Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 15: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Pal5017 (talk | contribs)
405 edits
No edit summary
Pal5017 (talk | contribs)
405 edits
No edit summary
Line 56: Line 56:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The moto guide}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The moto guide}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lunch Club}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lunch Club}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotherapy: a Personal Approach}}

Revision as of 06:59, 15 April 2006

< April 14 >

Purge server cache

April 15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phases of speech

The article is essentially a dictionary definition. Also, I have been unable to verify that the term is used in this way outsided of Wikipedia and the source listed. The results I found concerned speech development or the phases of speech technology. -- Kjkolb 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If nobody knows how to merge the article, the move it to author's userspace and leave a note inviting himer to put the material back in articlespace (either by merging or by making another article) with more detail and with some assertion of notability (such as a description of who uses the theory and how it's used). The Google hits do seem to be valid. Note in comment further down that author is on wikibreak til December 2007. Phr 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this appears to meet the cardinal tests of verifiability and neutrality, and is about a theory of speech which appears to be several decades old, i.e. is not original research. Not being a phoneticist, I don't know whether the theory is sufficiently widely accepted to belong here, but the fact that it is apparently referenced in online teaching materials from all over the world implies it may be. — Haeleth Talk 19:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep- Seems OK to me, if someone with expertise in this subject fleshes it out a bit. The El Reyko 21:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but let's relist in a month, maybe, if nothing else is added. I do believe that time should be given here. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notice that the person who seems to have originally entered the article, had not been notified about the AfD. I left a note on hiser talk page. Anyone starting AfD's should do this when appropriate. Phr 02:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author's user page says author is on Wikibreak til December 2007, so don't expect a response. Changed vote to "userfy or merge".
  • delete 2 months festering as a stub, this isn't adding anything of value to WP. It can always be recreated if an editor can deliver material of encyclopedic value. Pete.Hurd 01:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City of God (comic)

NN Webcomic found here, fails WP:WEB. Been online for little over 6 months, Alexa comes back with 2 million, forums (yahoo group) almost totally dead. No sign of notability. - Hahnchen 00:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was move to List of NickToons Network Shorts. Mailer Diablo 01:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons Shorts

This article is a list of Nicktoons Shorts. It was tagged as unencyclopedic and I have to agree. If it has to exist, it would be better off as a category. -- Kjkolb 00:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. JDoorjam Talk 22:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dougg Cheal

No evidence of notability given in the article, none apparent via Google. Seems like a vanity page to me. Uucp 00:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have to assume good faith that this is true. No, actually we don't -- though perhaps you have a different "we" in mind when you use that word. So unless you're suggesting that Wikipedia has dumped its basic standards of verifiability and citation, there is no "we" (assuming, of course, you are not royalty, a newspaper editor, or have a tapeworm). --Calton | Talk 16:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person is 20 years old. Are we to believe someone this young is both a psychologist and criminologist, especially with no sources listed? My good judgement says no, and the amateurish photo doesn't help much. This seems like a clear cut case of someone writing their own NN bio. VegaDark 08:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is my POV too, but it doesn't accord with:
===AfD etiquette===
*Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers ... assume good faith before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment.
*Notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article when nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised.
This appears to be a new editor Justin sane58and I feel there should have been dialogue in the first instance (especially as the editor has said it is not a vanity article), at least to ask for verification of the claims. There is no dialogue on the article discussion page and no warning on the user talk page (until I put something there). I feel this is lacking in communication and etiquette, when the edit appears to have been made in good faith, even if lack of knowledge of guidelines, which one must expect from a new editor. I feel they deserve a better level of interaction with the existing community, rather than a slap in the face the first time they have a go at editing. Tyrenius 11:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...when the edit appears to have been made in good faith Since this is an obvious attempt to use Wikipedia as a PR vehicle, I'd say, no, this isn't "good faith." --Calton | Talk 16:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mac GUI

non notable site. Alexa ranking of 1,012,378. Rory096(block) 00:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourfingers

Originally prodded as a non-notable card game, but was de-prodded by the chief contributor. I've never heard of it before, the only source is also non-notable, and it sounds like something a couple of kids thought up at lunchtime. Vote to delete. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael T. Burr

Non notable editor of two non notable redlink journals. Rory096(block) 00:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haru-Sari

Please see the first withdrawn nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haru-Sari, on the grounds it was a non notable webcomic. I pretty much agree with the nominator's original points on this one. The webcomic can be found here and the sub 100 member forums here. Alexa gives it back 3.5 million for those of you interested. - Hahnchen 00:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lights Out (Cocktail)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a cookbook. A transwiki to Wikibooks has already been performed at wikibooks:Transwiki:Lights Out (cocktail), and the author information recorded at wikibooks:Talk:Transwiki:Lights Out (cocktail). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topix.net

Not such a blatant {{prod}}, I thought. Why not throw this one into AfD to be sure?, I thought. No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 01:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete and BJAODN, hoax admitted by author, invoking WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre du'due

Delete I'm guessing this is a joke/hoax. At least, that's what "du'due" brings to mind... Etacar11 01:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I left a note in the creator's talk. "...self-proclaimed immigrants who had lived in Paris all their lives. Pierre spent most of his early youth as a doll," is funny as hell. TeKE 03:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoblogs

Was de-proded by author, who runs the website. 32 unique Ghits. See WP:WEB, WP:VAIN. Delete unless notability established. GTBacchus(talk) 01:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as a withdrawn nomination. bainer (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-denial

The content of this page is entirely arbitrary. It doesn't really have a reason to exist per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Everything described on it is covered in greater detail and accuracy on other pages. IMO it should be deleted and made into a disambiguation page that links to specific topics, similar to the self-interest page (which, apparently it was created in response to.) rehpotsirhc 01:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Important and encyclopedic concept, especially in religion. Needs expansion, not deletion. Look to asceticism for an example of how an article like this could be developed. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep encyclapedic , not sure I spelled that right though San Saba 02:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic article. Sheehan (Talk) 02:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will point out here that asceticism is a specific and well-defined concept with clear boundaries--it only means one thing. Self-denial can mean many different things. This is why it needs a disambiguation page and not a separate article with content that can only redundantly reproduce the content of some articles, and possibly exclude the content of others that might be related. We should note that Encarta and Britannica do not have separate articles on this subject, but rather use their equivalent of disambiguation to redirect to less nebulous topics. rehpotsirhc 02:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Making the article into a disambiguation page doesn't require deletion. You just change the text and slap a {{disambig}} on it. I'm not convinced that it should be a disambiguation page, though; "self-denial" seems to have a prima facie obvious meaning (denial of one's own interests), and what pages would it disambiguate? Regardless, if what you want to do is make it a disambiguation page, there's no need to take it through AfD. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I guess. I suppose I assumed that making an edit that would wipe out the entirety of someone else's content required an AfD. rehpotsirhc 03:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be Bold! TeKE 03:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ong

No evidence of credible information Theccy 01:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Gui's de Provence


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AG Films

nn filmmaking group. Maybe if they won the awards. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nepenthes rajah/B. H. Danser's Monograph: Nepenthes rajah

Subpage containing someone's monograph on the plant Nepenthes rajah. Copyright status uncertain (to me, anyway) - it's an old text, so maybe public domain? If it isn't a copyvio, I still think there's a better way to present this information than as a Wikipedia subpage. No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not encyclopedic. Actually it's just one section (#38) from a monograph of 51 sections, plus introduction and footnotes. The whole thing can be found here: [2]. Apparently Danser, back in the 1920's, was the world authority in cataloguing and describing varieties of Nepenthes. This particular page is a straight copy from here: [3]. Why paste it here instead of just providing a link to it? Author has put a note on the page that it does not belong on wikisource, but there's no explanation why not. This is extremely technical, and I can't imagine it being of interest, or even comprehensible, to anyone other than a botanist. Fan1967 03:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems all the information from the monograph has been incorporated into the main article in one form or another and a link to that webpage is in the "External links" section. In answer to your question, the reason it does not belong on Wikisource is due to its publication in 1928 and the fact that fair use texts are not accepted. NepGrower 07:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for original sources. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I had already proposed.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to ONE Family Fund. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 18:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kady Goldlist

Non-notable vanity page The article was already speedy deleted once and then recreated. While the young lady seems like a good person and one who will do great things in the year's to come, I don't see this being worth an article (as of this point in time) Alabamaboy 01:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to 69 sex position. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop culture references to the 69 sex position

Unencyclopedic listcruft. De-{{prod}}ed, so here we are. Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 01:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. JDoorjam Talk 04:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason M. Brown

Non-notable person. Clearly a vanity page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeccampbell (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takanjism

According to the article itself, this is a religion founded in 2006 with three known adherents. Two Google hits, both DeviantArt pages. I support their religious self-determination and wish them well, but... AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 01:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the article now will accomplish nothing. When there finally are several outside sources, all the work will be lost. Perhaps we can let this wait a month or two, and if you still think there's nothing supporting it, it can be deleted. Zack Green 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers: Thunder Strike

This is OBVIOUS fancruft and Wikipedia is no place for that! A BLATANT attempt at trying to pass this fanmade project off as something noteworthy! The One and Only 01:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Power rangers: Thunder Strike has also been nominated. Andy Saunders 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Danuta Laszcz

probable hoax, a Buddhist peace activist from Russia who lived at least 110 years, only google hits are to wikipedia. Thatcher131 01:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. San Saba 01:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect, rename, or keep all you like, but no consensus to delete the article. Further discussion at talkpage recommended. Mailer Diablo 15:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Space

This is a minor factoid that belongs in the already extensive Indian space program page. User:georgeccampbell


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Time Lovers

Delete, non-notable San Saba 02:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groovezilla

found while cleaning up dead-end pages. looks like a non-notable band, created by anonIP 6 months ago and never updated. But, what do I know about bands. Claims to have one album, allmusic shows an album cover on an otherwise blank page. Thatcher131 02:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infantil 0506

Article about a middle-school soccer team. Author blanked requesting "delete" but as there have been multiple editors, not a speedy candidate. Apparently non-notable.Thatcher131 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not-notable San Saba 03:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sex symbols

This page is just the opinions of the users editing it and cannot be verified in most cases. OrangutanCurse 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of objective criteria for inclusion. "A subjective list"? What? Wikipedia's an encyclopedia; it doesn't have a personal opinion on who is sexually attractive. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 03:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
? So try the lists of actors/singers etc - no reason to keep this. --Doc ask? 18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Federalist Revolutionary

No assertion of notability of verifiability. De{{prod}}ed by author, so here we are. Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 02:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Alternative (Internet Community)

Vanity article, request for review removed DonaldMick 02:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity article my ass. This is a very well known place. I don't think GGFan would give a damn if you posted about civil engineering on there. This is a well known Pokemon community and needs to stay.

The article is poorly written if English isn't your first language.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Morris

Delete non-notable fancruft. --Arnzy (Talk) 03:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands named after places

I proposise this article is deleted because it seems to fall under 'Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list).' from Wikipedia:appropriate topics for lists--Matt 02:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do a regular radio show which is thematic. A list of artists named after places is very useful for that. I can imagine that I'm not the only person who'd find the list useful for that sort of purpose. Grutness...wha? 04:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be better placed in the Fountains of Wayne article than a list? --Matt 02:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SP DELETE (sole contrib's request and no keep votes) . -Doc ask? 22:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands with repetitive names

I believe the list is too specific under Wikipedia:appropriate topics for lists Matt 03:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I hate this list, we don't need personal attacks --Doc ask? 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He started the list and is making fun of himself --Matt 22:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that wan't obvious. But even after he created this awful thing, I wouldn't like to call him a moron. :)--Doc ask? 22:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was just being silly. My "strong delete" is serious, though. (What was I thinking?) dbtfztalk 22:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep per rewrite. Kotepho 18:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Thomas

I think this may be a completely fictional person. None of his records, nor the book he is supposed to have written, are on amazon.com. The article says Tammy Wynette was his third wife, but he isn't mentioned on her Wikipedia page, which has a section for such things. None of the links on his page point to anything that actually mentions his name. I can't find any trace of this "greatest living country singer" anywhere. It should probably be a disambiguation page, since there ARE Ray Thomases who warrant a page (such as one of the founders of the Moody Blues). But that isn't this guy. I don't think this guy exists. Carlo 03:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hoax. It's a modified copy of George Jones. Pretty much all the details, including the dates, the wives, and even the title of his autobigraphy, are from Jones. It's almost word-for-word from the Jones article as it existed last October: [5]. - Fan1967 03:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning: DO NOT CLICK THE SITE LINK. It is a linkspace for ads; there is no real site. Just a money generator. SPEEDY. TeKE 03:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't catch that. My pop-up blocker stopped the pop-ups and I thought it was just a dead page. I've removed the link from the page. Fan1967 03:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with vengeance. --Saforrest 04:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. May I suggest deleting the text and turning the article into either a disambiguate page for the others, even though most don't have pages yet, or into a page for the stub for Ray Thomas (Moody Blues). Carlo 11:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or just make this article about Ray Thomas of the Moody Blues. I don't know of any other notable people by that name. The other DAB notices at the top of the page (the US Senators) are not real people. They're modified copies of the DAB notices that were on the George Jones page, as there were two senators by that name. Fan1967 15:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless someone knows of one besides the Moody Blues member there is only one. The senators don't exist. Nothing to DAB. A Google search for the name finds this article, a lot of entries for the musician, and a bunch of scattered others. There's a lawyer, a few academics, a bit actor in old westerns, a catcher who went 1-for-3 in one game for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1938 (his total major league career), an aspiring artist, etc. Nobody who looks notable. Fan1967 16:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, if nothing is ever written about the others, this can be replaced with an article about the Moody Blues guy. JIP | Talk 16:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel kind of sorry for the catcher. Reminds me of Moonlight Graham. You make it to the Brooklyn Dodgers, and get to play in just one game. Fan1967 16:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Is it okay to consider this one settled? Carlo 17:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Article is now a stub about the flautist (I prefer flutist, but that's an old argument) for the Moody Blues. Recommend Speedy Close. Hopefully, some music fan can flesh out the article. Fan1967 17:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. JDoorjam Talk 05:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Roaring 20's

Also Kevin Fey and Karl Fey and Mathew Petronelli. And the images.

An unsigned band with no albums. Does not seem notable. prod removed so it comes here. DJ Clayworth 03:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE nonsense. -Doc ask? 12:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satanicus

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, no consensus, no consensus. Mailer Diablo 10:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality of Adolf Hitler

This article is pure speculation and none of the information present can be confirmed. I vote to Delete OSU80 04:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Both the original speculation and objections to that speculation are authoritative and well-documented in this article. It's well-balanced, and it's a topic of interest. Why not? Deco 04:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Speaking as the person who added four references to the first paragraph of the article (and meant to go back and work on the rest but... didn't), I'm curious as to what is meant by "none of the information present can be confirmed". Hitler's sexuality is, like most things surrounding Hitler, a subject of interest, and if we are able to discuss it objectively and with reference to reliable sources, I think we should. —Seqsea (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though this article needs work, it should be improved rather than being deleted. There has been a long standing interest and a number of inquiries into this aspect of Hitler's life by even mainstream historical biographers. The topic was even covered in my high school history classes in the late 60s. Normally I would want this type of thing covered in the main biography but that article is already rather long and has already spawned a Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler due, in part to space considerations. Ande B 06:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This is the third AfD for this article since March 1. Article was retitled on March 24. Both AfDs were closed as No Consensus. AfDs were:
I doubt the result is going to change. Fan1967 04:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK to merge this, after discussion on the talk page, but only after this vote is concluded. We don't generally merge during a vote, as it prevents people seeing what the vote was really about. --Doc ask? 08:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to my merge shortly after the second afd. It was reverted with no reason other than "no consensus". Gazpacho 22:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there had been reputable sources speculating on the drinking habits of the Pope - then yes, that would be a valid article. But there aren't. There is however a verifiable debate on the sexuality of Hitler (not just 'was he gay?' but was he impotent, and how might we understand his sexual psychology). The 'facts' may be POV, but the fact that there is a debate can be verified and reported. Here's a review of a notable book on the subject [9] which was reviewed in Britians leading History journal History Today and caused them to put a fascinating picture of the Fuhrer in Lederhosen on its front cover [10] with the title 'Hitler's Secret'. --Doc ask? 08:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 10:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian Student Ambassadors

Just an article on student leaders at a university. This is not for Wikipedia, and is one in a line of similar deleted articles. Nothing except maybe the concept could be merged to the university's article. Harro5 04:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Within Reach

Delete, Advertisment San Saba 05:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SP DELETE crap. -Doc ask? 12:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burgess the Great

I believe this silliness was first speedied, then recreated. It was a one-sentence stub about a supposed Germanic leader (born ca. 152). When I pressed for references, they helpfully added that all records were destroyed in the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. Perhaps thinking that this sounded too suspicious, a new reference has been added to a book which is no longer in print and copies are rare and in bad condition. ok, that's plenty. Delete, but BJAODN as a small reward for author's creative use of references and audacious assumptions about the stupidity of other wp editors. bikeable (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shark attack saga

Casually written account of three movies, Shark Attack, Shark Attack 2 and Shark Attack 3: Megalodon. These movies do exist, according to IMDB, and therefore there is no reason why there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about them. Unfortunately, it might be more productive to write articles from scratch than to clean this up. Delete, but my opinion might change if this was cleaned up. gadfium 05:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They really are movies? I thought they were descriptions of cut scenes from some game. Still, this thing needs a major rewrite. Let's wait a few days and see if there's some cleanup. --John Nagle 05:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I havent seen these movies, but they certainly do exist, and just by using IDMB reviews and descriptions, Im sure I could write a good summary. Take this down and Ill clean it up. Ill use this one as well, but Ill just uppercase and fix it up real nice. Let me have a few days though.--Pal5017 06:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I change my vote. Just delete this. Im too busy to give it a nice cleanup right now. Sorry guys. Or, if someone else cleans it up, my vote could change too.--Pal5017 16:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sendermedia

Non notable company. Only 87 google hits, many of which are unrelated to this. And dont let the link fool you. The site is written in Swiss. Pal5017 05:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pun


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The moto guide

Delete, good site, but not notable enough for inclution in WP San Saba 06:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lunch Club

Delete, not notable enough San Saba 06:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Advertisement Goyanks193 20:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was article was deleted at author's request. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotherapy: a Personal Approach

David Smail is mildly notable, but each of his books do not deserve their own page. Mainly, because they are no notable, and they do not add any info of their own. They simply restate information from the David Smail page.Im also nominating his second and third books, Illusion and Reality: the Meaning of Anxiety and Taking Care: an Alternative to Therapy. Pal5017 06:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (but as new page without colon, see below). I removed the deletion tag as I got confused into thinking a bot had wrongly added it (a bot message appeared when I first saw the tag - sorry, that was not intended to be provocative. However, I remain puzzled as there are thousands of books that have their own page on Wikipedia, and I was not aware we had to argue about notability. If so, this seems an impossible state of affairs as its so subjective. I see many novels given pages, which I would regard as less notable than the ones I put up. There is of course no problem with database space in Wikipedia and so no reason to put all the books on one page. Putting all books on separate pages is preferable, I suggest, as it makes them respond to a search by anyone who does not know the author. It also allows them to be Wiki linked to. I have now put up a new page on Taking Care - an Alternative to Therapy. Again this was not meant to provoke, I was simply testing whether the deletion was caused by the colon in the title being interpretted as namespace. The new article contains more information. Will you accept my reasoning? If not, what is your reasoning for not using the advantage given by separated pages. While I accept that minor points of view are not to be given too much weight in Wiki, as against major points of view, books seem to be a different matter. By listing a book we are not 'plugging' it, so long as all books can be factually listed. By choosing to give only some books a page we are indeed plugging them, and on a very subjective and personal basis. --Lindosland 11:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok thats reasonable. You fixed it up, and it does seem like worthwhile information. So how bout a merge per below? Have the descriptions in several subheadings under the David Smail's Books section? That would make it even easier for interested readers.--Pal5017 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with David Smail (same goes for Taking Care - an Alternative to Therapy) unless Lindosland adds such a detailed discussion that the main David Smail article becomes too long; the search engine argument is not valid, you'll find the book even when it's just listed on the author's article. Notability is not the issue, but granularity: As long as the material on Smail is sparse enough to fit on a single article (say less than 50k), creating stubs for every book is spammy. Create a section for each book on the main Smail article. Once the individual sections become too long, branch out via the {{main}} template. dab (ᛏ) 15:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll go along with that, and have just moved content across. --Lindosland 23:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_15&oldid=48536973"