandalism. Capitalistroadster 04:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Goldkind

Apparent hoax. 0 unique Google hits. Delete DMG413 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7/G1 Royboy crashfan 02:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Patent nonsense, HoaxCruft. Deizio 02:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Royboy & nom. --light darkness^(talk) 02:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Jewish samurai, huh? And a teahcher to boot! -- Krash (Talk) 03:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Mar. 15, '06 [17:13] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Agg

Delete: Paintball slang. It's not even a dictionary entry - just an abbreviation for "aggressive". —Wknight94 (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism cruft. Royboy crashfan 02:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism --light darkness^(talk) 02:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable protologism. -- Krash (Talk) 03:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No its not.. its slang and is not a abbreiviation for agg. Clearly if you call someone agg to mean "cool" aggressive would not fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egofoo (talk • contribs) 03:17, 9 March 2006
Delete. It maybe warrants one paragraph in the paintball article where they talk about the lingo—if it's in general use—but not a full article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and expand. As a (former) paintballer, I can tell you that it's become way more than just a word, and more like a cult following/obsession with the team Hostile Kids. And it's not an abbreviation for aggressive, dunno where you got that from. I'd be ok with a merge to HK, but, alas, we don't have an article on it. --Rory0 96 05:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yeah, you lost me with this argument. It's described as a word in this article but you're saying it's a cult following about a paintball team that doesn't have an article? That's like having an article for a slang term for Yankees fans without having an article for Yankees fans itself or even an article for the Yankees! Huh? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, yeah it's kind of confusing. Which is why we need an article about it. This is one of the main things new players can't figure out, so it's more than understandable that they would come to Wikipedia to find out what it is. --Rory0 96 16:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism. dbtfz ^talk 06:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Paintball Lingo per Cfred. -- Samir ∙ T C 08:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Krash and WP:WINAD Шизомби 09:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
V.Weak Merge to Paintball Lingo if evidence of the term's use can be cited, and the usage expands beyond the followers of this (team? club?). If a reliable source demonstrating widespread use in the paintballing community can not be provided by the closure of this discussion, the closing admin should consider this a delete (WP:NOT a dictionary). -- Saberwyn 10:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is a link to a search on PBNation for Agg. 232 results, many of which don't have to do with HK. --Rory0 96 16:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:NOT urbandictionary Richard cocks 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and non-verifiable neologism. JIP | Talk 15:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism Localzuk ^(talk) 16:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Neologism isn't a criteria for deletion. --Rory0 96 17:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:NOR "it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source". And Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms Шизомби 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. incog 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Retarded-only interesting to PBers (which I am). Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Go write a real article. MiracleMat 22:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Isn't, say, RuneScape gods only interesting to people who play RuneScape? List of songs featured in The Simpsons only interesting to Simpsons fans? (And don't bother AfDing either, I believe they've both been up recently and were kept.) Just because the entire world won't read an article doesn't mean we should delete it. --Rory0 96 00:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google search for "agg paintball" yields 22,400 results. --Rory0 96 00:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Mostly little myspace pages and blogs and, after a few hundred, they only appear as individual words on giant keyword search lists - far from reliable sources. This already exists here and that's a good place for it (that link agrees with my original argument that it's simply an abbreviation of aggressive). At best, this is to be deleted and moved to wiktionary but I doubt it belongs there either. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The little myspace pages using it is the point- it means it's in widespread use. Also, I'm sure plenty of other people use it, but didn't also say "paintball" on that page, so it didn't show up in the Google search. As for it being on WikiPB (whatever that is, some little non-notable wiki shouldn't really count as having the information, especially when it isn't even a Wikimedia or even Wikicities wiki), that doesn't mean it's on Wikipedia- which is supposed to be the Internet's most expansive encyclopedia. The site is correct that it is a bit like the word "aggro," a term surfers have been using for about 20 years, but it's not exactly the same. --Rory0 96 04:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Paintball lingo. It's NN by itself. ProhibitOnions 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Mar. 15, '06 [17:14] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Engineering Music Society

Non notable student society. Red link farm. Delete kingboyk 02:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 03:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 03:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible A7 speedy. Could warrant a brief mention on the University of Melbourne article. Capitalistroadster 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Non-notable. Merge with UOM. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable -- Samir ∙ T C 08:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I guess how everyone defines notability is different, but I would consider large student societies to be notable. If it is to be merged anywhere, a UoM Clubs and Societies article would be better than University Of Melbourne, which is cramped enough already. - Synapse 13:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Capitalistroadster Compu terjoe 20:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, nothing really wrong with the article, although a lot of irrelevant information is contained within. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiki is not infinite. Every university and college has a bunch of societies. Wiki is not really the place to detail the history and members of every such small group of people, unless the group is notable in some way. This group do not appear to be interesting - though, bless them, they have kept decent records of their brief and insignificant history. SilkTork 01:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. This can be merged to Melbourne University student unions. A single student group at a single University is rarely independently notable & this is no exception! If not merged, it should be deleted.--Karnesky 06:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It still amazes me some of the topics that people think are notable. --Roisterer 02:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, this is a very old article that has somehow "slipped through the net". Some interesting comments in the edit history I might add :) (example) --kingboyk 02:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While student clubs are not particularly significant or notable in the grand scheme of things, I'd consider articles on them more useful than stuff like January 22 in baseball. Synapse 06:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with a Clubs of UoM article. I fully agree with Synapse, and it's a surprisingly good article, but probable vanity. ProhibitOnions 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ECatalog

This article has no useful content, and doesn't seem to have any potential to grow to the point where it's useful. The title seems to be a neologism that isn't widely used, and few people are likely to look for it under this title. Nothing links to the article. Bcrowell 03:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it's notable (and I don't think it is), it should be on Wikitionary. --djrobgordon 03:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this stub could easily be expanded. Royboy crashfan 03:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Neologism and borderline dicdef, and I doubt if it can be expanded beyond that. Reyk 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef. If this is a truly valid term why no mention at e-commerce or online shopping? -- Krash (Talk) 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure it could be expanded beyond just the dicdef -- Samir ∙ T C 08:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism Compu terjoe 20:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:Deltabeignet as {{db-attack}} — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samurang

This topic is hopelessly non-NPOV. "Samurang" seems to be a neologism coined by the Kumdo school mentioned in the article, and I can find no mention of this theory outside the context of discussion of that school. This article seems to exist solely as an attack on that school and Kumdo in general. AKADriver 03:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. Royboy crashfan 03:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RVBTO

A fan-run event for Red vs Blue. Do we really need an article on this? Drat (Talk) 03:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. Royboy crashfan 03:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic. Original research. Vanity. -- Krash (Talk) 03:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. dbtfz ^talk 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notability -- Samir ∙ T C 08:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity and nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable vanity. Compu terjoe 20:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Okay everything has been moved to the discussion of this article. I just shortened it to two sentences--Microbefox 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Should it just be a small article? I mean Fan Run events like Toronto Trek are posted. Should this article just focus on what the event is about and not the history? --Microbefox 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Toronto Trek has been around for 20 years now. It covers several sci-fi franchises.--Drat (Talk) 02:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT delete this entry. It may be short but its a bit useful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.175.45.208 (talk • contribs)
Delete. There's no indication in the article of any notability or significance for the event. —GrantNeufeld 22:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Toronto Trek is a verifiable, documented 20-year-old event which is already internationally known, while RVBTO is a new, limited-audience event trying to use Wikipedia as an alternative to actually paying for a marketing campaign. That's the difference. Delete per Wikipedia is not Myspace. Bearcat 03:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN or merge with Red vs Blue. ProhibitOnions 22:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom (Talk) 03:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F41754F3/messiah

Has not actually released any music. Fails WP:MUSIC in my opinion. Delete Reyk 03:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. [4] [5] -- Krash (Talk) 03:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, A8 music or nn-bio; tagged as such. RasputinAXP c 03:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7/A8 Royboy crashfan 03:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Mar. 15, '06 [17:19] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Jesse Cowell

Horrendously one-sided. Seems to exist purely to promote him. Drat (Talk) 03:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 03:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:HOLE. -- Krash (Talk) 03:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite completely. Reading the article, I think the subject might possibly be notable, but right now the article is full of copyvio. --Allen 03:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- Keep or merge. Now a legitimate stub, though I have no objection to TKD's merge proposal below. --Allen 03:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Montco 03:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real evidence of notability, just a few reviews on obscure websites. dbtfz ^talk 06:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not sure I know much about R v B, but even in that universe, he looks somewhat non notable -- Samir ∙ T C 08:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just to clarify, this doesn't really have to do with Red vs Blue per se. Cowell is a very active member on the Rooster Teeth Productions website. — TKD::Talk 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A full article, but full of what? I see no evidence that a film director/producer who distributes their products via BitTorrent is notable. Appears to be cult at best. WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 11:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am a big fan of Jesse's, and have seen his movie. Sadly though, I too feel he doesn't meet WP:BIO, even though he did win the microcinima film festival for best comedy. Like it was said above, his popularity is "cult" status. When (Not If!) Jesse makes it big, I'm sure an article on him would fair much better. --light darkness^(talk) 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.In response to Krash, HOLE doesn't really apply here. He's won a legit award from Movies.com and a major indie award from Microcinema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microbefox (talk • contribs)
Comment.So I took at these points into considerations. I just made it a simple page for Jesse and made a new Wiki page for Shades of Gray and removed a lot of the recalled information from what I know about the movie. --Microbefox 19:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.If this article needs a rewrite, then I guess many sub-headings will need to be cut. --Microbefox 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any information relevant to Shades of Gray and redirect to Shades of Gray (film). The article as it currently stands looks far more reasonable than it did yesterday, but since his biggest claim to notability lies with Shades of Gray, and his awards are related to that, I'd say that the relevant infomation should be go there for now. The film itself, having won some awards and been reviewed on several independent sites, has, in my opinion, a stronger claim for inclusion. — TKD::Talk 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for all your input. I'm still getting a hang of this site, but eventually I will be able to contribute efficiently.
Merge to Shades of Gray (film) per TKD. kotepho 05:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EBM Radio

Delete, This page does not in any way meet WP:WEB. The site is only one of several internet radio stations of this kind, and does not stand out as notable, as it is one of several stations, which broadcast from Live365. It also fails to establish any kind of outside recognition or citation of any kind, other then links to its own pages. In addition the article is essentially written in a self-promotional manner, and this gives the impression that it was written for the sole purpose of promoting the site. Avador 03:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa rank is 3,180,783. 223 Google hits, which isn't exactly impressive.Roy boy crashfan 03:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. MCB 07:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with well argued nomination -- Samir ∙ T C 08:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn website. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Adbarnhart 18:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably promotion, I agree: the creating user has never made a single edit not directly pertaining to EBM Radio, and at least one edit summary in their contribution history uses the first person in reference to the creators of the site's logo. Delete per WP:WEB; Wikipedia is not an advertising directory. But watch for "what links here"; the creator linked a bunch of stuff. Bearcat 19:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You had me at Delete. ProhibitOnions 22:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Eng

Not really verifiable, almost everything out there seems to be what he's put up himself in an effort to establish some kind of online presence. At best I can confirm that he has one book, published through what looks like a vanity press, available from amazon.com, with a suspiciously high number of five-star reviews. Claims to be "the youngest published science fiction novelist in America", which is entirely bogus. I don't know who is, but Christopher Paolini is apparently one better candidate. --Michael Snow 03:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VAIN. Royboy crashfan 03:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as very unremarkable vanity. Wow...he likes shellfish, made a presentation in high school, AND is allergic to dogs. What a guy. -- Krash (Talk) 03:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I love shellfish, am allergic to dogs and got chucked out of class several times in high school. Where's my page?Montco 03:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,280,561 for Dragons: Lexicon Triumvirate. No other listings available. (aeropagitica) 07:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe after the 2 additional novels come out, he can stay. His external links are an alumni site, a minor journal, press release, e-mag, and last one's not working -- Samir ∙ T C 08:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in light of WP:BIO (and WP:VAIN). The name seems very familiar though, as if he's been through AfD/VfD before. Sliggy 13:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as VanityCruft, several miles south of WP:BIO Deizio 01:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:VAIN, and brace yourselves for him to crop up again, if he treats Wikipedia anything like Amazon.--Plaidfury 15:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesseca Turner (sic)

Re-listing per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorrie Stewart (et. al.), no vote. — Mar. 9, '06 [03:46] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Delete, non-notable. Royboy crashfan 03:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mildly notable. But ratherunimportant. -- Krash (Talk) 03:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before. Monicasdude 04:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is a somewhat notable porn star with a similar name, but this is not her. -- Kjkolb 06:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep her credits seem notable enough. --Rob 14:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete barely notable. Eivind 19:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment she's also a sport "jouralist" [6]. Eivind 19:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 04:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Davies

Nonnotable or nonexistent wrestler.KI 03:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A1/A7 Royboy crashfan 04:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per User:Royboycrashfan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookofjude (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 transwiki to Wiktionary. bainer (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polylogue

~~Delete~~: per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is neither for original research or dictionary definitions. This entry serves to define a newly created word —C.Fred (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. Royboy crashfan 04:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Accurizer 04:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 06:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. dbtfz ^talk 07:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Do Not Delete, [[7]], Used by significant others. Many references to this word on a google search. goodwinzz 21:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary. I thought it was parrot cruft at first, but it actually exists. There is a peer reviewed article where it is used[8], another article on its definition and alt defs[9], an article where it's used as per the definition presented [10], and its even used as early as 1961 in The Lancet, although it probably was a neologism then. -- Samir ∙ T C 09:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary. Reference to prayer as being a polylogue [[11]], just another example of its extensive uses. Research the word! don't just be a parrot. goodwinzz 8:12, 10 March 2006
Transwiki per samir Eivind 19:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, me hearties. 'Tis a right smart bit o' wordsmithin', ye scurvy lubbers. 'Tis got more Ghits on it than a old tar has lice, maties. Avast! Ye speak o' yer trans-wiki'en like yer talkin' aboot takin' a ship full o' women. But 'tis not so easy, aye. Ye'll see. Has too many subtleties of definition, that one has. Aye, ye'll be swimmin' in Davy Jones' Locker afore ye tame this one to a wiktionary definition. Mark me words, ye cowardly bilge-rats! Herostratus 22:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Samir and goodwinzz. kotepho 05:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this nomination was appropriate because the article did not assert the word's history or provide sources; it presented the word as a neologism. Given especially the Lancet article cited by Samir, the article at least should be brought over to Wiktionary. I'm not convinced it can warrant a full article, yet, so I think Transwiki is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Samir; I see no need to keep the article here, as the concept is too fringe. Melchoir 05:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki James 21:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Thomas Griffiths Wainewright. — Mar. 15, '06 [17:23] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Thomas Griffiths

Originally prod'd for the reason "No claim to notability besides being married to Ann Griffiths". Delete for that reason. --InShaneee 04:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prod. Royboy crashfan 04:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is apparently not Thomas Griffiths Wainewright, just to avoid some confusion perhaps. --W.marsh 05:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Ann Griffiths. JoshuaZ 05:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to Thomas Griffiths Wainewright, with something like Thomas Griffiths redirects here. For the husband of Ann Griffiths, please see Ann Griffiths. Proto||type 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ann Griffiths (which could do with a bit of expansion). Rhion 18:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as Proto suggests. ProhibitOnions 22:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 09:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtugo

Software corporation that was created in 2005. A search on Google finds 44 hits, many of which refer to a defunct dating service that used the name prior to December 2004.[12] No indication that there is an independent source for information on the company. Delete as per WP:V and Wikipedia is not a soapbox unless reliable sources are provided to verify the information in the article. --Allen3 ^talk 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The company is real, see website www.virtugo.com. Website details the evolution of the company from a parent Metilinx, see www.metilinx.com. Products being sold to clients using VMWare.

Secondly, the posting is a definition, not a soapbox of opinion. It details the definition of the company and what it does.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.115.170 (talk • contribs) 17:38, March 6, 2006 (UTC)

With the only available information on the company coming from the compny's own website, it is not possible to obtain the reliable, published sources required by Wikipedia:Verifiability (the compny's website while useful has an inherent bias that reduces the reliability of the site). With the article having been created by a user named Virtugo (talk · contribs) it also appears to qualify as "self promotion", the second item listed under WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Allen3 ^talk 18:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 04:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination also. Sandstein 06:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. dbtfz ^talk 06:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 09:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Burton

autobiographical vanity Fightindaman 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I consider journalists presumptively notable. Can you develop this nomination further? — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think that every editor of every magazine is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. These magazines that he lists do not even have articles on Wikipedia. I think that some demonstration of further contribution is necessary to demonstrate notability. Not to mention, autobiography generally seems to be a sign of a lack of notability. If you have to write an article about yourself, how notable can you be? There's a reason why it's the first thing listed on WP:BAI. Fightindaman 00:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree, he's not a terribly notable journalist, though a strict reading of the guidelines might judge him notable. I appreciate your taking the time to add to your nomination! — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as non-notable journalist, with ~500 Google hits, not all of them related. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "editor-in-chief of Car Audio And Electronics magazine" passing WP:BIO. Kappa 03:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: But is this magazine notable? If the magazine is not notable then it's editor in chief is not notable. Fightindaman 03:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, timeline of unnoteworthy events in the subject's life. Royboy crashfan 04:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable editor of non-notable magazines. JoshuaZ 05:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yep, still think it should be deleted. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. dbtfz ^talk 07:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Editor-in-chief of a (presumably) nationwide magazine is somewhat notable, and I'd vote keep if anybody other than User:WBurton had written the article. Snurks ^{T C} 08:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it all looks non notable to me. -- Samir ∙ T C 09:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hat_Putato

Delete, this is an encyclopedia, not trolling grounds John 04:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic. WP:BALLS Royboy crashfan 04:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there is http://www.urbandictionary.com for this kind of crap. Leave it off of here. John 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, unverifiable, neologistic nonsense. -- Krash (Talk) 04:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. Accurizer 04:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trollcruft. dbtfz ^talk 06:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Шизомби 08:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really WP:NOT -- Samir ∙ T C 09:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Complete bollocks. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:39Z
Delete as I wasted over a minute of my life reading it and wish to save others from this fate. ProhibitOnions 22:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Park Mini Mall Strike

Delete. Seems this event is entirely non-notable. The strike consisted of 6 out of 8 workers at a minimart in Seattle. No major breakthroughs in labor relations appear to have occurred as a result of the strike. The article has some unverified info to it to boot. Montco 04:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 04:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very unremarkable, if even verifiable at all. -- Krash (Talk) 04:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable... or at least, no sources are given in the article and I can't even find anything outside of Wikipedia mirrors mentioning this event. If someone can provide a reliable source with info on this strike, I'd probably change my mind. --W.marsh 04:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Samir ∙ T C 09:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Six workers walked out at a mini-mall (whatever that is). No verification in article, apparently no news coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)
Delete not only a completely lame event, but despite the article's advocacy it is non-notable, and hard to verify where the NPOV is (I liked the bit about the "multi-generation family" best). ProhibitOnions 22:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Midway Sightings (TM) UFO Phenomenon

Non-encyclopedic nonsense/hoax/advertising page seems related to http://www.themidwaysighting.com --Martyman-(talk) 04:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the related Ufo city to this nomination. --Martyman-(talk) 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 04:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Not notable. No context/importance. -- Krash (Talk) 04:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unencyclopædic and of uncertain provenance. (aeropagitica) 07:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, non-notable, nonsense, hoax, vanity, etc. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Adverts -- Samir ∙ T C 09:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Adbarnhart 18:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete, The Midway Sightings (TM) is NOT a hoax and is completely science based. Your personal opinions are baseless and biased.--User:etothethird power2000)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all moink 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N'vyus, In His Own Words (N'vyus album), Rampagge Records, Ronyell

Article was nominated for deletion previous (see discussion but this new version is significantly different than before, thus disqualifying it from a speedy deletion. Still doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC however. howch e ng {chat} 22:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add In His Own Words (N'vyus album), Rampagge Records, Ronyell -- Krash (Talk) 13:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indefinitely- I believe that the user who established this remove this tag. If this tag is removed you could be blocked. Thanks for your cooperation. LILVOKA. This was added to the old discussion by this user who did not create a new nomination page. howch e ng {chat} 22:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:MUSIC. Royboy crashfan 04:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as nominated. Suggest deleting In His Own Words (N'vyus album) too. -- Krash (Talk) 04:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, and delete Rampagge Records and fellow artist Ronyell also. All fail WP:MUSIC. No major label distribution per [13] which is the only info I could find -- Samir ∙ T C 09:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and delete the other pages too if someone noms them). --kingboyk 09:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as nn. says it all Defunkier 14:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot nn Eivind 19:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naing naing

Delete vanity page for François L'Homer, he fails Google test San Saba 18:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, doesn't seem to be notable. Stifle 01:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:MUSIC. Royboy crashfan 04:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What criteria did you match? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Notability? Importance? I don't really see either. -- Krash (Talk) 04:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Doesn't seem notable. His website and the bands website don't really assert any notability. Google has 38 matches. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought for sure this was a hoax, but it appears to be real. Nevertheless, there's no evidence of notability. dbtfz ^talk 08:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds interesting, but is not yet significant enough for entry. Shame. SilkTork 01:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 09:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad bertha

14 Google hits for both spellings (Jihad bertha and Jihad-Bertha), all seem unrelated. Punkmorten 22:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still fairly unknown, but gaining popularity online.

Jihad Bertha is a variation on the Jihad Jeep which has existed and been practiced since the release of Desert Combat (a mod for Battlefield 1942)

Merge to Battlefield 2. In general, minor properties of a game don't get their own articles. Stifle 01:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, online game tactic someone invented, not mentioned in online sources, making it unverifiable and original research. - Bobet 11:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as gamecruft. Royboy crashfan 04:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per royboy. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gamecruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Littered with original research and unverifiable claims, not to mention the non-notability of it all. Remy B 08:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TegaDigital

It's some company. It was prodded, deprodded without explanation, then prodded again by someone who presumably didn't check the edit history. So I'm moving it here as contested. NickelShoe 04:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem notable. Exhibit A:No Google hits Exhibit B: http://www.freewebs.com/tegadigital/ is their home page. Royboy crashfan 04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the one who prodded it for the second time but indeed forgot to check the history and so didn't notice the first prod. Kusma (討論) 04:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; doesn't meet WP:CORP. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. joshbuddy^talk 08:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, agree -- Samir ∙ T C 09:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn company. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Oldelpaso 18:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Plíhal

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria Gene Nygaard 05:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article seems to be a stub, but at near 100,000 google matches on his/her name (and that's on non-english websites) this muso appears notable to me. But I don't read Czech so I'd be interested in more information. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even really a stub; the entire text is "Karel Plíhal (born 1958) is a hugely celebrated Czech musician." That has been there for five months. If nobody's found anything useful to say about him in that time, it is time to at least question his notability. Gene Nygaard 07:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, he looks quite notable [14] and here's the Czech wikipedia article on him: [15]. I've put it on translation request. -- Samir ∙ T C 10:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per above. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~*Delete~~ if its sat for 5months nobodys going to expand it. Ill think again when theres information there. Me thinks again. Defunkier 14:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Me thinks again. Defunkier 13:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, he looks quite notable, per Samir. --Tone 15:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant evidence of notability. Monicasdude 16:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have expanded the article based on the Radio Prague information so that it is a decent stub. He has released 9 albums to date and won four Czech folk music awards so he meets our music notability guidelines. He has released at least one live album so he presumably meets our tour sections of the guidelines. Capitalistroadster 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are dozens of more notable Czech musicians but Plíhal's name is known. (Samir, don't expect much from the translation request, those who could do it are in shortage.) Pavel Vozenilek 23:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroaderster. kotepho 05:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pavel --MaNeMeBasat 07:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is quite notable. I hope I will find time soon to translate the Czech article. pabouk 14:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Jass

Non-notable name made up by a cartoon character. I don't see any reason to have this article. Rory0 96 05:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Someone boldly redirected it. This can be closed now.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguaian production companies

Delete. This is a spam page. Prod was on it but removed by author. Accordingly nominating it here as it doesn't qualify for speedy. cmh 05:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i always wonder what they hope to accomplish with pages like this Apollo58
Delete nonnotable. No third party info, hence nonverifiaable. mikka (t) 06:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spammy -- Samir ∙ T C 10:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they can't even spell right Eivind 22:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Advertising. Not only the spelling of "Uruguayan", but production companies for what? A real article about Industria Uruguaya might be interesting, though. ProhibitOnions

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 List of LGBT rights activists. JIP | Talk 07:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay activists

List with no clear inclusion criteria (are these gay rights activists or activists who happen to be gay?), probably mostly unverifiable, flamebait. Sandstein 06:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment this list could never be complete there are probably millions of people who fit this catagory. Tobyk777 06:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, state inclusion criteria, and verify periodically. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the sort of thing better done with a category, and we already have one, namely "Category:LGBT rights activists". dbtfz^talk 06:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my opinion to rename per mikka. dbtfz ^talk 06:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of LGBT rights activists (or restrict to it), as suggested. Criteria are pretty much clear: wikipedia article (a wikipedia standard for lists), which clearly states that the person is notably "gay rights activist", not just walks gay pride parades. As for category, we had this talk here, like, three thousand times: lists are not categories and they peacefully coexist.mikka (t) 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per mikka. Chairman S. ^Talk 06:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Mikka Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 07:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Better to have a category.
Rename and Rework I feel there needs to be some context as to why there people are included in the list. A one sentance summmary, something beyond being a pure list. joshbuddy^talk 08:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename agree with Mikka. -- Samir ∙ T C 10:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per mikka. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per mikka. Eivind 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move and rework. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:43Z
Move and fix as mikka suggests. ProhibitOnions 23:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Flower party■ 10:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rose gallery

move to commons or delete. Wikipedia not photo album--Shizhao 06:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move. mikka (t) 06:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Photos are already from commons. --minghong 08:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Photos are already from commons. --Ph89 09:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Mane 13:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicate. --Terence Ong 14:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate of what?
Keep the gallery was part of the Rose page. It got so big that it was decided that it should be split. This page exisits because there were too many pics on the main rose page so they had to split it. In this case Wikipedia is a photo album. Do you have any better reason to delete this? Tobyk777 00:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are too many photos in commons. We don't need to put every one of them here. --minghong 01:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or listify, useful and encyclopedic collection of pictures. Also good to keep this out of the main Rose article, to decrease load times. Kusma (討論) 01:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important function of an encyclopedia. Please note that photos that are on Commons are not "here"; all that's here are links to them. As a result, the article Rose gallery is 18 kilobytes long. That is a small price to pay for a collection of encyclopedic information. Fg2 03:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a good companion for Rose without making Rose too large. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:46Z
Keep this is useful. kotepho 05:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is very useful. It would be nice to have an article on every kind of flower. I do like to know what I am looking at when I see a flower. Miskatonic 15:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This page is useful, but however, if majorly these photos are from commons, the page should be move to the apporiate page in commons, and also create a link using {{commons}} or {{commonspar}} to link between the article page and commons page. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 04:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most readers probably don't know what the commons even is until they have been editing for a while. For users who don't contribute and who are just looking around, The link will look like an advertziament since they won't understand it. If you just link to the commons 95% of people who would have seen this won't. Tobyk777 05:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - However in this case, but from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not has been stated that Wikipedia is not the collections of photographs and media files with no text to go with articles. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 07:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But yet again, this was part of an article. The article became too big, so the gallery section was split, See Wikipedia:Article size Tobyk777 07:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries for a discusion on modyfing the section WP:NOT cited above. Dsmdgold 04:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flower gallery

move to commons or delete. Wikipedia not photo album--Shizhao 06:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move. mikka (t) 06:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Photos are already from commons. --minghong 08:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Photos are already from commons. --Ph89 09:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicate. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said with Rose gallery, these articles were created because the gallery sections of pages got too big. Article Size dictates that it be split. Since the gallery was too big a sperate page was created. Are you telling me that we should delete every gallery section in Wikipedia. Sounds like it. That would be stupid just to let you know. Tobyk777 00:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are too many photos in commons. We don't need to put every one of them here. --minghong 01:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said for Rose gallery, the photos are not here; only links to them are here. This is an important way to organize information for an encyclopedia. Fg2 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if properly annotated. I think it can be made into a nice gallery showing important types of flowers. Every print encyclopedia I have seen has image galleries similar to this one (with annotations, of course). Kusma (討論) 03:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encylopedic. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:48Z
Weak Keep This might be useful if they are captioned and organized in some fashion. kotepho 05:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs to be re organized but it is an important page. It shows a wide range of flowers. It would indeed be nice to have a picture and article about every single kind of flower. Miskatonic 15:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This page is useful, but however, if majorly these photos are from commons, the page should be move to the apporiate page in commons, and also create a link using {{commons}} or {{commonspar}} to link between the article page and commons page. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 04:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most readers probably don't know what the commons even is until they have been editing for a while. For users who don't contribute and who are just looking around, The link will look like an advertziament since they won't understand it. If you just link to the commons 95% of people who would have seen this won't. Tobyk777 05:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - However in this case, but from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not has been stated that Wikipedia is not the collections of photographs and media files with no text to go with articles. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 07:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But yet again, this was part of an article. The article became too big, so the gallery section was split, See Wikipedia:Article size Tobyk777 07:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Flower gallery page have been found out the first edit at 23:51, 18 December 2005 and the link that created from the Flower page has been created in 23:49, 18 December 2005. So according to the article size, this evidence regarding to Wikipedia:Article size (>50KB) does not exists.--Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 07:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Also see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries for a discusion on modyfing the section WP:NOT cited above. Dsmdgold 04:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starseed launcher

del A 1997 idea of star travel, a smart one, but unfortunately didn't gain notability in last 9 years. The article was set to {{prod}}, but opposed. mikka (t) 06:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The comment on the talk page says it best - "fringe, but not crank". It is a genuine concept, which whilst not well-known may be of interest to some. There is also an offer to work to improve the article and that person should be given a chance to work on it. Kcordina 10:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per User:Kcordina. JIP | Talk 15:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting concept, could be of interest, and I'm encouraged by Georgewilliamherbert's willingness to work on the article. -- Vary | Talk 15:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above MLA 16:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to enthusiasts Sci-fi books have zillions of "not krank" concepts. Anything beyond the author's papers would be original research, unless this concept was discussed elsewhere and you are summarizing it. Basing solely on the original works is still original research. What is more, electrostatic accelerators and putting nanothings in them are not new idea. laynching nanos is K. Eric Drexler's idea and electrolaunchers are 80 year old idea now, if not older. Finally, it doesn't seem to be published in peer-reviewed journals. His website says that it was "printed in May, 1996 'prepress' issue of NanoTechnology, which I read that it was kicked out of the "real" issue of NT. If it is so, one more point towards original research. mikka (t) 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Forrest Bishop has published a number of interesting proposals over the years.[16] Perhaps this page should be merged into a biography? — RJH 18:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this would be a very sound idea. mikka (t) 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Hardly cranky at all. Reyk 21:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thi problem is not crankiness, but notability and original research. Please provide third-party discussions of the copncept. mikka (t) 21:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to a message posted by Forrest Bishop on a message board, the concept was mentioned in the March 1999 issue of Discover Magazine, though not by name. I looked at the TOC of the issue at the Discover website, but don't have access to the contents, so I couldn't verify the claim. Thunk 23:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far unverified, so I say Merge & redirect Vizjim 00:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the Forrest Bishop rants, keep there. Even a page about a minor nerd like Forrest Bishop belongs to WP, and optimally it should surely contain the list of his favorite meals as well as the ideas he trumpeted, including this one. But a mere combination of the rail gun with few nano cliches, fairly obvious to anyone who is not a technological analphabet, should not count for a hypothetical spacecraft, even though it may be one of zillions of valid design combinations. Only projects that have achieved some reputation or stage of development, such as Orion or Daedalus, should be included there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokot.kokotisko (talk • contribs)

Keep. Look, if you are going to argue it's completely un-peer-reviewed research that nobody else has bothered to publish anywhere, at least google it before you say so. In this case, the thirty second exercise shows that Forrest Bishop did this as a peer reviewed paper at the Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology conference and its proceedings. This does not meet the Wikipedia Original Research criteria, and spending a couple of minutes with google before nominating for AfD would have shown you that. Georgewilliamherbert 00:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My friens, you are so naive about conferences of this type. mikka (t) 03:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to add this to the page? Until you do, the article remains unverified.Vizjim 01:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not the point. People are nominating stuff for AfD on grounds that don't stand up to thirty seconds of Google research. If I can falisfy the claimed AfD justification with less than a minute's work... AfD is not a substitute for cleanup tags and improving articles. This needs to be added to the article, yes, but to get an article improved you stick a cleanup tag on it. Articles should be deleted if they aren't notable, aren't sourced at all, are truly original research, or are otherwise abusive. Needing cleanup and references are improvements not deletion criteria. Georgewilliamherbert 03:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did google search before nomination (I am not freshman, you know), and I am still convinced of lack of both notability and originality. I can stuff wikipedia with hundreds of such premature undercooked inventions with flashy names. Man, sci-fi writers have dozen each. But it seems you all like it, so relax. That's votes for deletion are for.mikka (t) 03:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard of Baator

Stub for a newly-published non-notable book. Article was {{prod}}ded but the author removed the tag without substantially improving the text. (aeropagitica) 06:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del nn. wikipedia is not amazon.com. mikka (t) 07:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't tell us much about the actual book either. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 07:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with (aeropagitica)'s nom -- Samir ∙ T C 22:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Empty entry on a nn book Deizio 01:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. next time be bold. mikka (t) 07:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Abromovic

Delete: This article is a misspelling of "Marina Abramovic," on whom a detailed article already exists. Dorkas 06:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Marina Abramović, tag as {{R from misspelling}}. Kusma (討論) 06:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted as an article lacking any context, and as likely hoax/vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 20:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humbierto

Prod-ed, deProd-ed, reProd-ed, deleted, re-created, now listed here. This is an unverified fictional character of uncertain context. Delete unless verified. GTBacchus^(talk) 07:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This character doesn't seem to exist. Unless there is some sort of verfication that it exists, it should be deleted and should not be recreated. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish we could Keep it. Humbierto sounds like humble, and therefore is naturally a humble character. Axiomm 11:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't feel that is a valid reason to keep it. Unless this character actually exists (either in real life or fiction) and is verifiabile, it doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted hoax. Recreation = speedy. Weregerbil 11:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have speedied it, but the first deletion was improper because the {{prod}} had been removed. Recreation of improperly deleted content isn't speediable. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Not a recreation speedy, even if it were a proper {{Prod}}. According to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, they may be recreated or undeleted at will. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though Wikipedia is able to be edited by anyone, there are topics which are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. This is one of them. NickelShoe 00:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry... what? FictionCruft. Deizio 01:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect. W.marsh 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Radio 1 Gonzo

I don't know why this BBC programme was nominated for deletion, but the nominator forgot step 2. No vote. GTBacchus^(talk) 08:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the show being discussed is Zane Lowe's radio show; its not called Gonzo, which is the name of his MTV show; the article is a poor stub at best; info about the show can fit into the Zane Lowe page anyway. Robdurbar 09:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move and Rewrite The MTV show Gonzo probably (just about) deserves a page, but this is poorly written and wrongly titled. DWaterson 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, after merging to Zane Lowe. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zane Lowe. Then redirect. Merge then delete is not an option under the GFDL. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOLD

Not notable parsing SDK ... aa:talk 07:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around for mentions of this. I found the article via a random crawl. The only pages internally which link to this are self-referential. Looking through google finds some promotional links, and a large percentage of these are actually linked from one site. It does seem to be a non-notable SDK. My initial vote is to delete, of course. If somebody can come up with something showing that this is more notable, I'm open to it, naturally. ... aa:talk 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. as nom. ... aa:talk 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Non-notable as it may seem to you, it is a VERY notable parser - possibly the best, most flexible etc. I started this article when I tried to find out more about GOLD and was surprised to find no article about it. Just because people aren't contributing to the article doesn't mean it's non-notable. It is notable. Because it's not commercial it doesn't have a strong marketing arm to make people more aware of it I guess. To those of you who are voting on the AFD, please don't just say "delete" because you haven't heard of GOLD. Donama 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you verifiably explain the claim to fame per WP:SOFTWARE? Weregerbil 12:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure if GOLD would pass the WP:SOFTWARE popularity contest, though I don't have access to information on all those points - the development team is not numbering into the thousands yet though - < 400 - so Wikipedia will have to wait a few years to have this article. In light of this Spirit Parser Framework should probably also be in AFD. Donama 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not helpful to say "well if this should be deleted so should so-and-so." If that's the case, list that for AfD. But it's not germaine to this discussion. ... aa:talk 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Allow me to rephrase: Spirit Parser Framework is considered notable enough to deserve and article. GOLD as an analogous topic therefore deserves one too. Donama 08:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 07:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no evidence of course, but asserting that GOLD has at least 5000 users seems safe (gets referenced consistently up to page 10 in google) MadCow257 02:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's a dispute over its notability, it probably doesn't deserve to be here ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. I can't understand this: 9 words (counted is, an also) in article and at least few lines in AfD. --MaNeMeBasat 08:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Redirect to Gold to dissuade from recreation. Proto||type 13:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kuzaar 15:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE and redirect to Gold (disambiguation) 132.205.45.110 19:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the parser is notable, it should have its own article and be linked to from Gold (disambiguation). Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can come up with a notable project using it. Haikupoet 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Confusingly, someone has changed this page without using the move tool so it's a disambig and the article in contention is at GOLD (parser). At the same time they've done a good job of adding content to the article about GOLD the parser. It might need to be relisted to really ensure a consensus on this one. I still say Keep. It's notable in my world, but may just be a well-kept secret in the parsing development community. Donama 08:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete asserting an arbitrary and unsourced amount of users does not make GOLD notable. All an unverifiable claim to notability accomplishes is an AfD discussion rather than a speedy. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

URL Butchering

Neologism, completely non-notable. Could also be original research, as the would-be citation at the bottom is dubious. Delete. Nikodemos 07:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. otherwise known as "not being blind". ... aa:talk 08:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as protologism. Otherwise known as "OMG i know how 2 uze teh internets its so KEWL!" I think. :P --Kinu ^t/_c 08:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept of editing an URL manually in a browser is about as non-notable as it gets. Remy B 08:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable and useless neologism. Really, people have been typing URLs manually into browsers since 1990. Sheesh. JIP | Talk 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as goofy neoprotologism. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1) Only 57 Ghits but they mostly seem valid and different, enough to support that it's a useful (and used by designers, if not much) way to describe the technique. 2) I don't see it as useless at all. It appears to be usability/design issue, to support URL butchering, so that (for instance) that if a user goes to www.whatever/store he'll get to the store and not a 404 or a directory list or something else etc. Herostratus 23:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Uniform Resource Locator. Only 59 Google hits for a term relating to Internet use is very few, but the concept is useful even if the term is not significant. Contrary to the nomination, the Google hits do indicate that the term is associated with Jakob Nielsen (usability consultant) rather than being original research. --Metropolitan90 00:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since when did editing an URL need a protologism all of its own? I guess it's an exciting discovery for people who don't know how directories work. -- Mithent 01:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily kept because it's been rewritten to be about a clearly valid idea. Any changes should be discussed on the Talk page. FCYTravis 03:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gatekeeper (politics)

Delete Neologism in the sense used; Attack page; the few references used don't satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (websites); also major issues of WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, Wikipedia is not a soapbox; had been tagged totally disputed and citations needed; RFC had been made to Politics, and Media, art and literature Шизомби 08:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alexa Internet traffic rankings for sites cited: Newtopiamagazine.net: 3,671,022; Questionsquestions.net: 1,428,359; Oilempire.us: 238,267; leftgatekeepers.com: 2,679,074; globalresearch.org: 3,782,712; and an AOL site that can't be rated. There's definitely a question of Wikipedia:reliable sources for all of these. Шизомби 08:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is the Alexa site widely used on Wikipedia to decide which web sites should be used as sources? --NathanDW 01:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes. Wikipedia:List of ways to verify notability of articles Шизомби 07:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some people even like to place Alexa ratings in a WP article, see e.g. [17] Although see Wikipedia:Google test#Alexa test which I didn't discover until now. Note, however that the claims there are not cited. - if they are true, they should be. In any case, they still do not meet Wikipedia:Notability (websites) or Wikipedia:reliable sources. Шизомби 07:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, criticism doesn't seem to hold up after a review of the article. Sam Spade 10:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless reliable sources can confirm the accuracy of the article. The idea does not make sense, either. Why would the "left media" want to suppress scandalous information about the Bush administration? That it does not make sense does not necessarily mean that it should be deleted, however. -- Kjkolb 11:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to neutral. I am still skeptical because of the lack of mainstream sources (whether it is true or not is irrelevant to my decision, but I appreciate the great effort to answer questions), but I think the contributors deserve more time to fix up the article. -- Kjkolb 10:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Few people graduate from a communications program without learning this concept. Try not to focus on the anecdotal example currently at the core of the article, but on the long recognized concept. Maybe it doesn't make sense to some people that others would accuse the left of policing their ranks with gatekeepers, but the article should not be about an anectode -- it should be about the concept. Every communications system has some kind of gatekeeper. This AfD process is a gatekeeper for Wikipedia. Here's a reliable source on the social science of gatekeeping: [18]WhoSaid? 21:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You might want to take a second look at the article. The premise of the term "gatekeeper" is that powerful foundations are spending serious money to buy off influential "left media" in order to suppress scandalous information about the Bush administration (among other things), which makes plenty of sense. --HK 16:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the article suffers from all the points I mentioned above, and probably more besides, HK is right about his statement above (i.e. it explains why some of the left media allegedly suppresses scandals:it's been bought off by the right). I don't know if this makes "plenty of sense," but it doesn't seem totally impossible, except that if it were true you'd expect the left media that hadn't been bought off to go over it, and seemingly it hasn't, only a handful of fringe websites. Шизомби 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I think I came to the wrong conclusion because each is the article is verbose and the true idea (I don't like to call it a theory, as people confuse everyday "theories" with scientific theories) is nearly as improbable as the other. As Шизомби mentioned, some of the left media would not have gone along with it, especially those outlets that are controlled by an independent owner or a wealthy person who operates at a loss to spread his or her agenda. Also, we should be hearing from mainstream journalists that their stories have been suppressed by editors or owners, as journalists tend to be highly principled and often quit rather than violate those principles. The idea depends on the gatekeepers having an extreme amount of control over what is published and broadcast, and the silence of journalists, newscasters and editors, who the article characterizes as "left" (an assumption that the article gives no evidence for). Chip Berlet is given as an example of a gatekeeper, but he does not have the power to suppress media stories, even for the organizations he has worked for because he is simply a writer. Noam Chomsky does not either and he is actually known for his criticism of the U.S. government, according to his Wikipedia article. Norman Solomon is also a writer and his affiliation with a watchdog group and the institute he founded do not give him the power to suppress news. Writers can write stories that are supportive of the government or against its detractors, but that does not stop other writers from writing stories critical of the government. Also, gatekeeping writers' work is subject to change or suppression by the alleged "left" editors and owners. A gatekeeper would have to be in a position of great power within an organization and could not control multiple organizations without having someone powerful in on it at each one or using memorandums about which stories are inappropriate, which could be easily leaked. Even if a person is in a position to suppress articles, in a large organization almost any individual can be bypassed by going to someone in an equivalent position or at a higher one. -- Kjkolb 00:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article appears to be well substantiated: Self-described socialist Noam Chomsky has described the Pentagon as "the most vile institution on the face of the earth" and lashed out against tax havens and trusts that benefit only the rich. But Chomsky has been paid millions of dollars by the Pentagon over the last 40 years, and he used a venerable law firm to set up his irrevocable trust to shield his assets from the IRS as an example. This is from [19]. It is argued that his job is to spread propaganda. For anyone interested doing research on this subject, there is plenty of verifiable, credible information that seems to support this hypothesis. SkeenaR 20:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, a closer look at the article should answer your questions. "Gatekeeper" is not synonymous with "censor;" the version of the article that presently appears defines a gatekeeper as one who acts "to manage, constrain and co-opt the movement," or to "ostracize particular voices." I suppose that this could be done by "suppressing media stories," as you suggest, but it might also take the form of organizing campaigns of defamation against other, more uncooperative journalists. I also find your assertion that "journalists tend to be highly principled" to be a rather broad statement; consider, for example, the case of Judith Miller, merely the first one that comes to mind (in fact, she might be an appropriate example of a gatekeeper.) --HK 01:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as attack. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The concept is presented in a neutral way, not as advocacy. The debate over the concept is also of some consequence for Wikipedia. --HK 16:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you mean you or those sites will attack WP as a gatekeeper, or me? I hope that isn't what that means (WP has plenty of scandalous stuff about Bush, anyway). The Gatekeepers article is simply not neutral from the first part of the first sentence: "In political parlance, a gatekeeper or left gatekeeper" - right there: "political parlance"? Broad use by politicians or political scientists? 'Fraid not. One of the other problems I failed to mention was the lengthy list of alleged gatekeepers. I don't know if there's a specific policy on allegations on WP (there's no lists of alleged homosexuals or people alleged by David Icke to be reptilian humanoids for example, though some pages do mention allegations), but List of people described as neoconservatives got deleted (see AfD) for similar reasons. The Gatekeepers article simply uncritically reproduces a list of allegations from a nn site WP is not a mirror (in its original conception it collated allegations from several nn sites). The article's primary author (WP:OWN) invited criticism to be added, but this theory seems to be so nn that apparently none of the major right, center, or left media has commented on it in the US or abroad. Шизомби 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poorly sourced, appears to be intended as an attack piece on Chip Berlet. -Will Beback 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move the article as rewritten by FCYTravis and move to Gatekeeper (journalism). -Will Beback 22:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I hesitate to vote "delete" on this article as it seems to be a term that is used by some conspiracy theorists and possibly others. I want to note, however, that this article is in no way "unbiased" or neutral point of view as some editors insist. For instance, use of terms like "Establishment" and "left media" (repeatedly), characterizing media coverage of 9/11 war games, and and implying that there are no critics or skeptics employed by the "left media" place this article squarely in the realm of POV. Of course, POV alone is not a sufficient reason to vote delete. I do not see the article as a whole as an attack on Berlet, as only one paragraph mentions him by name. My main concern with this article, however, is that it does not conform to WP:Verifiability. - Jersyko·talk 21:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Keep the article as rewritten by FCYTravis and move to Gatekeeper (journalism). - Jersyko·talk 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The original creator of the article HK (who did not identify himself as such above) appears to have a history on WP with Chip Berlet (also a WP user) and thus apparently a vested interest (as WP defines it) in pages that attack Berlet. I don't know much about either one of them or their history, but this much deserves to be noted. Шизомби 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep poorly sourced and not conforming to NPOV, but enough meaningful content to be cleaned up. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If anyone can add notable, reliable, verifiable sources and make the article NPOV before the AfD is through I may change my vote. However, I don't believe that this is possible, and will not change it on the (I think remote) possibility of this being done in the future. Шизомби 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is well sourced with links outside of wikipedia to its use. There is no legitimate reason for deletion. It seems to be similiar to the producerism and conspiracism page with the exception that such said terms were quite dubious. --Northmeister 22:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- I don't think foundation-subsidized folks should be able to censor material on the wikipedia website that reflects grassroots anti-war left awareness of the special influence that foundations play in U.S. left political and media life. Political Research Associates has published a journal, Public Eye, in recent years. In 1999, the Public Welfare Foundation gave a $50,000 grant to PRA, the San Francisco Foundation gave $120,000 to PRA, the Tides Foundation gave $57,550 to PRA, the Cummings Foundation gave $55,000 to PRA, the List Foundation gave $25,000 to PRA and the Ms. Foundation for Women (which was given over $1.2 million in grants from the Ford Foundation between 2000 and 2002) gave $150,000 to PRA. In 2002, the Ford Foundation gave $176,663 in grant money directly to the PRA. These are facts. And it is also a fact that a Political Research Associates writer acted as a leading conspiracy researcher-baiter within the alternative media subculture after 9/11/01 and attempted to stifle left subculture discussion of 9/11 conspiracy evidence, as well as discussion of the role that the Ford Foundation plays in U.S. political left life today. Wikipedia's credibility as an alternative independent information source for internet readers will suffer if it capitulates to the pressure of foundation-subsidized folks and deletes an article, like this gatekeeper one,--that apparently contains information that the foundations and their stable of journalists/gatekeepers do not wish to see shared with Wikipedia readers.(bf)

Comment Don't be dense There's ways to get your positions on WP without violating WP policy, as I noted on the Gatekeepers talk page. The Gatekeepers article, however, is incapable of doing that. Шизомби 00:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Your argument is sophistry. Are any foundation-sponsored editors/writers presently helping to determine what "violates WP policy"? Have the majority of WP readers ever been allowed to determine WP policy with regard to which articles to censor? Are the WP gatekeepers willing to also start deleting all the articles that are little more than repostings of corporate-sponsored, historically inaccurate and politically-biased corporate websites?

If foundation-sponsored gatekeepers have conflict-of-interest issues which lead them to censor wikipedia articles that are critical of their foundation-sponsors, then they are not really capable of editing the wikipedia website in an ethical way, from an alternative journalistic point of view. Perhaps it's more appropriate for such folks to act as gatekeepers for more middle-class academic-biased/establishment-oriented encyclopedias, like the World Book or the Encyclopedia Britannica?--bf

Comment It would help if you indented your response underneath the post you are responding to with either an asterisk or a colon (or more than one as necessary). It would be nice if you signed with four tildes ~~~~ too. Anyway, I'm not sure I entirely follow you. (1) Are any foundation-sponsored editors/writers presently helping to determine what "violates WP policy"? I don't know. Going through the history for each article and corresponding talk page for each policy page would take an awfully long time, and I don't know that there'd be any way to prove which editors were "foundation-sponsored" or not, since in most cases there wouldn't be any way to prove who any of the editors' identities are. (2) Have the majority of WP readers ever been allowed to determine WP policy with regard to which articles to censor? Do you mean have the majority of WP readers been allowed to edit the policy pages? As far as I know everyone can edit those pages, but AFAIK most don't chose to make edits to those pages. Or do you mean are the majority of WP readers involved in the AfD process? I would guess most aren't, that most WP users simply read articles, followed by creating new articles or editing articles. I think it's probably a smaller percentage that bother with AfD, which seems to be a necessary process unless you really want every article posted on WP to stay (e.g. Dogballs). (3) Are the WP gatekeepers willing to also start deleting all the articles that are little more than repostings of corporate-sponsored, historically inaccurate and politically-biased corporate websites? Who are WP gatekeepers, all the people involved in the AfD process? Also, it would help if you identified what sort of articles you had in mind. It seems to me editors do try to address issues of "corporate-sponsor[ship]" "historically inaccura[cy]" and "political[]-bias[]" in articles, but whether they can keep up with such problems, or address them as well as is necessary are open questions. (4) If foundation-sponsored gatekeepers have conflict-of-interest issues which lead them to censor wikipedia articles that are critical of their foundation-sponsors, then they are not really capable of editing the wikipedia website in an ethical way, from an alternative journalistic point of view. I'm not sure if you're referring to prior editing of this article (and the AfD), and/or editing of articles about foundations. Certainly, I would agree that if somebody is taking money from e.g. the Ford Foundation, and they make edits to that article, then they potentially have a conflict of interest and an ethical problem. There might be some ethical people who could work past those problems, but for the most part it would be unwise. My "sponsor" at present moment could be said to be my late grandmother (thanks Oma), and I'm afraid she would not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Deceased people so there's never been and probably never will be an article on her here. With regard to pages for foundations and media, I'd advise you to do what I indicated at the bottom of the Gatekeepers talk page, what HK agreed with; I'd support such edits and help revert edits removing such information if I came across it. I see no sophistry in that. Шизомби 07:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Term is real and verifiable. POV is solved by NPOVing, not deleting the article. Liking or not liking the term is irrelevant. I dont get why the validity of the term is disscussed here, for all i know it could be a figment of imagination, it does not matter. What mater is that it is real and verifiable term, much like the term "gods", although much less notable. --Striver 10:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Atfyfe 13:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete nn neologism and as previously pointed out, the sources "cited" for this page have extremely low alexa rankings and are thus not reputable sources.--Jersey Devil 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets Wikipedia standards. SkeenaR 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has historic merit regarding the evolution of left media and its relationship to political events. The sources are reputable and the gatekeeping is real and documented. I urge anyone questioning this topic to read the source articles for themselves. Bov 01:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Quite notable topic, especially given the increasing encroachment upon the Wiki itself by deletionists with vested interests. Ombudsman 15:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first reference given is very dubious - there is no indication who it is supposed to be, or what its aims, and indeed its funding are. The article itself clearly is an effort to deal with actual content, some of which is of some significance, but I am very doubtful that it is a useful description or a process or body that should be considered separately from corruption bribery politics spin-doctoring lying propaganda sabotage public relations etc. The thesis is not made out in the material presented, and while an article about suborning political opponents in the media might be written, I don't see this as it, nor the title as a good one. There isn't a fence for this gate to be kept in. I see the WP article as an adjunct to the .com site, although this is purely supposition - regardless, I think this is presenting something as distinct which is really just a routine conspiracy. Midgley 17:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Keep--NathanDW 01:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the user User:Northmeister deleted my above comment where I linked the creator of the article asking people to vote on this afd. This isn't acceptable on Wikipedia afds.....He just did it again. [20]--Jersey Devil 02:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any comments added should pertain to the article, its substance, and whether or not it should be kept etc. No personal attacks or surveillance techniques to dishonor another editor. Jersey Devil has done this twice, please refrain from personal harassment. Thank You. --Northmeister 04:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Jersey Devil comments above are inappropriate for a page discussing the relevancy of an article. It is dishonorable to conduct surveillance of others with the intent to harass. I ask that he remove his comments to establish his credibility and restore his honor. --Northmeister 05:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm, you didn't delete the baseless attack on the recommend delete people that we're all "foundation-subsidized", you only deleted the fact-based "attack" on the recommend keep people. That's a bit one-sided. (What is policy on what Jersey Devil did, is there one?) Is mediation possible on AfDs? Шизомби 05:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not sure what your talking about. Any personal attacks are un-called for and should be removed by those who make them or by other editors. We are interested in whether this article meets the standards of wikipedia pure and simple. Surveillance of others with the intention to discredit those individuals is not only bad manners, it is in violation of wikipedia harassment standards. Conduct a civil discourse without name-calling or harassment is all I ask. Is this article, well cited? Is this article relevant? Does this term get use outside of wikipedia? Etc. are what is under discussion. Not whether any one editor tries to inform people that a vote is taking place and then calling it VOTE STACKING, that is harassment and a personal attack and I removed it as such. --Northmeister 05:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The attacks I referred to that Northmeister above said were not understood were (bf)'s comments above (User:Bob jan AKA User:209.213.73.30). I apologize for my long response to bf, whom I let annoy me. And Northmeister, I wish you would explain why you feel the article is "well sourced" when the handful of sites used as sources don't meet WP criteria by a long shot - see my original post in the AfD and the comment below about the Alexa ratings. Шизомби 05:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "attack" wasn't a personal one if it was merely pointing out likely or potential vote-stacking. If there is evidence that a certain group of people is vote-stacking in similar Afds, it's actually more relevant to this discussion, not less. Asking someone to vote in an Afd is, as far as I know, not against Wikipedia policy, even if you know how they will vote beforehand. It is, however, a relevant consideration for a sysop that is attempting to determine consensus in an Afd vote, consensus being a muddy concept (as it should be, imo). Please remember to assume good faith and interact civilly- Jersyko·talk 05:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good points and I understand what your writing. But, how am I to assume good faith with someone who writes 'vote stacking'? That person is not assuming good faith himself. --Northmeister 05:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment' The good faith/civility comment was meant to be a reminder for everyone here. Regarding whether the information about potential vote stacking violates WP:AGF, well, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." I.e., if there is evidence of potential vote stacking, an editor can and should point out the evidence. Here, there is at least some evidence of vote stacking (though the nature and weight of the evidence will be for the sysop who goes through this Afd to determine), thus it was appropriate, in my judgment, for Jersey to point to the evidence despite AGF. I hope this makes sense, forgive me for being somewhat long-winded. Cheers. - Jersyko·talk 05:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Posting the vote stacking links concerns this article and getting into a revert war to try and hide it is a serious offense. You aren't suppose to delete other people's comments on an afd. I have also deleted the part of my comment which could be interpreted as a personal attack already. Needless to say, if you see the user's talk page and the bottom of his user page he has been accused of being a POV Larouchite editor in the past. He also just broke the three revert rule. I have already informed an administrator about it.--Jersey Devil 05:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have broken the three revert rule actually well before your above post. Second, to revert personal attacks is not in violation of that rule. Third, I ask that you refrain from your continued personal attacks on myself and other users. Fourth, I ask that you remove your words 'vote stacking' as a personal attack on the creator of this article. Fifth, I ask that you make an official apology to that said user for your harassment and surveillance of his postings. Sixth, I ask a personal apology to myself. See above for reasons to edit out your personal attacks and harassment. Harassing another editor is in violation of Wikipedia Harassment and I ask you stop. --Northmeister 05:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC) -Now you are attacking me by calling me a POV LaRouchite? Who are the others? The names of the accusers are as revealing as the McCarthy like accusations that were made and the individuals who continue to reveal their true motivations for disrupting this vote in violation of wiki-standards. --Northmeister 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Will Beback, et al.--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Where to begin? Let's see ...

a) Hopelessly POV. It assumes that the media in the United States is left-wing, which laughable statement seems to actually be believed in some quarters, but should still not be reported as "fact".

b) It's a LaRouchite fantasy. Actually, let's scratch out "fantasy": when we're dealing with LaRouche, one doesn't need to specify the disconnection with reality, since it's basically inherent.

c) Undue weight. The term is not used in political parlance; it's used by a handful of lunatics and conspiracy theorists when writing lunacy on conspiracy theories.

d) It's a LaRouchite hit list. I suspect, as a general policy issue, we should profit most mightily from refusing to host LaRouchite hit lists.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a forum for conspiracy nuts and Lyndon LaRouche fanboys to piss all over the sum of human knowledge. Whatever happened to that ArbCom ruling that this sort of crap had to die, anyway? Has it expired? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, the article makes reference to actual left-wing media and people (Democracy Now, Mother Jones, Amy Goodman), but that makes it an even bigger load of codswallop, since it's essentially an elaborate rationalization as to why the American left isn't buying the 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have figured out why we liberals never win any elections. It's because we have a group of people who expend enormous effort and energy trying to prove that other leftists aren't ideologically pure enough or far-left enough. Bill Moyers and The Nation are part of a grand CIA conspiracy and George Soros' Trilateral Commission funding turns Pacifica into dupes? Holy. Fucking. Shit. Delete this tripe. FCYTravis 06:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Attack page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete confused nonsense. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cursing, as seen above in this discussion, is not argument. Attacks and counterattacks directed at political factions are not arguments relevant to the article under consideration. The term is widely used in political analysis by analysts at several stations along the political spectrum. Its history dates back at least 50 years, as documented by legitimate academic source. The article is badly slanted against perceived left gatekeepers, but that can be fixed. The pervasiveness of the term in political anaylysis is reflected by the choice of the National Communications Association to name their Mass Communication Division Newsletter "The Gatekeeper". Try looking at some legitemite etymology before typing a tirade against a poorly written article. The word has a long, documented history, available even from easily found reputable on-line sources such as the University of Twente. According to this, it might better be subtitled (communication) rather than (politics). WhoSaid? 21:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is so poorly written and slanted against one particular POV that we would do far better to simply delete this article and start from scratch at Gatekeeper (communications). FCYTravis 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a legitimate topic. 205.177.246.156 01:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates WP:RS Morton devonshire 07:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the same user is trying to popularize the phrase by putting them in articles. See the page history for the Ford Foundation.--Jersey Devil 18:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Attack page, nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, vote stacking. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]--Jersey Devil 20:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a NPOV rewrite stub focusing on the general concept of a communications gatekeeper, instead of one particular conspiracy theory. Keep as rewritten and move to Gatekeeper (journalism). FCYTravis 22:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I am not sure you can re-write something in the middle of a vote. But, that aside. I like what you wrote, as it is NPOV. However, it is quite limited and Gatekeeper refers to more than what you wrote about. There needs to be the entire idea of Gatekeeper included, as was originally presented in the article. I propose we start with your re-writing, and those interested work together to get a balanced, accurate, NPOV article done. I propose this to you and to the original creator as well. What do you say? Let's end the vote and work on this together in sandbox or whatnot. --Northmeister 23:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Anyone can edit any article at any time, provided it is not otherwise protected from editing. I certainly think the concept described in the previous article deserves discussion as an example of an alleged "gatekeeping" abuse, but I'm not sure it needs the level of detail. We certainly shouldn't be attempting to comprehensively list any alleged "gatekeepers," because a List of alleged gatekeepers would theoretically include everyone from the Pope to Robert McNamara to Andy Rooney to, as we saw, Noam Chomsky. FCYTravis 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment True. I am interested in what the original creator of the article thinks here. I believe we can work together to include much more than exists now, from your starting point and avoid pointing fingers directly at a large list of persons. --Northmeister 01:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course he can re-write in the middle of an AfD (which is, incidentally, not a vote). What purpose would be served by preventing people from doing so? Travis's rewrite looks good; I'm very curious as to how the article's original author feels about it, however, and whether he'll try to re-introduce illegitimate content ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've already been reverted once, and I reverted back. I believe we should start with an NPOV stub and build from there, rather than try to rework a clearly-POV pile of mush. FCYTravis 01:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, that is actually much better but couldn't it still be considered a neologism and thus not warrant a page?--Jersey Devil 23:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept of a "gatekeeper" in journalism is much better defined, and was discussed even in my basic Mass Communications/Journalism 130 survey course. FCYTravis 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten by FCYTravis, but might belong better at Gatekeeper (publishing), since the concept (which is a notable one, especially in the era of blogging, user-written sites like Wikinews, self-published book, etc.) is not limited to journalism, but is common to the publishing industry, including books as well as magazines and newspapers. I don't feel strongly about the name, though. MCB 23:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten and move to Gatekeeping (communication), since the external link says that the term is applied in other aspects of human communication. mikka (t) 00:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten and move to Gatekeeping (communication)(s). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the article per the nascent consensus here, and I suggest that we close the AfD and proceed with the stub as-is. Should it be communication, or communications? FCYTravis 02:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be in a rush. 6 hours are left until normal closure. Besides, the "s" name is bad. "in Communications" usually refers to "means of communication". Gatekeeping (communication) would be correct in this case. mikka (t) 02:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not be in a rush? Who cares about "normal closure"? The article is not about politics, so it shouldn't be at politics. I don't need to have a process tell me that it's OK to do that. Just write the encyclopaedia. FCYTravis 03:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep moink 01:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Street Riding

Original research, POV, no sources. Remy B 08:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As it stands its a delete, but the subject may, I think, be worthy of an article. Kcordina 10:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup Needs some work, but the article and subject are notable and could be expanded. Although there might be unencyclopedic content, I see nothing to suggest POV issues. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cleanup as well. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:50Z
Keep The subject could use an article it is a part of BMX and skateboarding competitions (see Vert (sport)). It does need cleanup and possibly renaming though. kotepho 06:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of books that have been considered the worst ever

Delete I'm a little dubious about this one, but I think it's (a) completely unverifiable (b) always going to be POV and (c) uncyclopedic. There don't seem to be any 'prominent' sources on this one - we're just going to end up with a list of every book some people in the media/whatever didn't like. And, of course, right now it's unsourced - at the very least, the books should be removed until they have some sources (but I decided to AfD instead, and we'll see if anyone has a viable idea). Fuzzie (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete grossly uncyclopedic joshbuddy^talk 08:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are lists for Films considered the worst ever and List of video games considered the worst ever (and I think some others), but both of those go into a fair amount of detail why something might be considered worst, and do have citations. This list doesn't. If it did the same as those other pages, it might be worth keeping. Not sure about this one at the moment. Шизомби 08:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there is an online list by a reliable magazine, or something else along the lines of the "worst movies" in imdb that is based on the opinion of a lot of users, I think this couldn't not be POV. Clq 08:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands there's nothing I'd keep in this article; some verifiable sources might make a difference. — Stumps 08:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources make it original research. Remy B 08:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it's inherently POV -- I agree with Шизомби that a well-annotated list with cites of who thinks book X is worst ever and why (as per the films/games lists) would be fine -- I just don't see any evidence that anyone's going to put the work in to make it into that. (NB I would consider changing this vote if someone stepped forward.) --Bth 08:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, claptrap. --kingboyk 09:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd just like to add that Films considered the worst ever is the very model of how these things can be done in a good way. It uses independent sources, provides a readable and helpful narrative, and - bottom line - is a great read. --kingboyk 04:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty much unverifiable list with no decent parameters for inclusion and just a general mess. See also Wikipedia:Listcruft. Stifle 09:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are provided. As it stands this article is original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considered 'worst' by whom and with what criteria? This list is meaningless and endlessly debatable without a methodology attached. Original research is not allowed on WP. (aeropagitica) 11:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. After a Google search I did in an attempt to salvage this, I found the effort futile. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 13:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Listcruft. -- Krash (Talk) 15:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV Listcruft.Eivind 19:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original Research --light darkness^(talk) 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete unencyclopedic. could be an infinite list. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Original research, and listcruft. Reyk 21:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it had any sources, as do Films considered the worst ever and List of video games considered the worst ever, it could be an interesting article, but as it is, it's just OR. I do like, though, that its "rules" state that "[t]he book must have been published during or after the author's death". --keepsleeping slack off! 21:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (since I only commented above). That is funny about the rules - I wouldn't think too many books were published during the author's death! Шизомби 22:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Шизомби. I messed with it a little, adding sourced entries and formatting (yeah, I know it's going down, but whatever). Would need to have have all entries sourced, and with more than just single entries, and that would take some work. Herostratus 00:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How about "Lists of Cruft that have been considered the Cruftiest Cruft ever". The topic has potential (per Keepsleeping) but this is ListCruft. Deizio 01:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WAY too many subjective choices to be anything but NPOV (Finnegans Wake?!?). --Calton | Talk 08:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Terribly POV. No amount of sourcing is really going to make this article suitable for Wikipedia. If a magazine publishes a list of "worst ever books", I think that should still go under "List of books considered the worst ever (XYZ magazine)" or similar, not under this generic title. - Tangotango 14:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over. Silly criteria and no explanations (compared to film and game lists, which at least explain stuff). "The book must have been published during or after the author's death"? During? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, keep. Sure, the article is slipshod and systemless, lacking any sort of criteria or attribution. But the concept is just possibly workable (as it is for films and video games), if we take it to mean either books that have been said to have had a baleful effect on society or those that have been described as spectacularly unsuccessful as literature. This will take a lot more sourcing than the list of worst films, though, not least because of the number of books ever published, and this is what might make it unworkable. ProhibitOnions 23:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nabble

Delete. Article seems like an ad; I thought about removing the strong POV / hype content, but it basically would leave nothing. Stumps 08:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advert. No rescuable content left once advertising removed. Kcordina 10:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising. No discussion as to notability of site. (aeropagitica) 11:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonnotable vanity ad. -- Krash (Talk) 15:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Appleyard

Prod-ed, deProd-ed, reProd-ed, etc. I'm bringing it here because it clearly isn't an uncontested deletion. No vote. GTBacchus^(talk) 08:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. A search of Australian newspapers came up with nothing on him at all. Capitalistroadster 10:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 10:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Capitalistroadster. The BigFooty site itself might be more worthy of an article. JPD (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Capitalistroadster. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Capitalistroadster. Cnwb 22:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Roisterer 01:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay and lesbian support resources (Singapore)

An unencyclopedic, redlink infested list. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a one stop shop for support. Article created on 30 November 2005 and has not had a single major edit since then. kingboyk 08:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Remy B 08:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pn. If the organisations are notable they can have their own article and a category, but most of them aren't. Kcordina 10:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 15:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hawkestone 19:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kcordina. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 13:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ncaabbs

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

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non notable web forum. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe non-noteable if you hate college sports or live outside the United States .... what an ignorant remark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.207.153 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 March 2006.
SPEEDY obviously violates WP:WEB and/or is clearly NN. Speedy tag removed by inclusionists. :) Crzrussian 12:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MemphisTigers.org is a part of NCAAbbs.... and it meets the criteria of WP:WEB as mentioned below. If you're using Alexa to justify site rank and use, please bah like a sheep because you are one. As webmaster at NCAAbbs, I could throw up an Alexa button on every page and inflate our rank in Alexa greatly. Shame on you for trusting Alexa for anything beyond the top few hundred. It's really this simple... MemphisTigers.org... which is a part of NCAAbbs that has been given the name "memphistigers.org" due to its high activity... MEETS THE CRITERIA SET FORTH HERE. If you're going to delete the page then do it, but while you're at it be fair and delete that policy since it's clearly not used as specified... and don't forget to delete a few hundred (thousand?) other wikipedia pages for similar communities. --georgia_tech_swagger
I happen to disagree. NCAAbbs IS a notable forum. However it would be for someone not in the U.S. Over 13,000 fans..recently received an offer for xxx,xxx. The Memphis and UAB forums are recognized in the Memphis and Birmingham newspapers, and the UAB fans were even seen on ESPN(largest sports cable network in the U.S.) holding a sign that had NCAAbbs.com on it. Please specify more of what you want, and I am sure we can provide. The "speedy" tag said to be removed? --Techfan - <*> 07:38, 9 March 2006 (EST)\

Comment huh? (no, really, I didn't understand...) I am in the U.S. Crzrussian 19:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn, fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:VSCA. -- Krash (Talk) 15:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Why do articles about web forums insist on listing their users' nicknames? Do they really believe anyone cares about them? JIP | Talk 15:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement and WP:WEB are not means for speedy deletion.WP:CSD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.9.52.4 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 March 2006.
I think it should stay. It meets the inclusion criteria as it has been in newspapers as well as syndicated radio talk shows frequently. If one thinks this should be removed, then by all means remove all similar Wikipedia articles such as the page for Something Awful, the page for LinuxQuestions.org, etc. I really could go on for hours listing similar long-standing Wikipedia pages of the exact same merit that relate to the exact same community type. WP:WEB gives a list of criteria... and if it meets ANY ONE it's deemed noteable. Well, here's an award NCAAbbs from an independent newspaper. That meets the WP criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.207.153 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 March 2006.
- Comment I was unable to find NCAAbbs.com in the very long list of winners, are you sure this is the right address. Eivind 23:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I believe User:68.119.207.153 was referring to the third-place award won by MemphisTigers.org, but the relationship between NCAAbbs.com and MemphisTigers.org is unclear to me. --Metropolitan90 00:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment MemphisTigers.org falls under the umbrella of NCAAbbs.com. It is run on the same server, but because of the popularity of this particular portion of NCAAbbs.com it has it's own domain name.
Keep it. Many other non-profit organizations have entries. NCAAbbs adds flavor and encourages people to participate in many online communities such as Wikipedia itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.20.11.116 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 March 2006.
Keep it. Not-for-Profit venture that allows sports fans to express opinions and show school spirit. Has shown up on ESPN, Birmingham News, Atlanta JC, WMC-Memphis, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.216.69.78 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 March 2006.
Keep it. It is a valuable site for trading sports and non-sports information. MySpace has a Wikipedia listing and is not marked for deletion. I feel that NCAABBS has similar-type content for the 20-45 year old sports enthusiast. The site has also been mentioned in numerous sports radio broadcasts. I thought that Wikipedia was a place to share information and not a popularity contest. Removing this entry while keeping entries of "popular" sites would be a disservice to those who use Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.202.162.100 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 9 March 2006.
- Delete. Myspace.com is the 8th most popular web site according to alexa.com. NCAAbbs.com is 35,477th. [27] --Metropolitan90 00:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. I particularly object to the reference to WP:VSCA, as it qualifies for none of those classifications. Many of the ideas posed on the site are discussed in the media and by NCAA Coaches and Athletic Directors. NCAA players and families frequently contribute as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Works2late (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 March 2006.
delete per nom Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
DELETE as per all the above. this is not a notable bbs. 150.108.61.240 21:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it! NCAAbbs, and all of it's sites, are 100% non-profit non-commercial. They have been mentioned in the news, radio, and even tv. It meets the criteria set by this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.215.171.241 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 March 2006.
KEEP IT What makes a site "notable" 150.108.61.240? You using it? Many of the above respondents have listed multiple media inclusions including newspaper, television and radio. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.202.162.100 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 9 March 2006.

If you delete NCAABBS how can you justify keeping something like the Dem Underground in respect to Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [1]??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rickheel (talk • contribs) 22:46, 9 March 2006.

Delete nn, poor alexa rating Eivind 23:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is not a vote! newbies adding comments regarding deletion are often ignored by admins, and espesially when you don't sign your post with ~~~~. Eivind 23:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Can you bah like a sheep for me? Alexa rankings mean NOTHING beyond the top few hundred... I can EASILY inflate the Alexa rank for any site that has even modest traffic. Read up and free your mind of that Alexa load of bull. And here is some more reading material for you. --georgia_tech_swagger
Delete as non-notable website / forumcruft. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "UAB fans were even seen on ESPN(largest sports cable network in the U.S.) holding a sign that had NCAAbbs.com on it." That's amazing. My cousin once got on TV with a sign at a WWE event that read "Vince You Silly Bastard" on one side and "It Burns When I Pee" on the other. I encourage people to check out the "independent award from a local newspaper" that has got 68.119.207.153 so excited. So excited they forgot to actually check if the website won an award. It's hard to be objective with this level of guff on the AfD but let's try... WP:WEB? Nope... Deizio 01:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment MemphisTigers.org == NCAAbbs. Read more carefully before throwing in your $0.02. --georgia_tech_swagger

"MemphisTigers.org is a part of NCAAbbs" or "MemphisTigers.org == NCAAbbs", which is it? In any case, you failed to note that the "award" criteria reads: "The website or content has won a well known and independent award". Deizio 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there is some independent verifiability, I think that having one of the component sites selected as third best Memphis related sites is quite enough to meet the bar. I would reconsider if the site had even minor influence on college sports or if more verifiable material was found. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "...not quite enough..."? Deizio 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deizio - I'm not sure what kind of problem you have with NCAAbbs, but to say that MemphisTigers.org, BlazerTalk.com, and NCAAbbs.com have not had an impact on the college sports world, especially in Memphis and Birmingham, then you do not need to be judging it. The point on UAB fans is that they were not only seen, but mentioned and also on the UAB radio station. Was your cousin mentioned? --Techfan

I have made no comment about the "impact" of anything, the only problem I have is that this topic does not meet any part of WP:WEB or any other notability criteria and is invalid for inclusion in this particular encyclopedia. The appearance of people holding signs in crowds or unsolicited mentions on radio shows is not noteworthy. If you are going to argue that your site has received sufficient "media coverage" to make it noteworthy you should be thinking about verifiable and in-depth coverage in major national newspapers, nationally syndicated radio and / or popular national publications such as Time Magazine. I'm unfamiliar with "the UAB radio station", can you clarify what it's sphere of influence might be? By all means keep up the banter here but without an understanding of what makes a topic suitable for inclusion on WP, and the procedure by which pages get deleted, you aren't getting anywhere. If I do have a slight problem with anything it's the unsightly deluge of unsigned opinions from newcomers which are endemic to AfD debates on web forums. The encouragement of forum participants who have not previously edited on Wikipedia to make submissions here has the opposite of the desired effect - there is no surer way to ensure your site sticks in the minds of many WP editors for all the wrong reasons. Please check the links for new editors I've placed on your user talk page. Deizio 03:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to you saying "Did you mean '...not quite enough...'?" in reference to the influence on college sports and communities of fans. Think of it this way: Musicianforums is ONE OF MANY homes for musicians. NCAAbbs is THE home for fans of Memphis, UAB, Cinncinnati, NIU, etc. Now why is Musicianforums fine, and NCAAbbs not? I think that there are many problems other than our page to be worried about. The result of many "unsigned" users are here because they saw the big notice on the NCAAbbs page when viewing the page. It HAS made an impact. It HAS been mentioned in newspapers, radio, and TV. What do you want more of? What will get it "passed through"? If you could be more specific, I am sure we can provide what you want. Techfan 03:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...not quite enough..." related to the point "I think that having one of the component sites selected as third best Memphis related sites is quite enough to meet the bar" by Capitalistroadster, as I believe he may have accidentally omitted the word "not". To answer your other points, each AfD is judged on its own merits and one should resist the equation: "If topic A is ok, why not topic B?" Let WP:AFD and WP:WEB be your guides in this matter. I'll be happy to answer further questions on my talk page. Deizio 04:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but you still have not answered my questions. What do you want more of? What will get it "passed through"? However, I think that it would be unfair to delete the NCAAbbs page, but let another that serves its purpose just as we do, but I would argue that NCAAbbs has made a bigger impact. Ediquette or not, I think you SHOULD compare situations to what others have considered o.k., rather than your own assumptions. Also..it DOES meet WP:WEB, even if you do not consider the Memphis award enough. See "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Techfan 04:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Techfan

Delete per nom. --kingboyk 22:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is: the users would like to see this on here, and questions have NOT been answered or responded to. If you are going to say "delete", then answer our questions as to what more we would need on our page, because I am sure we can provide. NCAAbbs has never had an advertisement, only word of mouth, and since 2002 we have grown to 13,000+ users and have MADE AN IMPACT on the college sports world. The users that have posted here are not new to Wikipedia, they just do not contribute or monitor pages. We don't expect to get 1,000 new users from this, but we do want it to serve as a page for newcomers and others interested in the history of NCAAbbs. Our page is fine on the terms of WP:WEB. See related links for reference. Techfan 05:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your talk page Deizio 11:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blachi

Seems a neologism. The only relevant hit by google comes from the urban dictionary [28] and was recently added. -- Koffieyahoo 09:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable. Neologism. Original research. Made up in school. -- Krash (Talk) 14:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Krash. No Guru 19:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable term. Edgar181 20:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term Blachi is more of a slang, and it has some meaning to it. For educational purposes it is rather interesting and the research can be verified on other skin related websites.

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, most of these have already been merged. W.marsh 19:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John MacBain

This article apprears to be complete WP:VSCA. the related articles John macbain, John McBain, Didier Breton, Trader.com, Trader Classified Media, and the changes to the disambig pages which are all of the changes ever made by user 81.80.159.196 should all also be deleted/reverted. Jabencarsey 17:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as VSCA. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trader Classified Media^[29] and Didier Breton, merge or keep others. Kappa 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, Didier Breton appears to be notable outside the whole trader classified thing so a separate article will be more convenient for users. John McBain appears to only be of interest within the context of trader classified, so merging wouldn't hurt. Kappa 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle 09:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, a Rhodes Scholar should assert some notability. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Press coverage indicates company is notable; founder is presumptively notable on that ground and is notable as Rhodes Scholar. Why is there a Wikipedian constituency with the fixed but wholly irrational idea that an encyclopedia should exclude non-trivial real-world business entities but include all but the most trivial comic book and Pokemon characters? Monicasdude 16:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split Decision: Delete John MacBain (and all redirects) & Didier Breton as non-notable executives. Company may be notable, but IMO that doesn't confer notability back to the founders and neither seem to meet WP:BIO, though Brenton seems to have additional business citations. No opinion on Trader.com or Trader Classified Media, but a precursory check seems to indicate they meet WP:CORP and so should be Kept with a probable merge of McBain and Brenton into Trader Classified Media. On a side note, I'd love to see all the pokemoncruft knocked out of here...--Isotope23 17:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge biographies in organization's page. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the company, Delete the rest. Eivind 23:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:51Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against band

Band with a Myspace page. Prod tagged, tag removed, then tagged for speedy - probably valid, but the author clearly wishes to ocntest deletion, so bringing it here to give him the chance. Just zis Guy you know? 09:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band. -- Koffieyahoo 10:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be Against (band) anyway. How convenient their two hit albums and touring only popped up after the article was tagged for deletion. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 11:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. -- Krash (Talk) 14:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Claims of meeting this are not sourced.--Isotope23 17:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More fiction from User:Connorx. Slowmover 20:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Techno communism

Someone's utopian musings. Was tagged for proposed deletion by User:Hynca-Hooley

Delete. Gazpacho 09:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable, neologistic original research. -- Krash (Talk) 14:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and original research. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Terence Ong above. Fourohfour 19:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and/or original research. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mentioned in 1 blog from the provided links. However, if the term is used by Amartya Sen (they even misspelled the name) my vote may be reconsidered. Pavel Vozenilek 23:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it seems to be one of those damned new political theories. It's not noteworthy enough to be listed on this site, although not a bad thought. - XX55XX 23:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 13:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quandrum

Yet another unsourced vanity protologism. Contested PROD. Sandstein 11:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. I am from Australia myself, and I have heard of Dr. Wang and studied the controversy surrounding her particular theologies (not the simplistic movement though). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reality 22 (talk • contribs) .

Delete... something invented in the last week or so has slowly gained reputation? JPD (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i.e. quandrum ("a substitute for any verb and adjective"). Protologism invented within the last nine days. Misspelling of conundrum or what?? Weregerbil 12:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Interesting article. I have heard this term used before, but not in relation to the movement. Perhaps a new term which has recently come to light in Australia? The previous comment is the first edit of new contributor Wherehow (talk | contribs).

Comment The only edits of the keep voters are on the Quandrum page and this Afd. Having that said, I abstain because I don't have any info on the use of English words. F e tofs ^Hello! 13:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A neologism, as the article itself admits, that I suspect is a portmanteau of "quandary" and "condundrum". I cannot match the reference given at the end of the article to a published title, so verifiability is also an issue (an ISBN would clear this up). Sliggy 13:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm Australian; I haven't heard of it. — Stumps 15:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW The supposed publishers 'Vixen and Hyde' get 0 google hits. Feels like a hoax. — Stumps 15:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete neologism Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Outrageous NeoloCruft. "The word "Quandrum" was invented and first used by an Australian underground theorist Dr. Sarah Wang in March, 2006". Flush. Deizio 02:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I am from Australia, and do not know Dr Wang, but I must admit that I have not only heard of the word quandrum, but I use it regularly, in the exact context mentioned by Dr Wang. I think it may be a word that will catch on in the future. I strongly urge you not to dismiss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.46.35 (talk • contribs) user has 2 lifetime edits, both on this page

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Maximum Rocknroll (album) — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E is for Everything

This is an unverified, rumored EP by NOFX, not acknowledged by any official website (i.e. it is not listed at the official discography at nofxofficialwebsite.com), there exists no cover artwork, and no mention of it can be found except on unreliable fansites or fan-controlled sites. There Dylan 12:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. I can't find any official or verifiable info on this release, either. - Rynne 14:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Altered vote, see below.[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It has an entry in the All Music Guide. I will vote keep unless that entry is proven to be counterfeit. Punkmorten 18:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ah-ha, the riddle becomes clear! The track listing for E is for Everything in AMG—and in E is for Everything—is identical to the tracklisting to Maximum Rocknroll (see also: AMG). The catalog number of E is for Everything given by AMG (Mystic 33180) is identical Maximum Rocknroll's on this Mystic Records discography. The unverifiable E is for Everything purports to be exactly the same as the completely-verifiable Maximum Rocknroll. Occam's Razor says the unverifiable one probably doesn't exist. - Rynne 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Rynne. Punkmorten 21:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maximum Rocknroll (album). See above comment, but Occam's Razor fails: the cassette release of Maximum Rocknroll appears to be titled E is for Everything. Photographs of the actual cassette can be seen on the NOFXwiki for Maximum Rocknroll (scroll to bottom of page). - Rynne 21:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rynne. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drinkin', Stinkin', Never Thinkin'

This is an unverified, rumored EP by NOFX, not acknowledged by any official website (i.e. it is not listed at the official discography at nofxofficialwebsite.com), there exists no cover artwork, and no mention of it can be found except on unreliable fansites or fan-controlled sites. Dylan 12:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V. It's worth noting that the NOFXwiki, which is probably much better suited to documenting their releases, don't list this EP either. - Rynne 15:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. dbtfz ^talk 21:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/merge. W.marsh 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dell_UltraSharp_2405FPW

I don't mind a page per SERIES of hardware produced by Dell, but a page for every product ever made by Dell seems a bit excessive, and even non sensical. I also think it verges on advertizing for Dell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timharwoodx (talk • contribs)

Delete this article, it seems too much info on too specific a subject (monitorcruft?), bordering on advertising. However I wouldn't be adverse to creating Dell monitors and merging in useful content from this and Dell UltraSharp 3007WFP? - Rynne 15:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dell monitors. Dell's main page already forks into several product lines (with fairly broad descriptions). This level of detail belongs on Dell's tech support web site, not wikipedia. I would say delete as a pointless redirect, but redirects are relatively harmless so, whatever. Thatcher131 16:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Thatcher131 (and the fact that redirects are cheap). E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/merge. W.marsh 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dell_UltraSharp_3007WFP

I don't mind a page per SERIES of hardware produced by Dell, but a page for every product ever made by Dell seems a bit excessive, and even non sensical. I also think it verges on advertizing for Dell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timharwoodx (talk • contribs)

Delete this article, it seems too much info on too specific a subject (monitorcruft?), bordering on advertising. However I wouldn't be adverse to creating Dell monitors and merging in useful content from this and Dell UltraSharp 2405FPW? - Rynne 15:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my reasoning above. Thatcher131 16:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Thatcher131 (and the fact that redirects are cheap). E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Junior Common Rooms

Disputed Prod. As a contested deletion it should come here. Please see the talk page (Talk:List of Junior Common Rooms) for the removing editors resons for doing so. The Prod was {{prod|Wikipedia is not a collection of external links}} Blue520 13:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The purpose of the article is to list the JCRs, which is a useful companion piece to the Junior Common Room article. The external links are a secondary matter, in the absense of wikipedia articles about each JCR or groups of JCRs it seems useful to link to their own websites. Jamse 13:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopædic in scope and content, WP is not a mirror or a repository of links - point one specifically. (aeropagitica) 13:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it may be useful to separate the links issue from the list itself. The justifications for deleting the list seems to be based entirely on the fact that it has links associated. If you don't like the links, propose removing them - don't throw the baby out with the bath water! Jamse 13:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. It seems like there's only bathwater here. If you remove the external links, then you just have a list of schools with JCRs, which will qualify for deletion as listcruft. If you create and link Wikipedia articles for each individual school's JCR, those articles will qualify for deletion as non-notable organizations. - Rynne 15:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOT. A list of external links is not encyclopaedic. A list of Junior Common Rooms is not, either; there are ~~thousands~~ hundreds of them. If too many external links are on an article, the solution is to cull them, not to spooge them off into a sub-'article'. Proto||type 14:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic (or encyclopædic for our UK friends). If basically every British university has a JCR, then this ends up being a list of universities. Absolutely pointless. Fan1967 14:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not every university has a JCR system - I'd guess less than 10% do. Jamse 15:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a random list. Ned Wilbury 15:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT, per (aeropagitica) and others. - Rynne 15:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original PRODder (okay, that was me), Rynne's comment and others. FreplySpang (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencylopedic, unnecessary list. Concur with Fan1967 MLA 16:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as list of weblinks, with no attempt at encylcopaedic comment with them (and this from someone who, a while ago, edited the page!). Batmanand | Talk 16:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Reyk 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- What the person above me said. 204.69.40.7 21:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Although i've edited the page in the past, it's probably not necessary. Con Dem^Talk 03:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not encyclopaedic, and serves absolutely no purpose here. --Hahaandy1 12:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Monkey Bar

Closer's notes

The comments of User:84.68.243.197 were discounted, the comment was that user's only edit.
The comments of User:Icehardkiller were not discounted, as the author of the page, Icehardkiller is entitled to contribute to the deletion debate.
As fuddlemark said, all deletion nominations should be formed properly. Users are welcome to correct malformed nominations, or nominate the article for deletion themselves.

Non notable. If every pub in england were named wikipedia would never load it'd be so large. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 13:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC) (P.S. As Nominator he votes delete automatically-- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Uhh, that's not a nomination. It's a vote. And because AfD is not a vote, a nomination would have been much better. Deary me! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper. Oh, and when there's a proper nomination, I'll enter a proper response

. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn pub. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, nicely written article, over 1500 Google hits for "Monkey Bar" + "Newcastle upon Tyne". JIP | Talk 15:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I only see 207.[30] See WP:RS. -- Krash (Talk) 15:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll see your 207, and raise you only 81 outside of Wikipedia.[31] Postdlf 16:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. No importance. -- Krash (Talk) 15:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a bar. Ned Wilbury 15:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sometimes pubs achieve notability in their own right. I'm not sure this one has. In the last 5 years I only found one mention in Lexis/Nexis European sources, a recent (4 Mar 06) article on the rennovation of Pilgrm Street. FWIW, the explanation of the name Monkey Bar given in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle is different than the one given by the author here. Thatcher131 16:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pub. Postdlf 16:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no apparent problems. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These sorts of significant local landmarks are generally kept. I think the article has fine potential. -- JJay 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No longer abstining, see delete vote below I just made it a proper nomination per Gallagher, so everybody is happy -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Headdesk. Lookit, AfDs are traditionally kicked off by someone nominating it, explaining why he's nominated it, why the article needs to do, etc. References to deletion policy, page history, What links here, and, of course, Google are common, all making up the rich tapestry that is an argument for the deletion of one of our precious articles. This is a Good Thing; if nothing else, it means that if an article's deleted then someone can look at AfD and understand why (none of this idiotic "nn d" crap). Pointing out that the nominator automatically votes delete is not merely nonsense, but evidence of a terrifying misunderstanding of what *fD is about here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Retort the nominator makes a perfectly valid point, I assumed you were giving him a hard time about process. He states, "Non notable." Thats all the reason, if the pub actually is NN, that he should need to give. I think that, while my understanding of AfD may be flawed, your understanding of WP:Notability is equally so. Just because he didn't google the bloody thing, or dig around LexisNexis (as two of the voters have done), it doesn't make his deletion listing any less valid. I still refrain from voting as I have no opinion on this article.
    - I disagree. Out of simple respect for the editors who have worked hard in good faith on the material in question, a nom needs to do more than type two letters. Even you modify your statement by saying: "if the pub actually is"...How do we know anything about what the pub "actually is" or the reasons why it does not deserve a place here if the nom is too intellectually lazy to address the question? If that's the best noms can do, they should do something else with their time. -- JJay 10:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm on record as saying "fuck process". The nominator damn well should do a good job of explaining why he thinks an article must be deleted; if he cannot be bothered, then he should not be listing articles for deletion. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a bar --MaNeMeBasat 07:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we can keep articles on stupid cartoon characters that don't even exist.... Jcuk 22:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Monkey Bar (Market Lane) is one of the few pubs in Newcastle that hasnt been modernised, had its name changed etc... it has more history than I, personally, know of and can be expanded by others... for example Thatcher131 has another historical version of how the pub got its nickname... it seems slightly ironic that it is mentioned in the argument for deletion... whatever... Icehardkiller 12:11, 14 March 2006
- Note all of IcehardKiller's Edits are to this page and the article in question. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - yes I (Icehardkiller) wrote the article being discussed. Is the above Note implying that I am not entitled to argue for the article's permanent inclusion? Apologies if I am grasping the wrong end of the stick... and, yes again, all of my Edits are to do with The Monkey Bar article - but whats wrong with that? Finally in response to the original complaint, all the pubs in England are not listed in Wikipedia - but some are, see 'Category:Public houses in the United Kingdom' - if Swatjester's argument was applied to every entry, Wikipedia would be, for the large part, empty. Icehardkiller 20:25, 14 March 2006
  - Note: You most certainly do have a right to vote Icehard, but I am simply of the opinion that the closing admin should know that, similar to 84.68.243.197, you may not have a complete grasp of how WP works -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response - no I dont have a complete grasp of how WP works, though what bearing this has on whether the article should be kept or deleted I fail to see - the ony thing I've done is put up (and am subsequently trying to defend) a bit of information about one of the oldest pubs in Newcastle - I am still learning about syntax and how to sign and timestamp edits etc Icehardkiller 09:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find that what's really important or relevant for an entry isn't what we vaguely define as inspiration, fact or even what it is we do/want to say, recall, regret, or rebel against. No, what's important is the way we say it. Art is all about craftsmanship. Others can interpret craftsmanship as style if they wish. Style and importance is what unites memory or recollection, ideology, sentiment, nostalgia, presentiment, to the way we express all that. It's not what we say but how we say it that matters and how that affects those that read and understand our art. In the end, who are we to judge what anyone else finds relevant unless we have been in their shoes! (previous unsigned comment by User:194.72.35.70 -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, that last comment was from me, bit new to this WP malarky Metalmania 194.72.35.70 10:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or at least I assume thats what the dude who used the talkpage was voting due to his comment) I agree with the previous view. Who are we to say what's worthy and what's not. If the pub means a lot to enough people, keep it here. Those who say "just a pub" don't know what they're talking about. (Unsigned on the talk page, by 84.68.243.197 (IP's only edit)) (All things in parentheses by, and added by -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 17:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete in lieu of the last set of votes, and due to the fact that, however interesting they may be, historical places are not inherently notable. If we had an article for every building not "having had its name changed," which appears to this pubs saving grace according to keep votes, then we'd have tons of articles about every trivial building in most every major eurpean city and a few American ones. It only yields 11 results when searching for "The Monkey Bar Market Lane" and when searching Monkey Bar newcastle, the first page is entirely composed of the pub's page, a few pub-centric travel guides, and the wikipedia page. This bar is not notable, thus I reiterate, Delete per nom. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1981 Demo

Demo* by ~~redlinked band~~ (incorrect linking) band whose article admits they are "little known". Although the band themselves may warrant an article, I don't believe one of their early demos warrants a whole article by itself. It would probably be more useful placed in the context of the main article ~~(once created)~~ anyway. Fourohfour 13:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since when are untitled demos from nonnotable bands notable? -- Krash (Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already stated. Edgar181 20:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "'Gotham City' were a little-known Swedish Heavy Metal band" self-decleared nn Eivind 23:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not fit WP:BIO -- Tawker 23:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was other! as Cool3 points out, it would be a bit improper to delete the albums if the band itself is still included. Especially as the nomination for the band has been withdrawn, this AfD is a bit too irregular to be used as any kind of measure of consensus. If re-nominated, the band should be included in that nomination, or it should be stated from the start that the AfD is only about the albums/singles. W.marsh 01:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham City (single), Gotham City (band), Black Writs, 1983 Demo, Live in Umeå 1985

Single song by band whose article admits they are little-known. Unless there is a lot to say about this, it would probably be better as part of Gotham City (band) article. Fourohfour 13:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: ~~Gotham City (band)~~, Black Writs, 1983 Demo, Live in Umeå 1985 -- Krash (Talk) 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as admittedly non-notable. -- Krash (Talk) 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to delete all *except* the band article itself. It would probably be best to keep the band article and move all the (important) information into there. OTOH, I don't know how important the band are, but they did get some radio play, apparently... Fourohfour 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay...pulling nom on Gotham City (band). They can get their own AfD. -- Krash (Talk) 14:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "'Gotham City' were a little-known Swedish Heavy Metal band" self-decleared nn Eivind 23:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They were apparently the previous band of the vocalist of Nocturnal Rites, but there's no assertion of notability for that band either. I've tagged both band articles with {{notability}} --kingboyk 22:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn band. incog 15:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if Gotham City is found to be notable then albums by notable bands are often considered to be notable and this might be seen as notable, so we should reach a consensus on the band then the notability of the other items would be easier to establish. Cool3 00:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blaggards

The genre Stout Irish Rock is up for AfD already. These guys are a small local bank not notable. Defunkier 14:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources of articles aren't just small local papers. If this were Ottumwa, Iowa I'd probably agree but seeing as how they're from Houston, and doing a fairly large tour of the East Coast. Dismas|^(talk) 14:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Rather un-notable. Please provide evidence of the contrary. Cut the reviews, get rid of the spurious quip about there being "no 'the' in their name", and replace all the promotional links with some reliable sources. Basically make it more encyclopedic and I'd reconsider. I have a hard time taking any band seriously when the third Google result is their Myspace profile. -- Krash (Talk) 14:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to be a local act that's now touring other areas. I doubt they meet WP:MUSIC requirements, but we've now got people making articles on Paddy Rock Radio to help promote them also. They seem to be somewhat borderline on signficance and media coverage, but I wonder if it's worth trying to delete them? It sure looks like self-promotion, but do we care? Ned Wilbury 15:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, that's all the more reason to care more. See WP:VAIN. -- Krash (Talk) 15:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may have a point. They have some press coverage, but so far it's local papers, not serious music media. Local bands get written about in local papers all the time, so if being a local band isn't enough, delete. I don't see how being a local band in a large city makes you something more than a local band. Ned Wilbury 15:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's all a matter of scale, all of it. Rudy Giuliani is notable for having been in New York politics but then the mayor of a small town who has organized many things in their area like food drives for the poor, and various other humanitarian efforts would raise the deletion question in some people's minds. Dismas|^(talk) 20:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appear to be just over the notability line. "When in doubt, don't delete." Monicasdude 16:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - smacks of fanzine Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,my thing is, is that Austin is known as the live music capital, many bands local, mational, and international come to play here, to very huge and famous music fectivals happen here (Austin City Limits and SxSW) therefore when the local paper writes about a band, they know what they are talking about. Same for the Houston paper, Houston and a major city in america and has a major newspaper, local but decently well known. Also, you say that they do not play other places, they just embarked on a major tour of the northeast, playing at some very well known pubs in New York and Boston. Instead of writing them off, why don't you get to know them and listen to some of their music, maybe see a live show (if you can). I believe if you see them live, you would be hooked. Just ask the over 5000 myspace friends from all over the world that have never seen them live but are hooked because of the CD.

--199.59.33.130 20:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Hey playing at some very well known pubs, see a live show ( if you can ) says it all. The city is notable, the paper is notable but not everything in them is. Defunkier 13:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep some notable information here. needs new sources and cleanup, but perhaps worth keeping. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote yet. Only criteria of WP:MUSIC it could conceivably meet is if the article can prove that they are a "prominant representative of the local scene of a city." If this can be accomplished, then my vote is keep. If not, then my vote is delete. I'm leaning delete here, because this band isn't even on a record label! --EdGl 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they don't seem to meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria Tuf-Kat 12:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. bainer (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario T Barri

Unverified stub about a supposed Filipino movie director (ie, directing Filipino movies, not that he is Filipino - there's no way of telling that, as he is unverifiable). There is a Filipino actor called Mario Barri, who should have an article yet doesn't. Unfortunately, there's no way of telling if telling for sure that this refers to the same person, and I don't think guesswork is appropriate. I'm noting that this article is for a director, and Mario Barri (with no T) was an actor, which also weighs against this being the same guy. Anyway, back on track. This fails WP:V, which is the bare minimum requirement for any article. Ergo, delete. Please note that this AfD in no way implies that non-Western 1950s pop culture people are any less (or more) notable than their Western counterparts, because God knows that's always the first accusation when you try and AfD an unverifiable and ugly hellpit of redlinks. Proto||type 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verified and cleaned up. -- Krash (Talk) 14:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Original author created many small articles which met the the-current verifiability policy. WP:V does not require online sources, and enough of the already-contested pages have proved accurate. Whatever the AfD nominator may say, the consequences of this campaign is to exclude large swathes of non-Western popular culture from Wikipedia by the moral equivalent of Wikilawyering -- and the same standard hasn't been applied retroactively to recent Western popular cultrue articles. And I don't see any "hellpit of redlinks" listed among the valid criteria for deletion; if they bother you that much, just unlink them. So fix it. Monicasdude 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If a reference can be provided then I will happily withdraw the nomination. Note that I am actively trying to create articles on Filipino film here (see, for example, Giliw Ko), not delete 'swathes of non-Western popular culture'. If an article has no references, then, unfortunately, we do have to rely upon online sources. All articles must be verifiable. Proto||type 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Mario Barri is a well known filipino actor and director. One of his claims to fame being that he gave Fernando Poe, Jr. his first big break. All of his films are verifiable on the net. For example here where he is clearly listed as director. [32]. Of course, this demands some effort and knowledge, because Manila is not Hollywood. On a side note, I see the same articles nominated, prodded, then renominated. Once again, I say there is no reason to destroy our incipient coverage of the Filipino film industry. The denigration of other cultures needs to stop. -- JJay 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, if a reference to Mario T Barri can be provided then I will happily withdraw the nomination. There is no verifiable proof that this is the same person. This is a similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herminio Bautista - all articles must be verifiable. Proto||type 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep verifiability claims made by Monicasdude and JJay hold up. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If JJay says it must be so. Herostratus 02:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:52Z
- Comment I'm sorry, but is it verifiable? There's not a single reference. You can't say 'no, this is verifiable', and then fail to provide a single reference or source. At the moment, it's verifiable because JJay and Monicasdude say it is. Again, if there's one single reference provided, I will withdraw this nomination, happily. Proto||type 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JJay and Monicasdude Jcuk 22:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
I think User:Proto's concerns have not been addressed, at least not well enough for me to be comfortable closing this (no one's actually replied to him, for example). I realize this doesn't happen all that often, but in the interest of making the right decision (whatever that may be), I'm relisting to allow for more discussion. W.marsh 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is the reference above not good enough? Or the IMDB page [33]? Or all the google hits? [34]. The nom refuses to accept any evidence and has repeatedly tried to delete this page based on a middle initial. I can't believe that justifies extending this debate. -- JJay 01:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of movies attributed to Mario T Barri in this article does not seem to correspond at all with the list of movies attributed to Mario Barri on IMDB. Like I said... there just seem to be some issues here that have yet to be addressed. --W.marsh 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's quite strange. Most of the movies listed in the article appear nowhere on IMDB. The ones that do don't mention Barri, but they are largely devoid of credits. "Anak ni Palaris" (Anak ng Palaris in imdb) doesn't mention Barri, but does mention Fernando Poe. Other film names appear to be spelled wrong ("Song of Sto. Thomas"). It looks like somebody made an article about a legitimate figure with a lot of questionable or downright false information. Can it be kept and throughly re-edited by somebody who actually knows about this person's career? Carlo 02:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows that Barri directed Anak ni Palaris. I mentioned that above and the info was included in all of the FPJ obits such as this [35]. -- JJay 02:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ropes course providers

Just a collection of links, seems to be nothing more than a magnet for linkspam. It is telling that we don't have article for most of the providers - and those that we do are not primarily ropes course providers. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate or mere collection of external links. -- Krash (Talk) 14:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like most "list of random stuff" articles. Ned Wilbury 15:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and merge. Could some of these courses be wiki-linked (if there are articles on them)? Or maybe the more pertinent information can be merged with the ropes course article.--Esprit15d 16:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. This list was originally part of the Ropes course article and could be remerged. However, it seemed to be more tidy and following the precedent of some other articles (e.g., List of schools by country) to have the list separate. Happy to follow guidelines/advice. Jtneill - Talk 19:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a sidebar to the main Ropes course article. I think it could be useful if someone was looking at Ropes course and wanted to give it a try somewhere. On the other hand, linkspam could be a concern. --E lkman - ^(talk) 20:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not encyclopedic, linkspam. -Will Beback 23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unenc. Eivind 23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serious ListCruft. WP:NOT for lists of links... Deizio 02:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a link farm. Pavel Vozenilek 14:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Stifle 01:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cashville Records

I seen Cashville Records website and looked at it clearly. I believe that it's possible for it to true, but there is no official word from Interscope Records. Interscope has the say in that matter. To me, personally, it looks like a fan site devoted to Young Buck. The B.G. is in talks with G-Unit, but not a signed member of the group or an artist established to any label other than Chopper City Records, his own established label. I doubt B.G. would be a part of any label after Cash Money cheated him out of money. Not saying G-Unit would, but it's more likely he wouldn't. LILVOKA.

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nom seems more about the content of the article rather than that it exists. Cashville records seems notable enough on a quick google test. The content about lil-scrappy conflicts with other sources though. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, don't really see a reason to delete this. Stifle 01:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is there a real question about its accuracy? "I don't think B.G. would do that" is really not much to go on. Carlo 01:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no assertion of notability in the article. 3 recording artists without a sigificant release between them does not an notable record label make. Who are these people? Why are they notable? Deizio 02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Um, Young buck is one of the more popular modern gangsta rappers out there. I don't particularly like him, but HIGHLY notable: his singles have plenty of radio airtime ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough. Asked my 23 year old son as well and he indicated that he had heard of them.
Keep, I have no knowledge of anything about the music industry, but after hearing the above arguments, it seems its notable enough --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Young Buck is notable but that doesn't mean Cashville Records are. MLA 12:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. mikka (t) 21:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Right now I'm listening to a song called "Straight out of Ca$hville" released on Cashville records, by Young Buck, Ludacris, and the Game. If that's not notable (the 3 arguably hottest currently producing names in hip-hop) then I don't know what is. Young Buck is a rap star. Not just an average rapper, but a star. His label, therefore is also notable. Also, it's a derivative from G-Unit/Interscope Records, what anyone would consider a highly notable group. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cleanup and expand. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but fix accuracy to align with G-Unit / Interscope Records. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Alexa rank of web site is >600,000. WP:N [36] Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Nunnally

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was not provided, but probably had something to do with The Wrestling Voice (AfD discussion). Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:HOLE. -- Krash (Talk) 14:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per suspected nom.--Esprit15d 16:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete HOLE. CASE 05:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. McPhail 19:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --kingboyk 22:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stachecore

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very unnotable.[37] -- Krash (Talk) 14:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bollocks. Metalcore bands with moustaches? Is this possibly for real? Looks like the answer is no if you exclude wiki, mirrors and a few myspace entries: [38]. Fan1967 14:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-existent genre.--Isotope23 17:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and/or nonsense Eivind 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Daniel Case 16:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, someone's personal (and ridiculous) creation. Punkmorten 20:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per {{db-bio}}. -- Krash (Talk) 15:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris sauchak

Does not explain, why he is notable. Delete. --Tone 15:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. {{db-bio}}. -- Krash (Talk) 15:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate rock

No sources have been produced to indicate that this is a recognized genre. So far the article just seems to be based on the fact that some bands have dressed pirate-style at times, or otherwise used pirate themes. See talk page discussion, we have established no way of knowing who is or isn't in this "genre". Adam and the Ants are included since they dressed as pirates during one period, but the sources I've found describe them as "new wave" or "post punk", nothing says "pirate rock" or (worse yet) "piratecore". This may be an attempt to define a new genre rather than document a recognized one. Ned Wilbury 15:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verified and shown notable. -- Krash (Talk) 15:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought about nominating it myself.--Esprit15d 16:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article reads like a hoax MLA 16:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because it sounds so silly that it shouldn't exist, doesn't mean it doesn't. A look at some of the bands listed shows that there is such a thing. (take a look here) — TheKMan^talk 16:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a blog by a guy involved in some of the bands. I guess the question isn't whether some bands have called themselves "pirate rock" or a similiar name, but whether this is a genre recognized by independant sources. Bands may call themselves many things, but that doesn't make a genre, neccessarily. See Stout Irish Rock. Ned Wilbury 16:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's a self recognized genre that a number of notable bands consider themselves to be a part of (e.g., this isn't the 1-band genre that "Stout Irish Rock" is). If notable bands call themselves "pirate-rock", but no one you would consider an "independent source" does, it doesn't mean that the genre doesn't exist or lacks notability. — TheKMan^talk 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism for a non-existent sub-genre. If no "independent source" has labeled these bands as Pirate Rock then what they choose to consider and call themselves is irrelevant. If my band and 5 other bands decide to call our version of Zappa-inspired experimental/noise rock "Christian Inspirational Mood Music", that doesn't create a genre of that name referring to our style of music. When the music press picks up on it and starts classifying bands of a certain style with a certain name, that is when it becomes a genre. The bands exist, but the genre does not.--Isotope23 17:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But now wait a second. This isn't about random bands giving themselves a random name for whatever random type of music they are playing. These are notable bands, with members dressed as pirates, singing about pirates. If you're saying that this doesn't happen, or doesn't exist, well...try looking! — TheKMan^talk 18:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, WP:RS. -- Krash (Talk) 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2005/07/23/entertainment/cover/cov02.txt — TheKMan^talk 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said there were not band dressing as pirates, singing about pirating. It doesn't matter how notable they are... The issue here is that there is no evidence that the term "Pirate rock" has any general usage in relationship to a genre of music. I found a handful of uses of this term in relation to this style of music & many uses was self-referential. Most were printed in local college or entertainment newspapers. There is just no evidence provided at this time that this term has any general usage as a genre. Don't get me wrong... the world needs more pirates to stop global warming, I'm just not convinced of this genre. Provide sources from a major music media source that this term is used in relation to certain bands and I'll change my vote.--Isotope23 17:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds made up, and even if it's real, it's non-notable. JIP | Talk 21:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't made up. With all respect, have you read the above discussion? — TheKMan^talk 21:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, not all of it. I made my vote based on the article's contents. JIP | Talk 21:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough :-) — TheKMan^talk 21:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn unless some reliable sources are cited. dbtfz ^talk 21:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I dug around a bit and found a few mentions in college newspapers and subculture magazines: [39], [40], [41], [42], and Rolling Stone refers to an Aerosmith album in one line as being different from their usual pirate rock mettle: [43]. It's a stretch, but I think it makes it -- Samir ∙ T C 22:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Too many bands claim to be performing pirate rock for us to ignore the phenomenon. -- JJay 23:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bands listed don't all claim to play "pirate rock". Some of them don't even use the word "pirate" in describing themselves, from what I can see. Also, I don't see that they have anything in common musically, so I don't see it as a genre. I don't think we can turn a few references to pirates or "pirate rock" into a genre called "pirate rock" unless we can find references to it as a genre in reputable music press. I've looked at the sources provided and I still don't see that this is an identifiable genre. Ned Wilbury 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean then?: Portland's leading pirate rockers come clean.[44] Or why am I seeing articles with lists of pirate rock bands? [45]. Why did the Portland Tribune write a line like: "The finest all-ages pirate rock band anywhere" [46]. Based on the amount of hits, it is hard to deny that there is a groundswell of these pirate bands. Regarding the music, it seems based on the evidence that the genre is musically diverse, and relates more to costumes, songs and the pirate lifestyle. -- JJay 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, from the sources provided, I'm willing to believe that the bands Pirate Jenny and Captain Bogg and Salty have been described as "pirate rock". Neither one of them have AMG bios, so they don't appear to be major bands. Again, I still don't think we have enough to go on to assume this is a genre. We can't just say "Look, we've found a few bands with a common characteristic, therefore it's a genre." Ned Wilbury 14:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't matter what the bands call themselves, the fact is there are many bands dressing as pirates and playing pirate themed rock/punk music. Hence there is a new subgenre, best described as pirate rock. If deleted, this article will just need to be remade in a few months when the mainstream media starts taking an interest. Buttle 01:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New subgenre?? Have you seen Johnny Kidd and the Pirates? Those guys date back to the 50's, according to their article. 50 years later, pirate rock still doesn't look like it's a recognized genre. We're not supposed to come up with new ideas, we only report on what our sources have already said. Ned Wilbury 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WarpstarRider 01:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is unacceptable. I'm in a Pirate-Core band, and a pretty darn fine one, too. I know this makes me EXTREMELY unbiased about this, But we've been written up in Metal Rules magazing and CMJ, both articles citing we play Pirate-Core. I'll scan the articles and post them for verification.

I've been keeping tracks on the genre since all other bands in it are my peers. As long as there has been punk bands there have been punk bands dressing up as Pirates. The Hard-Core scene is literally littered with Pirate Acts. Then there are pub-rock pirate bands and more kid friendly/Ren Faire pirate acts. There are scenes going on In Washington, Baltimore, Alabama, New York and Texas. You cannot delete this entry. As someone else stated, it will just need to be put back up once one of these bands breaks big.I understand Isotope23's statement that a self given genre lable lacks the legitimacy of the title being bestowed by the press, however if this is such a problem then the article simply needs to be re-named, not deleted.Unkiedev 7:39 EST March 11, 2006

Delete unless reliable sources cited. Stifle 01:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a real genre, as has been referenced above, even if it does not have many mainstream media refereces. Many bands such as RU-36 consider themselves "pirate core" or pirate rock.Weezle 08:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how "real" something is, if it's unverifiable. Unverified content can be removed by any editor who objects to it at any time. It's not clear to me whether "pirate rock" and "piratecore" are even meant to be the same thing. Ned Wilbury 15:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notposting

Article consists of a made-up word and definition. Only 346 google hits [47], most of which seem to be mistypings of "not posting". F a ng Aili 15:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdef at best. But more likely a protologism. -- Krash (Talk) 15:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ryanjunk 15:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Krash. It appears to be a protologism, and a dictionary definition at best. — TheKMan^talk 15:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edgar181 20:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave Markviii 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC) It's a commonly used term among a group of people I work with, and it's amusing how you can quantify it as a 'protologism', which barely outranks it with a paltry 549 hits. Seems to me that word is of the same ilk, yet it's OK for Wiki to allow their own fabricated words, but not anyone else. I guess the old saying is true, "Rules are for everyone...else".[reply]
- Do you mean the Wikipedia slang we sometimes use in debates like this? That is different, because this is the "discussion" section of Wikipedia, as can be seen from the Wikipedia: part in the title. Over at main article space, we do not use slang, neologisms, or made up words. JIP | Talk 21:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism / protoneologism. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely non-notable neologism, and I see very little actual use for it. JIP | Talk 21:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this NeoloCruft. JIP is spot on with his comment, recommend Markviii takes it on board. Deizio 02:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he is comparing it to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protologism . --Devilinblack 04:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Lyon

Contested {{prod}}, bringing here for consensus. Was a straight lift of the imdb's biography when I found it. RobertG ♬ talk 15:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable director and writer. Looks fine with the copy/paste IMDB biography removed. — TheKMan^talk 15:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep per IMDB. Monicasdude 16:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAdbarnhart 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in absence of cause for deletion. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Music of Oklahoma. JIP | Talk 07:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oklahoma musicians

The contents of this page are included in the Music of Oklahoma article. --buck 15:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect there. --Tone 15:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Music of Oklahoma (redirects are cheap). If the section in Music of Oklahoma ever gets too long, just move the information back to the list, and replace the content with a {{main|List of Oklahoma musicians}}. — TheKMan^talk 16:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Music of Oklahoma. If only everything in the world were as cheap as redirects... E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:55Z
I dont get it. "If the section in Music of Oklahoma gets too long, just move the information back to the list". I got a better idea. Keep it and save yourself the trouble! Jcuk 22:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the redirect. --buck 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Sent to WP:CP. Stifle 01:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The uncanny

Delete. Reproduces a primary source (Freud, 'Das Unheimliche'). Not a candidate for Wikisource since it is incomplete - stops about half-way through. Does not respect paragraph divisions and does not reproduce Freud's footnotes. Possible copyright violation as well, which I have tagged separately Oliverkroll 15:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an unencyclopedic copy/paste of "Das Unheimliche" from here, and according to the nominator it is incomplete. Assuming Freud's works are not public domain, an essay published in 1925 would still be copyrighted. — TheKMan^talk 16:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things That Don't Exist

Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 15:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self referential article about website that is not notable (website is off the bottom of the Alexa rankings, and I don't think the award from Dinosaur Comics for "best idea ever" qualifies as "a well known and independent award" - and anyway no proof of this award is offered as required by web notability guideline). --RobertG ♬ talk 15:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the needless self-reference, but it still does not meet WP:WEB, and has no Alexa ranking. — TheKMan^talk 16:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very very unremarkable. Unimportant vanity advert. -- Krash (Talk) 17:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable website. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Confusing Manifestation 01:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Dinosaur Comics is great and all, but a website tangentially associated with it is still non-notable. -- Mithent 01:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep moink 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Boghossian

Did't see any remarkable credentials beyond what thousands of other philosophy professor might have. Esprit15d 16:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Despite warnings, and though I invited him to comment here at the discussion, the author has removed the afd template twice. I haven't added it back in order to avoid a revert war. Not helping his crediblity.--Esprit15d 16:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is on the Philosophy WikiProject task list. Lambiam 16:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer (from the apparently less-than-credible initiator of the article in question): I apologise for not catching on immediately that you had created a separate discussion page on this issue. Anyway: Your objection is not a sound one. Boghossian is one of the leading contemporary philosophers in his fields of interest, and has a natural place in any serious catalogue of contemporary philosophers. I hope that you will consult a member of the philosophy project, before you consider similar action against philosophy-related articles and stubs in the future. While the maintenance work of "recent changes patrollers" are important, they should not interrupt the work of the projects concerned with making wikipedia a leading source of knowledge. --Thorsen 16:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please leave the AfD template on the article until the discussion is closed (usually about 5 days). You can continue to work to improve the article during that time.Thatcher131 17:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exasperated comment Not every editor can create a perfect article full grown on the first edit like Athena from the head of Zeus. While users should probably be encouraged to use their user space to polish their articles before going live, it is really beneficial to send an article to AfD 2 minutes after it was created? Thatcher131 17:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query in light of the comments: I have created numerous stubs on philosophers and social scientists in the past. Why have I not been met with this kind of hostility from recent changes patrollers on these other occasions? Is the adding of these deletion-thingies entirely without plan or purpose? --Thorsen 17:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly tip: If this is a reflection of a new policy, then someone should add similar deletion-comments to all the articles in the Philosopher stubs-category (500+ articles). --Thorsen 17:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His being at NYU should be sufficient to indicate his importance, but since you seem to think it isn't, he is an extremely well known philosopher of epistemology, and information about him is extremely useful to persons determining which graduate schools at which one should apply for admission. He by far exceeds the "basic professor" test, and an entry on him is certainly more important than having an extensive entry on every episode of South Park. KSchutte 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, c'mon, he has a stub in Portugese for God's sake. Stub articles are rarely (if ever) vanity pages. KSchutte 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. Naturally. --Thorsen 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC) (changed: --Thorsen 11:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Weak Keep - has two published books. That should be good enough for an article. -- infinity0 18:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KSchutte. Monicasdude 20:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's on the Philosophy WikiProject task list, I'd assume there's some reasonable standard of notability met there. Maybe some more information on his notability, writings, or philosophies might help. --E lkman - ^(talk) 20:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Surely it would be great to have a longer article. Unfortunately, it's being put for an AfD request on the very day it was created, so there hasn't been much time for expansion. AfD ought to be only a complaint about article inclusion, not article content. KSchutte 20:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article inclusion is dependent on article content. An article shouldn't be posted until it is sufficiently detailed and sourced to prove its subject's significance independently. That said, keep per E lkman. Sliggy 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as somewhat notable within a non-trivial field. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep no idea why this is here. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Galenet lists him on its Directory of American Scholars. Academic Search Premier comes up with 13 articles mentioning him and Infotrack comes up with 9 mentions. Seems that he is verifiable and he meets our notability requirements. Capitalistroadster 22:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would it be appropriate for any of those sources to be included in the article itself, to help demonstrate the verifiability and notability conclusions? Sliggy 22:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — a well-known philosopher who clearly meets normal criteria for notability. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough Eivind 23:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but could use some expansion. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:58Z
STRONG KEEP Paul Boghossian's contributions to philosophy of language (particularly his attempts to revive the idea of an analytic-synthetic distinction and his criticims of semantic holism) are considered important enough to have allowed his inclusion in a fundamental anthology on the philosophy of language in Italian. Your ignorance of philosophy does not come close to justifying his exclusion from an Encylopedia which covers such absolute nonsense as all the episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and erroneously classifies Ayn Rant (no, that's not a typo) as an epistemologist.--Lacatosias 08:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will expand it with this info when I get the time, but I'm already killing myself trying to salvage the whole philosophy of mind section, creating four queues for the philosophy portal, and correcting errors in any philosophy-related articles that I have come across in the last few day. Not that anyone notices. Leave the article as it is, for now.--Lacatosias 17:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice, buddy. You're doing a great job. KSchutte 19:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you K. It can get extremely exasperating around here sometimes.--Lacatosias 09:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and slap Espirit with a trout for tagging the article before it's been in existence longer than two minutes. Night Gyr 15:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His article Analyticity Reconsidered is of some interest. Mauro Murzi 0:03, 12 March 2006 (TMEC)

Keep Lucidish 16:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gspace Extension for Firefox

Advertisement, notability as per the proposed standard WP:SOFTWARE is not evident, WP:NOT a directory of all Firefox extensions. Sandstein 16:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eivind 19:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, codecruft. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every source file getting mentioned on Wikipedia? Maybe complete source code could be stored here and WP would replace CVS. Pavel Vozenilek 23:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Firefox extensions. A number of which have their own page. --Midnighttonight 00:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swingers Date Club

In the first place, this article is just a dump from the trademark office showing this is a registered trademark, with a link to the site. In the second place, won't survive WP:WEB even after cleanup. Web site claims biggest online dating site for swingers, 280,000 google hits, but with porn, who knows how many are from ads, linkfarms, and the like, so un-WP:V. No independent media coverage per Lexis/Nexis. I would speedy as advert, but was deprodded in less than 30 minutes so we have to do this the hard way. (forgot to sign, Thatcher131 02:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Crap article, advert, delete. Fourohfour 16:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:VSCA. -- Krash (Talk) 16:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad, vanity, wp:web. Many of the GHits probably refer to a swingers date club, but not necessarily this one. Fan1967 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 R3m0t as G7. -- JLaTondre 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boricuapixels

Advertising, non-notable website. Prod was removed, so this is evidently contested, thus the AfD. Ryanjunk 16:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not advertising, boricuapixels.com is the first and currently only pixel page dedicated to the future of Puerto Rico. Four non-profit organizations get funded with proceeds from the site and it has been published about it constantly during its pre-launch only 10 days ago. Several Puerto Rican celebrities support the case of the project and tens of thousands of users have already visited the site and keep on coming back.

This is internet history in Puerto Rico, not advertising. Ny1109 16:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the site is notable and famous here on the island. Calling it part of internet history is true. 196.32.130.122 16:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable.[48]. WP:VSCA. -- Krash (Talk) 16:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the site is ten days old... read the local press here. Ny1109 17:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the Wikipedia guidelines: advertisements masquerading as articles, and wide-scale external link spamming. Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. The article does not use any sales oriented language and is not linking to a commercial site. The site supports non-profits with their work in Puerto Rico. And the article is meant to document that. As the current coverage in the press in Puerto Rico shows, this is already part of history, which then has a right to be shown in Wikipedia.

Or, as the guideline says, "A differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities, however." The site is only commercial in the sense of that something can be paid for on the site (the pixels), but the proceeds are used for non-profit organizations. Ny1109 17:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Importance. -- Krash (Talk) 17:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

both not guidelines. Who has the right and authority to say if an article is important? This is not a valid basis for evaluation. Importance is not an easy to measure criteria. Similar for notability. The media in Puerto Rico, where the site is based and from where people will want to look something up about it, is covering it, showing both importance and notability. In addition to that, the quality of celebrities supporting the project (being published in the coming days), adds to the fact that it is purely writing internet history for the island. Never has something like this be done before, it is the largest private (non-governmental) fund-raising initiative ever. Ny1109 17:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not guidelines. But both generally reflect the way editors think when it comes to deciding what should be kept or what should be deleted. If you wish to continue this discussion with me, please provide some references (preferably plural, however at this point even a single source would give your argument some weight) that support your statement that "the media...is covering it". Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Krash (Talk) 17:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to pixel advertising. Being located in Puerto Rico does not make this Million Dollar Homepage-clone notable. - Rynne 17:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Non-notable web site. Zero ghits, just started, does not pass WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a web directory or a vehicle for advertising. Weregerbil 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you know what: just delete it. The way the so called editors think is probably the reason why they are "editors" of a free encyclopedia rather than a real one. Bye. Ny1109 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, author requests deletion (CSD G7). Weregerbil 17:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ny1109: Wikipedia does have rules about verifiability and notability on the subjects of articles. Perhaps you can list your web site somewhere more suitable; surely there are web directories that welcome links? If your web site becomes famous then it is most certainly welcome on Wikipedia! Weregerbil 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the original {{prod}}der, this is a non-notable million dollar homepage copy. (aeropagitica) 18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as pointed out before, this is the first and largest of its kind project in Puerto Rico and this alone should already qualify, given the appeareance in the media. But simply delete it. Ny1109 20:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Does author conceding at AfD qualify for CSD G7? -- Krash (Talk) 21:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ny1109: please, you are giving us mixed signals here. You claim media coverage but don't provide evidence of it. And you repeat requests to delete this article. Now what is it? Please discuss the matter, acting like a victim or a martyr does not accomplish anything. Give us a verifiable claim to notability per Wikipedia policy and the article gets kept in a hurry! We are not your enemies, we are trying to provide good information in accordance to Wikipedia policy. Weregerbil 21:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Rock Radio

Delete. Contested {{prod}}. Non-notable web radio. Vanity. No reliable sources found. -- Krash (Talk) 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found. I googled and only turned up a bunch of myspace pages. Alexa for the website is over 4 million. I can't find anything to suggest this is anything other than a vanity page (check out the creator) for a run of the mill website. Ned Wilbury 17:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't appear notable. Unknown how to verify listener rates. RJFJR 17:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Yamaoka

This page should be deleted because Kristi Yamaoka is non-notable except for her accident, which has basically given her 15 minutes (or maybe 3 days) of fame. To expand on that, the result of this accident (which seems to be the barometer of notability) was a ban or certain routines for one women's tournament in one division (which was over the same day of the accident or a few days later once the Salukis won the title to go to the NCAA tournament (from the MVC website). Furthermore, the ban recommendation already looks like it will not pass, even according to the articles that stated the recommendation in the first place. Lastly, the only things we know biographically about Kristi Yamaoka are her height, weight, and high school she graduated from. MSJapan 17:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:HOLE. -- Krash (Talk) 17:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOLE is not a policy or guideline. The article passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) which IS a guideline. Even were WP:HOLE a guideline, it states that we should " establish the significance of your biographical subject with verifiable citations from reliable sources". The article is well sourced, as suggested by WP:HOLE. --Durin 17:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly neither. But it certainly reflects my feelings towards the article. Minutely notable but not important. -- Krash (Talk) 18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you've cited two more essays in addition to WP:HOLE. Those essays are not policy or guidelines either. WP:BIO is, and this article passes that. The information on the article is verifiable, comes from reliable sources (major news media), and can be presented in a neutral point of view. --Durin 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my opinion that being in the news does not immediately make someone a notable encyclopedic topic. Why can't you accept that. You don't have to like it. Just accept it. -- Krash (Talk) 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept it because it is not Wikipedia policy. It is your opinion. I accept your opinion as being yours, and you are certainly welcome to it. It is not, however, policy. --Durin 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:N: "The subjective nature of notability is merely an issue of defining a guideline for it. When people mislabel an article as "non-notable", they can easily be convinced/outweighed by more knowledgable editors. AfD is a discussion, after all." If you truly believe this is a notable topic then you have nothing to worry about. -- Krash (Talk) 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which of course does not preclude me from commenting on why this article should not be deleted. --Durin 18:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... 14:57, 14:58, 14:59, DING. Fifteen minutes are up. Non-notable. Fan1967 17:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of people with considerably less fame have articles on them in Wikipedia. In Yamaoka's case, shes' been the subject of media attention from a broad range of major media outlets, including ABC, NBC, ESPN, CNN and hundreds more. She received a call from President Bush and also appeared on The Today Show. It isn't just the accident that made her famous, it's her actions afterwards that made her famous. The ban that you note may be overturned is in effect for the NCAA tournament, not just the MVC women's tourney (which is not over, it's still going on). Try searching for "Kristi Yamaoka" at http://news.google.com/. This generates more than 500 news article hits. Wikipedia:Notability (people) specifically states as a test for inclusion in Wikipedia, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Having nationwide news attention, getting on The Today Show, getting a call from the President, etc., well exceeds that criteria. --Durin 17:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It fails every other test, though, and "notoriety" and "flash in the pan" are different things. Notoriety is Paris Hilton, not Paris, Michigan. MSJapan 17:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if the article fails every other test. It is a valid test and it clearly passes; you grant that yourself. It passes. By your criteria which is (paraphrasing) "Delete any biographies that fail all but one of the criteria at WP:BIO#People_still_alive", we should then delete articles on a huge number of sports figures, since most of them would fail all the other criteria except for being sports figures. If you feel that failing all but the one criteria which you agree she passes is sufficient to delete the article, you're going to need to come up with better rationale for the deletion. Otherwise, you stand in disagreement with Wikipedia guidelines without justification. --Durin 17:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then: Would you have created an article on her prior to March 7, 2006? I also recreated your news search, and it occurs to me that in a few weeks, there will likely be nothing available for news on her. You're basing your claim of notability on a current event, and once the event is over, said individual(s) involved are no longer notable. More importantly, what do you see being added to this article that will make Kristi notable as a person, and how is this any different from John Smith who fell off his roof and hurt himself? Because there was a camera around? I think I'm more than justified, and at this point, it's no longer up to you or me, as we've already voted. MSJapan 18:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider eventualism. A vast, vast majority of the people on whom we have biographies are not going to be anything more than obscure footnotes in history 100 years from now. Yet, we have biographies on them. For example, a substantial number of NFL players are completely unremarkable except for the fact that they are NFL players. They've barely even made it into the spotlight, most haven't had any news articles focusing on them, and certainly many of them have never appeared as the subject of a major media story. In applying your criteria, it's useful as a check to apply such criteria against other articles of similar type. Your criteria does not work; we'd have to delete a very broad range of articles if your justification is valid. The subject of the article is already notable for having been in major news media all over the country. It's unlikely she'll be famous for any other reason, but that does not disqualify the article. This is dramatically different than John Smith having fallen off the roof because of the news media attention that it drew. The news media thought it was important enough to warrant attention. The Today Show thought it was important enough to fly her, a friend, and her doctor to New York City to appear on the show. The president thought she was important enough to spend time calling her. Lastly, AfD is NOT about voting. It's a concensus building mechanism. Discussion is certainly relevant and useful. --Durin 18:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Consider eventualism as a reason not to keep. By the time this AfD is decided, a week from now, she will be mostly forgotten. The guy shot by Dick Cheney will be more remembered than this girl even a month from now. Fan1967 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on Harry Whittington, the person Cheney shot. Not a terribly good analogy :) If we should use a criteria like "eventually, nobody will remember this person" then we should set about deleting tens of thousands of biographies of people that easily fit within this (very subjective) criteria. --Durin 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually we will all be worm food and will be forgotten, so the question is not whether this person will be forgotten eventually. The question is whether they'll be forgotten next month. Fan1967 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Show me the policy or guideline that specifies this as a deletion criteria? --Durin 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the very concept of notability imply that people will remember you a month from now? On the other hand, there's an easy solution here. We can Keep for now, and if someone Prod's or AfD's the article on April 15, see if anyone contests it. Fan1967 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same arguments would apply. You've still not cited a deletion criteria that shows that an article can be deleted if the person will be forgotten in a month. "Being forgotten" is highly subjective. Certainly a month from now the American Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Administrators is going to remember the subject of this article in their April meetings regarding bans on various types of cheerleading stunts. Notability is a frequently contested deletion criteria. The very discussion we're having here is a microcasm of that far larger debate. That's why it's important to rely on verifiable sources, getting material from reliable sources and presenting the article in a neutral point of view, all of which this article does (and all of those are policies). --Durin 19:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if this article is AFD'ed in a month or two, and in fact, at that time, she has been forgotten, I think that would meet the definition of "not notable". Fan1967 19:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have commented such before. You still haven't cited a Wikipedia policy or guideline which states this. THAT needs to be the criteria for deletion; not people's opinions on whether she'll be notable in a month or not. --Durin 19:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we have this discussion in a month, it won't be about whether she will be forgotten. It will be about whether she has been forgotten. Fan1967 19:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...which has no relevance on whether the article should be deleted or not. Show me the policy that says we should delete articles on people which might be forgotten in a month. Your opinion isn't policy. My opinion is that we shouldn't have individual articles on pokemon characters like Wally (Pokémon) and Will (Pokémon), but my opinion isn't policy. My opinion doesn't affect my voting on whether something should be deleted or not. Policy and guidelines do. I've cited WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V; all of these are policies or guidelines, and this article passes all of those. Opposite to these, no policies or guidelines have been cited, only essays. Show me the policy that says we should delete this, and there's a pretty good chance I'll join you in voting to delete this article. So far, nobody has provided one shred of policy or guideline that says we should delete it. --Durin 19:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about deleting someone who might be forgotten. I'm talking about someone who has been forgotten. Fan1967 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're referring to WP:BIO#People_still_alive, yes? If so, the article passes. Can you cite some other policy or guideline that tells us we should delete this article? --Durin 19:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what it looks like you did is notice that this article fails every standard test, and then use Google. Google hits are an alternative test, but the hits need to be "distinguishable hits" - this means that the 500+ hits you got that are all on the same story don't have the weight of 500 distinct hits. Therefore, the article also fails that test, and does not meet any of the notability requirements at all, as originally stated. MSJapan 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is the right margin. You're squishing me.

partial re-indentingWP:BIO#People_still_alive says "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". If her appearance on CNN, ESPN, ABC, NBC, etc..etc...etc.. doesn't qualify her participation as the center of a newsworthy event, I dare say I fail to understand what your qualification under this test would be. --Durin 16:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about this: try your search on Google News again, and take note of the fact that there hasn't been an article on her in three days. That means that from March 6-8, there were a ton of articles with mostly the same information, and from March 8-10, nobody cared anymore. What I am trying to illustrate is that this is only newsworthy because it is sensational, not because it is notable. We know nothing about Kristi aside from the accident (which is what 90% of her "biographical" article is about, BTW, which makes it not a bio stub at all), which shows that she is only notable because of the accident, not in addition to it. The only reason it's a big thing is because somebody had a camera on her at the time and sold the footage. The benchmark for notability has to be more than a week. Also, think about this: if she's so injured, how did she get on five networks in three days, and how is she going to try out for the squad again in six weeks? So, in the grand scheme of things, is she really notable? As far as i can tell, she's had three days of coverage, and now no one cares, so she's not notable. This is why, also, WP doesn't tend to do current events - there is far too much bias wrt five minutes of media exposure. MSJapan 16:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opionion, but Wikipedia policy does not agree with your stance. Despite repeated requests to the people who want to delete this article to provide a basis in policy to delete, to date no policy citation has been provided which shows why this article should be deleted. --Durin 18:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave plenty of reasons why, and cited a number of policies, as have others. However, if you want to take your interpretation of WP:NN, for example (temporarily passing one of 15 tests and failing the rest still means the person is notable), as "clear indication of notability", of course you're not going to find "a basis in policy to delete" - you're just going to oppose deletion because the article passes 1% of the criteria, rather than allowing for deletion because it fails 99% of the rest of the criteria. Id like to know why you fell this need to get this given up - is it so you can win a little victory for now, even though it can simply be re-AfDed in a week when it is absolutely clear (as if it wasn't now) that she isn't notable? If so, you're violating WP:POINT. I'm really not going to comment on this any further, because I have a feeling that your intent after this will be to show that since it caused such a "huge debate" on AfD, she's clearly notable. MSJapan 18:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that further commenting would not help, since you're now attributing emotions and thoughts to me that I never voiced. Hopefully we can agree to disagree. You think it should be deleted. I think it should be kept. Happy? --Durin 19:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep let's just wait a few months, passes notability for now Eivind 20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be combative here, but if it passes notability now, it passes always. There is no aging specification for notability. As noted above, if that were the case we should be deleting thousands of biographies. --Durin 20:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should be. Some notability is lasting, some quite ephemeral. Fan1967 20:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Notable now" is not the same thing as "notable for all time". A good example is sportspeople. A current player who has played a handful of games is more notable than a guy who played a handful of games 50 years ago. Reyk 23:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is notable. — TheKMan^talk 20:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as plausibly notable. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKsprayDad 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep agreed, this person is a least sort of notable, meriting that this article be kept. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lots of people have accidents, I don't one of them getting a few TV appearances necessarily makes her notable. Gazpacho 22:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Errr, Keep I guess. Not really very worthwhile but the article is pretty good, so since Wikipedia is not paper I don't see the harm in keeping her.Herostratus 02:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The piece is newsworthy (for now) but Wikipedia isn't the 6:00 news.Montco 03:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Newsworthy, but not encyclopedia-worthy in the slightest. The fifteen minutes ended last week. Stifle 01:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly unusual case that deserves inclusion here. Also think if we delete this we should also delete the really vile nonsense like wp:hole. -- JJay 02:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 9 September 2008 (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 moink 01:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mkmuzika

Creator removed prod tag, so I moved this to afd - clearly non-notable website, possibly advertisement. --O bli (Talk)^? 17:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising. New & non-notable. Slowmover 18:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Edgar181 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete no useful content. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Pavel Vozenilek 23:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Niffweed17. Stifle 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep moink 01:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¡Forward, Russia!

Not notable, self publicity Mediawhizz 17:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appologies. I created this page. I meant to come back and put a lot more work into it. However, i've been swamped at uni. I have abosolutly no affiliation with Forward Russia. I am a fan, and i saw that their name had been added to the 'Leeds' page, so i thought i'd help out and add an a page on the Band. I didn't realise that anyone would actually view the page!
Comment This was listed incorrectly, I have fixed it to avoid confusion. --W.marsh 17:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not believe it should be deleted however it should be re-written.

--Luke C 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - they have had a UK Top 40 single, which was also NME single of the week. [49] The article does need a complete rewrite to take it out of the first-person, though. — sjorford (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per sjorford. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite Eivind 23:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this seems like an advertisement, there are already over 132326382326 more bands that are listed in Wikipedia that have a much more richer history and past. A 2004 band isn't something that should be listed. Also, they don't seem to be well known anywhere, other than perhaps locally within the county. - XX55XX 23:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but mark with {{cleanup-rewrite}}. If they've had a UK Top 40 single, then I would have to say they meet required standards. Stifle 01:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is self-publicity. The band have had some regional success, but are not worthy of this kind of article. The Top 40 single is an irrelevance. These days, the number 1 single sells as few as 20,000 copies - to get in the Top 40 isn't actually difficult. Mediawhizz 16:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they are pretty well known, have had hit songs, are playing major festivals and also quite substantial venues. --Horses In The Sky 22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think they are well known enough to merit listing.Fullerov 22:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThey are a significant, ever-more popular band, central to one of the most vibrant scenes in the UK at the moment, and a major concern across the whole country. i honestly can't imagine why they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. i would suggest that anyone so desperate to have it removed must have personal illwill towards the band.Alcxxk
Keep, They are popular enough to be listed.
Keep, They have been widely covered in the media by numerous popular publications including q magazine and nme and drownedinsound. they are at the heart of the explosion of new music coming from leeds and are embarking on an nme tour aswell as major festivals.
Keep, Mediawhizz appears to have a worrying lack of knowledge regarding current music trends.
Keep, As has been mentioned, this page could benefit from extensive editing (removing the block quoting of reviews and bringing it in line with other entries for bands) but deleting the entry entirely is uncalled for. The band has a considerable and growing fanbase, and some unique artistic quirks which are worthy of attention. This page is very far from being the most frivolous or unnecessary on Wikipedia.

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

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

The result of the debate was keep moink 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Les incompetents

It makes no claim for significance according to the Wikipedia criteria (no album, no chart success, etc.). I tried to mark it for speedy deletion on those grounds, but User:Alkivar insists that mention of a single played on BBC radio constitutes a claim for significance. I disagree. Delete. Phronima 17:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep artist has verifiably played on BBC Radio 6. Currently has a single for sale on Amazon.co.uk. Has a video single on MTV2 Europe its been played on 120 Minutes, and Brand Spanking New (voting to put it in rotation is here). Had their current single played on The O.C. in February (have to find the episode). Rough Trade listed them in the top 50 singles of 2005 at #14 [50]. They pass WP:MUSIC ... but just barely. ALKIVAR™

18:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep' this please they are significant enough Yuckfoo 23:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per ALKIVAR Robdurbar 09:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom (Talk) 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Movement

Delete. More fiction from the vandalism account User:203.87.67.154. (This is apparently a shared IP, but check the contribution history.) There is a "Supreme Movement" associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no evidence of any other movement with this name. Unverifiable and/or non-notable and/or (almost certainly) a hoax. Slowmover 17:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nonsense murder-suicide religion. David Icke is a loon ~~but not that much of a loon~~. Weregerbil 18:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after reviewing David Icke he is that much of a loon. But still the religion can't be Icke's since there is no mention of blood drinking reptilians. Weregerbil 18:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RTX_-_Windows_Real-time_Extension

Text of page is copied directly from manufacturer marketing materials, a potential copyvio; the text that is there is essentially advertising, and useless. Cain 17:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE -- Reasons given above; there is nothing here even to make a stub. Cain 17:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edgar181 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tagged it as a possible copyvio. Eivind 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 21:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Already userfied, delete mainspace version at the request of the article creator. Kudos to him for keeping calm and welcome to Wikipedia. kingboyk 07:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro DePalma

Delete. This article is a companion article to Generations linux and looks simply like self-promotion. Note the user name and the company name are the same. See also the newly created article Generations linux. Rklawton 18:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verifiable, but meets delete criteria under WP:VANITY. Slowmover 18:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable as the creator of Generations linux but doesn't satisfy general notability requirements. At best, merge with Generations linux or userfy. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 18:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Try to remember to userfy pages like this . . . I have come across a lot of people who simply don't know where their user pages should go. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 19:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Understood; will userfy Softcraft 18:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the page has been userfied and the creator has voted to delete, can we maybe get a quick end to this arbitration? (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 03:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generations linux

Delete. This looks a lot like a product promotion from a non-noteable company. Note that even the creator name and company name are even the same. See also the newly created Mauro DePalma article. Rklawton 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verifiable and vanity. Delete as WP:VANITY. Slowmover 18:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this article goes, so should SLAX and Puppy Linux; I don't see why they merit a page and Generations doesn't. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 18:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seemingly has to be pointed out over and over that that argument is spurious. If those articles don't meet our guidelines for inclusion then nominate them for deletion too. --kingboyk 07:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my experience that spurious or not, some articles are favoured over others for no particular reason. How else is a new user to decide what to post if the rules are applied to some articles but not to others of the same type? (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 10:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do not byte newcomers. Sorry if the articles come accross as self-promoting or as vanity. I am a person, not a company! And Generations Linux is an Open source software Linux binary distribution. I would understand more the deletion of the personal page, which perhaps belongs as User:Softcraft? Thanks. Softcraft 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the deletion process is not automatic . . . if there is something unique about your distribution, you are free to continue editing it as the arbitration goes on. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there's clarification of some factor making this specific Linux flavor uniquely important and encyclopedic. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the wiki page(s) as time permits; just added a little bit more information. Provided the entry survives, it will become clear why this distribution rocks! Softcraft 23:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is watching. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With over 300 distributions out there, some reason why this distribution is notable is needed to justify the article. Asserting that it is a great distribution won't do it, take a look at the notability guidelines. If it was used in some other, more notable project, that might be an argument. If it was reviewed more than once in magazines with wide distributions, or was the subject of some publicity, that might be an argument. Failing that, I'd rather see the article Userify-ed than deleted, to allow for some time for that info to be developed. ++Lar: t/c 06:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Lar. --kingboyk 07:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be kept, *L*inux should be capitalised? --kingboyk 07:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I dont find anything wrong with the article... Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 19:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, I also see no reason to delete it. Give it some time, will ya? Snargle 02:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userify, as per Lar —vedant (talk • contribs) 09:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party■ 04:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALLALOM Music

Does not appear to be notable. Deb 18:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn Eivind 20:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seeing as just about anything associated with it is a redlink, it's probably good to conclude that this isn't a notable music company. Stifle 01:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Flower party■ 04:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Legenhausen

IS he that famous? I was going to speedy it, but decided not to. ^KILO-_LIMA 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — do his publications put him above the bar on the average professor test? It doesn't look like it, but I can't be sure. I'll take a pass. — RJH 18:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep don't think the average professor test is the best yardstick here and I certainly don't think it's a speedy. Maybe marginal, but he has some books , quite a few articles and an unusual history - an opportunity to act against systemic bias. Dlyons493 Talk 23:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e athphoenix ʕ 18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to pass notability standard as published author by significant margin. Monicasdude 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 01:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picon

Delete. Personal references. Wickethewok 18:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Place on wiktionary as professional term. Google search shows it's not non-notable but is unencyclopedic. --Mmx1 18:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I have rewritten the article to deal with Battlestar Galactica. 132.205.45.110 21:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kappa 11:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e athphoenix ʕ 18:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since rewritten Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and cleanup. this article is a mess, but its content is fine. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very minor. Build up the article within the main Battlestar Galactica article, then if it grows large enough it can spin off into its own article. Wiki shouldn't encourage trivia. SilkTork 01:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split, merge, disambiguate: Picture icon needs to merge into Instant messaging, and Picon (Battlestar Galactica) should merge to Twelve Colonies. Rework the page as disambiguation. Alba 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, split, clean up, needs to be split, and cleaned up. - XX55XX 23:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep moink 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Software

No notability according to WP:CORP established. A {{prod}} was contested by User:Monicasdude. --S.K. 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a computer business consultant, I have heard of them, and the Opera financial sofware package they sell. GHits = 485,000: [51]. Fan1967 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fan1967 as well as reported, clearly non-trivial, business user base. Monicasdude 21:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep no apparent problems. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable in some circles. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 05:00Z
Keep I used to work for Pegasus Software back in the 90's and need a reminder of the many hours spent slaving for this company for free! ianherring

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Does not fit in with The Sims 2. Anyone who can find a better place to merge, feel free to do so. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Challenge (The Sims 2)

It has never been fully merged with the Sims 2—neither was the redirect to avoid people reading it or re-creating it. But, anyway, the main reason is really because WP is not a how-to. Kilo-Lima ^{Vous pouvez parler} 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a how-to. Wikipedia is not Gamefaqs.com. Wikipedia is not for challenges for PC games you just make up one day. However, there is an interview by the Sims2 community on this. If evidence of more mainstream attention can be provided, I'll change my mind, but at this time, delete. -- Saberwyn 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I would be satisfied with a slight merge (a paragraph or two and an external link max) to the Sims 2 article, if consensus leans that way. -- Saberwyn 09:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)~~ Actually, no, I wouldn't, per Idont Havaname and others. -- Saberwyn 21:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Wiki note a gamefaq..agree KsprayDad 21:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete as unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ^ Eivind 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per the original VfD (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Legacy Challenge (The Sims 2); that was 5 votes to merge, 4 to keep). Melissa Della 22:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Legacy challenge concept is extremely popular. Check the [2 Website] and other popular Sims websites to see how many people are doing this. Even if they aren't following the rules the legacy concept of following many generations of Sims is very popular. That said, the topic does need to be cleaned up to more about what Legacies are as opposed to how to play one properly. --Ryuukuro 04:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
In light of the previous AfD, and in the interest of getting it right rather than just closing the AfD, I'm relisting to allow for a more clear consensus to be reached.W.marsh 01:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Melissa Della. Bobby1011 02:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP is not gamefaqs. If it's really that widespread among Sims 2 fans, a small mention in the main Sims 2 article is fine, but not the whole list of rules. BryanG 04:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Sims 2. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Sims 2. --Hyphen5 06:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hyphen5. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BryanG. Henrik 15:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crufty, crufty fancruft. It's also a how-to guide and original research for playing a game within a game. Brian G. Crawford 16:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been around since almost the release of Sims 2. Sould not be merged as the main page is already quite long. -- JJay 17:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT an instruction manual. Length of time an article has existed is irrelevant to deletion policy. Deizio 18:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above -- pm_shef 19:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above Midgley 02:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been playing The Sims 2 somewhat regularly since it came out and know the fansite community pretty well, but I've never seen the Legacy Challenge mentioned anywhere but on this website and the official Sims 2 website. This article just screams fancruft, or at least forumcruft. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Instead, place a link to the Official site[[52]] on The Sims 2 page. --Adam 07:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. this is not needed --Wardenusa 20:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, this isn't needed. 68.251.234.223 20:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Shanel 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Food & Wine Magazine

Purely an advertisement for the magazine, created by User:FoodWine. ~~Delete~~. Meh per Postdlf. I mean, keep the rewritten stub. F a ng Aili 19:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom, unless external evidence of its notability can be shown. Death to all advertisers. Postdlf 19:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. Postdlf 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's true that this article reads like an advertisement. But there certainly are magazines that are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, and I think F&W may be one them. Edgar181 20:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rewrite . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed the advertising and turned the article into a stub. No Guru 21:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically just a re direct...doesn't tell us abou the history of the magazine, famous articles, subscription base and contact info etc... KsprayDad 21:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. True but out of tiny stubs can mighty articles grow. No Guru 21:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub. -- Krash (Talk) 21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. no apparent problems. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems fine as stubs go... Localzuk ^(talk) 22:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. --Ton e 23:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per No guru Eivind 00:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stubby, but genuine (though I don't read it, preferring Gourmet and Saveur). --Calton | Talk 04:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris preston

Delete hoax. 0 google hits for "chris preston" + "brien taylor",[53]. 0 google hits for "chris preston" + "International Arbitration and Peace Association".[54] 1 unrelated google hit for "chris preston" + bocce.[55] I probably should have just speedy deleted this outright, but I think it's a little more plausible on its face than most hoaxes, so I wanted more input. Postdlf 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If not an outright hoax, certainly seems to fail on verifiability, unless someone can produce some. Fan1967 20:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PJM 21:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verifiably unverifiable per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 21:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 22:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a self-rub. SilkTork 01:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Know Talent

This article is well written, but ultimately half a hoax, half a non-notable band. I once lived in their hometown--a town of just 10,000 people, to be sure, so being the kings of the local ska scene is not exactly a staggering feat--and while I have heard of them, no one outside the city limits has. Any claims about making "real" albums, being reviewed in Rolling Stone, and dating celebrities are blatant canards. "Know Talent" ska Chappaqua garners a whopping 6 Google hits, most of them Wiki mirrors. The picture of the youth being "struck by a motor vehicle" or somesuch should tip you off that it's all a joke. StarryEyes 20:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. StarryEyes 20:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiably unnotable. Funny. But not notable. -- Krash (Talk) 21:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 22:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ballaholics

Delete. Seems to be a Vanity page with little broad interest KsprayDad 20:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable, unreferenced vanity. Hey look...they made shirts! -- Krash (Talk) 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia's in dire need of a lower cutoff notability criterion for athletes and athletic organizations. For my money, this one's a Delete. -ikkyu2 (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete only because unverifiable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and krash's comments Localzuk ^(talk) 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Eivind 00:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MI*SB

Comic not yet published, therefore not notable. Prod tag removed. File Éireann 20:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable comic. No Guru 20:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I first read the abbreviation as "Mint In Sealed Box". Am I a geek? Don't answer that. =) JIP | Talk 21:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Volume 1 is set to be released around December 2006. PJM 21:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not yet exist. Is not yet notable. -- Krash (Talk) 21:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kukini 17:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Above. Anshu 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete at any cost - The Graphic novel is currentlyin production, please read the storyline, i hope you'll find it entertaining. Volume 1 is set to be released on December 15th 2006, Mint is sealed box, hmm... well it stands for Military intelligence San Baeyeux. Please consider keeping it since images about to be added... Beatrix.knight 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds really cool! Cant wait until it comes out!. Dont delete!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.215.138 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 10 March 2006.
Delete per nom. Michigan user 18:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Google hits for the spelled-out version of the title. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — TKD::Talk 03:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom (Talk) 22:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Lubin

patent nonsense: non-existent person and circumstances Architeuthis 20:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A1. -- Krash (Talk) 21:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. Empress of the Novetskian Empire? Uh, OK. Fan1967 22:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 22:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete of course without prejudice against a redirect at this title. W.marsh 01:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Season 18

Article on a future Simpsons season. Whilst it has been confirmed that there will be an 18th season of the Simpsons the article consists of pure speculation as to what this season will contain. The only fact is that there will be a season 18, the rest is speculation and WP:NOT a crystal ball. We also don't have individual articles for any of the previous seasons, there's not much that could be added here which couldn't be added to a sentence on the main The Simpsons article. {{prod}} removed, so I'm listing here for discussion! _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. PJM 21:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, KsprayDad 21:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a crystal ball. Refer to it on the main Simpsons article page, if required at all. (aeropagitica) 21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all other comments. Localzuk ^(talk) 22:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Simpsons episodes. We already have this information (and more, and better) at List_of_The_Simpsons_episodes#Season_18:_2006-2007. Kusma (討論) 02:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice that, I would support redirecting _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Kusma. Sue Anne 06:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Serpo

Delete. Article based on two non-notable events: a radio talk-show discussion, and a thread in an internet forum. No reliable sources cited, and article contains OR material. --BillC 21:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Slowmover 21:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 23:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. With the right sources, Project Serpo would make for an interesting article. --Caponer 06:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 101,000 google hits for "Project Serpo". Alexa ranking for serpo.org of 107,548, which is higher than many websites. --Revolución hablar ver 18:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up. Currently mostly a mess, full of external links. Stifle 01:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the information can not be independently corroborated and is itself fantastic, the many proven conspiracies within US history still often surface through such discussion. jimmyshaft 01:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the information in an article cannot be independently corroborated, then it fails WP:V. BillC 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect. W.marsh 00:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EasyUbuntu

Not really notable enough. We don't have (and don't want) every single tool available in Ubuntu to have its own article. Also, it is a single line and there is not really any more information to list. Localzuk ^(talk) 22:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete KsprayDad 22:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ubuntu Linux. --Snargle 01:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge to Ubuntu Linux. Not really worth its own article, from what I can see. Stifle 01:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete per above. Herostratus 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leather Colin

Closer's notes
Many comments were discounted, including all of the anonymous users (including User:217.23.232.194, who claims to be the original author) and several very new accounts.

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

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Alleged "urban myth from Sunderland." However, he does not haunt Google, so delete this unverifiable specter. Sandstein 22:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per wp:v, almost certainly hoax. Have to give the author points for trying with "It is only a local myth, known only to inhabitants of Sunderland or visitors, so results will most likely not be found on internet search engines, etc." Fan1967 22:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 22:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. No relevant Google results for "leather colin" +sunderland. Cnwb 23:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about a subject that can't be researched via the Internet or libraries and whom the author claims is fictional. This appears to be an in-joke of sorts - {{hoax}} and unverifiable by author's own admission. (aeropagitica) 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hoax! Eivind 00:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable hoax Delete SailorfromNH 02:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this fantastic article. I myself am from Sunderland and know the legend of leather colin well. It is used by parents to scare children and i daresay it was once used on me. Just because this article is not on Google does not mean it is a hoax - what is the point of wikipedia if you can find it on google anyway. Keep Article jonnymeldrum 12:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not supposed to be a replacement for Google, but rather Google is used at a test for notability. If Leather Colin was a notable urban myth, then one would expect him to appear in Google results. Cnwb 22:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Weregerbil 15:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why wasnt this speedied? look at the photo, what is that on his head? --

Mmeinhart 00:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also don't we already have an article on the Spring Heeled Jack?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmeinhart (talk • contribs)

The legend of Leather Colin is real.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozzy (talk • contribs)

i herd this a while ago. leather collin is real, he stole my next door neigbours son, hoenest luv smiffy (btw DO NOT DELETE)

smiffy 4 leather collin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.57.234 (talk • contribs)

Comment This is very much a well known myth from Sunderland. There isn't many books or articles on the subject as it is an orally passed on myth, passed on to small children to scare them to sleep, much like the Boogeyman in america and the sandman and the toothfairy. — The preceding unsigned comment is the first and only edit of Britsquirrel (talk | contribs)
Do not delete After reading many people's comments that Leather Colin is known to them, I think that the article will be useful to some people, and therefore should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.232.194 (talk • contribs)

I remember colin. I once saw him as a child and thought it was bat man. My mam kept me away. Ensure this is kept up to warn the people of the north-east! Adam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.7.81.229 (talk • contribs) . — The preceding comment was added and falsely signed by 217.23.232.194 (talk | contribs)

I am the creator of this article, and I have to say I am shocked at the response of some people to the article. Believe it or not, but Leather Colin is a prominent Sunderland legend, I remember being told it as a child, and my parents were probably told it as children to. Any resident of Sunderland will verify the existence of the legend for you, even if evidence cannot be found on Google. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mozzy (talk • contribs) . — The preceding comment was added and falsely signed by 217.23.232.194 (talk | contribs)

this should not be removed from the site. i remember when i was only a child and just the thought of this leather clad pest would make me shiver, whenever i was threatened by him from my mother i would run straight to bed without supper — The preceding comment is the first edit of Staff06 (talk | contribs) whose only edits are to this AfC

everyone who is campaigning for this myth to be deleted must be either stupid or arrogant. they are not local yet they are claiming that he did not exist. how would they know — The preceding comment is the second edit of Staff06 (talk | contribs) whose only edits are to this AfC

Delete unless verified. Ardric47 01:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

leather colin is a true sunderland legend and this article shud not be deleted as it has kept mackem children in line and should be left as evidence for future reference. keep leather colin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean r (talk • contribs)

leather colin is a true legend and it has been passed down my family for many years and i dont think it would be fair to deny a true legend of his identity, save leather col !!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickya 90 (talk • contribs)

Leather Colin is a north east legend, although he is thought not to be real and only told to small children, with out as much detail OFCOURSE! He is well known around the area. He is so well known i have heard 'LEATHER' shouted by teenagers at numerous people whilsts wearing anything from a large leather jacket to a pair of leather gloves, and i remember doing it myself one day i must admit.

This page must not be deleted! It is the one thing that gets my children to go to bed at night!

Richard Capeling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.232.194 (talk • contribs)

I also do recall being told of the leather colin story. Although some pictures may not truely posess the real story, it is a urban myth which deserves a place on this website. My grandmother was first told this story in 1938 and recalls the moment she thought she saw him as a child. Someone looked in the house early in the morning at her bedroom. There was an article featuring pictures was also posted in the local free paper - "News of Sunderland" in 1945 which ended after losses of money. Leather Colin, or Colin of the leather, is a great myth which keeps children of all ages in line and with a little fear at bedtime. And I believe that there is to be a FLASH movie produced to show real events and reports about it soon. Hope this helps.

Daniel Westgarth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.232.194 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Could we close this already? The only Keep votes are from very new or anonymous users, and thus likely sockpuppets. Sandstein 14:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A conspiracy of ravens

While a very well written and good looking article, fails WP:Notability by miles. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 22:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No actual releases, but they have a myspace page and a podcast. Give them points for trying, but no, this band's not even on the radar for notability. Fan1967 22:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 23:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Music violation. Lack of singles/albums released and charted; non-notable members. Quite a few of the songs have yet to be recorded, let alone released on any medium. This article could have been tagged {{db-band}}. (aeropagitica) 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete kinda wish all vanity articles where this nice looking Eivind 00:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all above. Cool3 21:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party■ 02:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Eiber

The assertion of notability here is very minor. The subject appears to be a mid-level coordinator in a state department. The external link doesn't mention him either. Will Beback 22:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Apparently, his name has been on the List of famous Minnesotans for at least a couple months, and the page is cross-referenced as a Scouting stub. I'm not really sure how famous he is, but given that someone started the page based on a red link, I don't think there's an urgent need to delete the article just yet. In any case, more notable than Spanjo. --E lkman - ^(talk) 23:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The author of the bio is the same person who added the subject to the List of famous Minnesotans [56] The addition of many non-famous persons to that list has been disputed on the talk page of that article. So that is not a reliable gauge of the subject's notability, nor is a stub tag, which may be added to any short article. -Will Beback 00:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject hasn't even been in his job that long - according to this page, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Firewise Program Coordinator in March 2003 was someone by the name of Dave Schuller. John Broughton 00:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he does not meet WP:BIO. kotepho 06:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party■ 02:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional militray people in a futuristic setting

Unmanageably long list. Also, not a great title, even without the misspelling. FreplySpang (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 23:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Pavel's appraisal is spot on: succinct and accurate. This is listcruft of the cruftiest kind. Reyk 23:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pavel. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 23:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Left alone, this will grow unjustifiably large. If a fictional setting has one military character, it's likely to have at least several, if not dozens. Leave it to articles about the specific fictional universes, games, or films to list these. — TKD::Talk 12:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a list that is badly-defined, misspelled, potentially limitless, apparently set up just for the sake of having such a list, and of interest to a very limited number of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 01:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good, well-managed list and nom has given no valid reason for deletion. -- JJay 01:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Shanel 00:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Probe

Is this for real? Facts&moreFacts 23:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- Has a source, thus the project is verifiable, but I'm a little concerned that it's not much more than a dicdef and a bit crystal-ballish. Can definitely be expanded though. I'll do it myself when I have a bit more time. Reyk 23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep". NASA thinks it is for real. Thunk 23:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep". Seems the project will develop. --Ton e 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have added the official NASA project homepage to the article. It is hard to tell what stage the project has reached. It is feasable that budget cuts could curtail the probe and make this article stillborn. I think that it requires input from an expert in the field in order to produce a notable contribution. There is little need to include project proposals that have failed to lift off from the drawing board, let alone the launch pad. (aeropagitica) 23:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A suitable encyclopedia topic. It will get expanded. Edgar181 00:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - although I think someone got the wrong end of the stick. The probe will fly close to the Sun but not directly into the Sun. :) Green Giant 00:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's probably true. Facts&moreFacts 04:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand. StarTrek 04:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 05:01Z
Keep per above. SpaceHouse 21:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Georgewilliamherbert 00:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Shanel 00:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 Days

This appears to be another hoax for Tool's fourth coming album. (Like the two previous possible titles Teleincision and Aldaraia were a hoax.) Guess we should all have to wait until the band or any member like Maynard James Keenan confirms wether 10,000 Days is really the official title or not. Mike Garcia 23:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no hoax but weird I have a copy of this "album". i can say without a doubt this is either the worst tool album ive ever heard or a fake album. Considering what i have heard about maynard hating file sharing, this doesnt really surprise me. Its all very strange with no baselines and someone singing way too close to the mic and speaking over an acoustic guitar for most of it. the file has a tag of "Jack Maksuta - 4 Score And 20" on it, which at the present time of 19:00 (PST) march 13 2006, does not have any results in google. i am not a user of this site and only here to gather information. i refuse to believe a tool album would sound this bad. i was curious to hear it but this album gets deleted straight away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.88.174 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 13 March 2006
Delete wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball Eivind 00:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep as stub~~ (changed vote, see below) The title was confirmed on the band's official webpage: toolband.com, see news for 03 Mar 06. I think that's official enough to warrent keeping the page for a while; if the title changes, 10,000 Days can be redirected to the new title. Precedent can be taken from Bleedthrough, the title announced on Nine Inch Nails' official site for the album eventually named With Teeth. That being said, I think the page should be edited down to stub length, because a lot of the page is still unverifiable. - Rynne 00:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know that it was announced on their official website, but the title still sounds like a rumor to me. Mike Garcia 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I agree with your sentiment. Wikipedia policy's vague on using websites as a sole, primary source (WP:RS) when determining verifiability. To me, it's a judgement call, and I decided to err on the side of keeping for now. - Rynne 14:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep It has been confirmed by reputable magazines and the band's web sites. It may be false, but it is official for the moment and it's all we have to go on right now. Keep for certain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.55.164 (talk • contribs)
Keep, for now I think the page will evetually warrant good rumors about the album until the release date. The Experience 15:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though Tool likes to pull pranks and spread disinformation, all of the information is verifiable from a decent source (Tool's website). As of right now, this is the latest information that has been released, and setting aside Tool's past shenanigans, there's no reason to suspect that this information right now is faulty. Dylan 03:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The official site now gives a tracklist for the album 10,000 Days, which includes the song "10,000 Days." I think this is now certainly verifiable enough for inclusion. - Rynne 05:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really don't believe the album will actually be called 10,000 Days or that those will be the track names, but the album does exist and will be released (if not on May 2nd, then soon after) so the article is legitimate. 10,000 Days will have to do as the title for now, unless anybody wants it to be named "Fourth Album (Tool)" until the week the album comes out. The article may need to be moved to a new title later, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. -VJ 09:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See unsigned, six up. -- drange 19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same as VJ -- ×××jijin+machina | Chat Me!××× -- 21:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's confirmed..... hellboy 00:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per their website Maxamegalon2000 00:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without a doubt.. Rehevkor 03:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be real, and I can't wait. If it is official on toolband.com, then it should be official enough for wiki. DMighton 11:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T-Spoon Software

This is an advertisement. Wikipedia is no place for it. --Go for it! 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above. --Go for it! 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edgar181 00:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad for nn Eivind 00:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant advertising. AppleMacD 01:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bucketsofg 04:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement in its current form, and not notable enough to be rewritten as a real article. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Flower party■ 02:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PuLSEfm

Non-notable radio station. 634 Google hits. Delete? --Khoikhoi 23:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student radio station. Wikipedia has many articles on more obscure subjects. And since there is an article in Wikipedia on the LSESU briefly mentioning PuLSEfm, it's only reasonable that this entry be kept for anyone who wants to know more. --MASTOROU 00:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Not every college radio station gets those interviews. kotepho 06:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Apparently their website got some award, but that's all I found. Melchoir 06:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 14:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per above. Seems notable enough. Chairman S. ^Talk 08:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler's sexual orientation (second nomination)

Please see the results of this articles first nomination [57] for further details. I nominate this article for deletion on the grounds that it is an attack page. This article lacks valuable sources and was created by a member who has vandalised Wikipedia many times before. see Grazon for futher information on the articles creator. Delete --Mmeinhart 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral --Go for it! -- Too soon for another AfD --Go for it! 00:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyKeep. Too recently closed for another AfD to be even considered. Wait a little while, ~~duke~~ talk it out on the Talk page (it's what it's there for), and then decide from there. AfDs are supposed to be for housing and inciting debate, with the reccomendation being the outcome. If you feel it should be merged, discuss it! If there is still an issue, re-AfD it; this isn't the right place (this is). -Mys e kurity 00:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Wikipedia is not inherently an attack page, per AfD for that boy scout dude. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't delete, then merge with extreme prejudice. Is this all anyone could come up with? Hitler supposedly was impotent; we already have an article about that. He was possibly of Jewish descent... and these are supposed to indicate what, exactly? Gazpacho 03:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Rumors about Adolf Hitler's sexuality because that's what the content is. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 05:11Z

Merge with the biography only the verifiable facts. Otherwise, the "fact" that there exists a rumor deserves only one line. Rklawton 05:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main Adolf Hitler page - there is not much real content here... Localzuk ^(talk) 17:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Adolph Hitler not worthy of a seperate page. Ckessler 17:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable claims trying to get one media attention do not constitute serious encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek 14:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Merge to Adolf Hitler's medical health or Adolf Hitler. To be honest, it's mostly rumours, unverifiable, and original research. Stifle 01:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Previous AfD closed last week. Hence too soon to renom and particularly for the absurd reason given. This is a valid topic that is discussed by Hitler historians. Many of the ideas are drawn from Rosenbaum's book where much space is devoted to theories of Hitler's sexuality. Why that makes certain people uncomfortable to the point where they consider it an attack on Hitler is beyond my comprehension. -- JJay 02:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the biography only the verifiable facts which are uncontested by the historic community. Otherwise, the "fact" that there exists a rumor deserves only one line. Agathoclea 21:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable claims --MaNeMeBasat 07:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the moment, the article lacks verifiable sources. That would need to be fixed for the article to be kept or merged. Capitalistroadster 16:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. It's unverifyable gossip, attempted to be verified with further gossip. Articles about the sexual orientation of historic figures are not really encyclopedic, except maybe if that orientation was central to their identity as a historic figure, which it certainly isn't for Adolf Hitler. If a Delete is not possible, then a merge of maybe a sentence or two that could be salvaged into his biography mentioning that there has been speculation about his orientation. --Wingsandsword 17:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can find anything that passes the reliable source test and adds it to the article, then merge it. Otherwise, it should be deleted. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I want to delete per the first nom, especially if the content comes from other parts of wikipedia; however it just closed!!! Give it some time. We can't play nom an article till i get my way. Mike _{(T C)} 20:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with major cleanup. As is stated on the talk page if hitler's vegetarianism gets its own article, this shouldn't be merged. There have always been rumors about hitler's sexuality, so, if someone can come up with neutral, verifiable content, it definitely belongs on Wikipedia in its own article. Cool3 21:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup & merge I really don't think this deserves its own article, unless some major evidence on this topic suddenly appears. Chairman S. ^Talk 01:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. jafmuse 19:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMUltiple books have been written about this topic so it has a place here. grazon 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Unnverifiable pov fork. The topic is certainly borderline unencyclopedic, especially existing as its own article. If the content could be verified with reliable sources, I would suggest merging. This sets a very bad precedent for allowing every crackpot conspiracy bullshit to be treated with credulity. I'd like to think Wikipedia is better than this.-- Krash (Talk) 01:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Merging it into another article will make the article too long. Best kept as seperate article --161.74.11.24 16:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 |-
 ! width="50%" align="left"  | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 8|March 8]]
-! width="50%" align="right" | <!-- [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 10|March 10]] --> <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
+! width="50%" align="right" | [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 10|March 10]] <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
 |}
 </div>
-<div align = "center">'''[[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|Guide to deletion]]'''</div>
-{{Cent}}
 <small>{{purge|Purge server cache}}</small>
 == [[March 9]] ==
+<!-- This AFD day has concluded.  Please do not add new AFD transinclude pages here.  Put any new AFD transinclude pages on the appropriate day's page instead.  Thank you for your cooperation. -->
-<!-- New votes to the bottom, please. -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaczyzm (Second nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall of voodoo}}
@@ Line 140: / Line 139: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PuLSEfm}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler's sexual orientation (2nd Nomination)}}
+<!-- This AFD day has concluded.  Please do not add new AFD transinclude pages here.  Put any new AFD transinclude pages on the appropriate day's page instead.  Thank you for your cooperation. -->