Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Harris000 (talk | contribs) at 07:49, 12 April 2006 (add Alexander J. Rudall). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 10 >

Purge server cache

April 11

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number 53 (webcomic)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Rusty Life

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Zone

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Kharana

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

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

The result was delete. —Verrai 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy Jackson

AfDs for this article:
Hardy Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheists of Silicon Valley (2nd nomination)

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

  • Delete per nom; quite. I've appeared on radio and newspapers, have been interviewed on TV three times, and have over a dozen publication credits. Does that make me notable? I think not. RGTraynor 15:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (redundancy). – Robert 00:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana University (disambiguation)

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


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reserve Bank of Fiji Building

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

Comment - if you are so concerned about Fiji, would you consider expanding the article? The current stub text is essentially the same as when the article was created in 2004. --Ajdz 04:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment makes me wonder why you are participating here if you are not "concerned about Fiji"? Having said that, I added two lines of text to the article and some links. Now it's your turn. -- JJay 13:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and calm down. --Ajdz 16:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. Enjoy the new article and I hope others pick up the gauntlet, perhaps expanding our coverage to the top-50 buildings in Fiji like in the US.-- JJay 18:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tilford Kutch

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scout (LC newspaper)

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


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fireweed Democracy Project

Nn spamvertisement for online political project. Alexa ranking of 3,180,738. Fails to meet WP:WEB. Delete --Hetar 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is actually Rick@asci.ca who has 8 edits to date. DarthVader 22:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Voting again? DarthVader 22:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep minus the exlinks, based on involvement by notable political figures. Gazpacho 20:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Loom91. DarthVader 22:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, Darth, changed the second vote to a comment. And yes, 8 edits, and will do more if needed, hope that this entry can remain here in a manner which conforms to wiki purposes and standards, feedback appreciated Rick Anderson 16:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepany time a group of cross-partisan experts get together to make a better system, it is noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatherb (talk • contribs)
  • Keep seems to me that this entry is a good introduction to a new project, there are some very notable Candian figures involved including Preston Manning, John Reid, Gordon Gibson and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.147.66 (talk • contribs)
  • Keepseems like a worthy, noteable project. read
  • Keepthis event happened, the people involved are important figures and it is an interesting project. william
  • Keep I agree with the above. The information is valid and noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvision (talk • contribs)
Note: Beware rampant sockpuppetry. All of the "Keep" votes after Rick's comment are the users' first edits to Wikipedia. Sandstein 07:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Afshar

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MYktm.com

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 17:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Antalek

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

User's first edit. Royboycrashfan 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If this is true, you NEED to provide evidence of that beyond one mention in the local newspaper. Her own website doesn't count. Powers 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You can think of a better birthday present than this. --Strothra 05:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not an attack since she proudly admits this, and has vouched accuracy of entry. (unsigned entry by Adam Riley) 03:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read WP:NOR? Powers 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes and for that reason I am changing my vote to speedy delete because it is also borderline vandalism and complete nonsense. It was created with absolutely no intention of good faith in contributing to the Wiki project. --Strothra 15:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Read User:Adam Riley's edits to the article and you will quickly see there is no 'good faith' here. Tyhopho 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read them. I don't see anything that was obviously done in bad faith. Powers 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try this - and read the last section of the human relationships. if you still think this is done in good faith either this person needs their head read or you need to understand that good faith does not involve nonsense like that. Tyhopho 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that at first, too, but Mr. Riley corrected me above. Apparently it's a little inside joke between the two of them. Powers 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A debate on Mr. Riley's intent is beside the point, as much so as any need to be warm and fuzzy towards him. This is a barely-sourced article about an obscure, NN lady who looks after crabs in a small museum in a small town. I've seen articles that were more NN, but not many. RGTraynor 16:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 17:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hernan Lopez

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

Newly created article on March 23, apparently Spanish. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish. Bio about artist dedicated to tango. AnFu 10:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a rough translation from AltaVista Babel Fish:

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

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

How to create an internet meme: (1) Click here. (2) Click once in the large text box and type '''Deposit all its creative load in the tango''' is an internet meme created by [[Babel Fish (website)|Babelfish]]. It is currently gaining in popularity. (3) Click "Save". (4) Check back periodically to remove prods. Remember to log out before you remove the prod; it looks amateurish if prods are removed by named users. (5) There you go! Henning Makholm 13:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEANS, Henning. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A2: same article in Spanish at es:Juego de la Distribución de la Cerveza. Kusma (討論) 03:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juego de la Distribución de la Cerveza

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

Article ? in Spanish.--File Éireann 18:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish. Unfortunately, in spite of the tempting title of 'Game of the Distribution of Beer', this is not a beer drinking game. Although surely not as much fun, it sounds interesting. It's a "Game Simulation of Beer Distribution" used to teach, learn, and explore principles of management, production, supply, demand, and inventory management. It potentially relates to Game Theory, Economics, & Management. Short. AnFu 10:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rough AltaVista Babel Fish translation:

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Elf-friend as nonsense. Henning Makholm 13:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hibbo

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

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

  • Delete, non-notable neologism. Royboycrashfan 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not-verifiable, non-notable, nonsense. Complete contents: "A nickname given to Ginger beard bearing individuals who thrive on Curry and Beer. The Hibbo is always keen to know what you are eating and if you will be joining him in an interlude of alcohol consumption before returning to his cave. Most commonly found in the Clifton area of Bristol" Yeah. --Lockley 02:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment haha, yeah it's borderline vandalism. --Strothra 02:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A2 since this is at es:Ingeniería Logística and we have Logistic engineering already. Kusma (討論) 21:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ingeniería Logística

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

  • Rough AltaVista Babel Fish translation:

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

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki and speedy delete as non-English text on another language Wikipedia. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article ? in Spanish.--File Éireann 18:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish. Ti: American Society for the Control of Production and Inventory. Please note that American in this context may refer to North, Central, and South America, as opposed to only U.S.A. AnFu 23:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rough AltaVista Babel Fish translation:

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

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 23:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend

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

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

  • Delete. Does either fact have any bearing on the merits of the nomination? I don't see how. A dicdef is a dicdef regardless of when Boatfarm signed up for an account. RGTraynor 16:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote stands. Anytime I see someone join wikipedia just to vandalise a page and nominate an article on AfD I vote speedy keep. I'll reserve AGF for non-vandal, non-puppet accounts. -- JJay 18:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmm. I hope you don't mind if by contrast I base my votes on the merits of the argument and the evidence presented. RGTraynor 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no contrast as my vote is based on the merits of the argument and evidence presented. Hence the first sentence I wrote concerning the cultural angle and expandability. I just add speedy to the keep to reflect the vandal/sock puppet aspects. -- JJay 21:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though the current article is insufficient, this is a valid and expandable topic. "Girlfriends" and "boyfriends" are concepts which can only exist in a specific type of society, and not, for instance, in a society where sexes are raised separately from a certain age and all marriages are arranged. I am convinced that there are anthropologists or sociologists who have studied this type of relationship, and that the article can be expanded. u p p l a n d 09:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tigor Music and Media

Non notable company. "Tigor Music and Media" yields 0 Google results. Rory096 02:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as the AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator. ConDemTalk 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing

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

Redirect to profanity. --Hetar 02:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, come one, how could a religion that was created today (tomorrow, for us here in the United States, possibly be notable? patent nonsense.--Adam (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Existism

  1. non-notable, delete Bill Sayre 02:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. delete Benon 02:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Oil Bourse

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

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

Comments

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

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

Per WP:V, it doesn't qualify based on a Wikipedia editor (or a consensus of them) saying something like that; it qualifies now only if this is among the comments from current and former Bush Administration military and national-security experts which have been reported by the major media in recent weeks. However, if Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld think that way, then it will soon become very notable. Perhaps we should keep and expand the article based on what has been published; but in most cases there are large numbers of grand proposals that die out or are replaced by something else. Barno 23:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but, it seems rather strange that now this is regarded by some as a useless piece of news. I cannot help thinking that there is some hidden agenda here. Official Revisionism.--tequendamia 04:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check your facts: Nobody here called it "useless", nor attempted to revise anything to meet any hidden agenda. The question here is whether it's encyclopedic content that will be worth reading in an encyclopedia one hundred years from now, or if it's just news whose current importance (and potential future greater importance) will soon be overtaken by later developments. Please note that wild imprecise charges are likely to lead editors to discount your comments as violations of the policies WP:NPOV (which doesn't control AfD comments as it does articles, but ought to be kept in mind) and WP:NPA. Barno 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete, A5. – Robert 00:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets and glitches in Halo 2

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wizor

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tips for weight loss

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious fanaticism

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

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

  • Delete and I believe the term would be res ipsa loquitor instead of a priori? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A priori means "necessarily resulting", meaning there's no way to craft this article without violating NPOV. Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself" and is a legal principle by which a tort is proven just by virtue of the fact that the harm could not have been incurred absent a tort, even though no direct evidence is available. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 14:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stinks of POV. Even if it is somehow cleaned up it'll continue to attract more POV junk. Seems like it was left untouched for a long time too. Sheehan (Talk) 05:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Merecat 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good reason, too. I wish there was a way to systematically deal with articles like this. --Impaciente 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 07:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I don't really like this article, but I think it is possible to make a NPOV article on this. Abortion is a POV magnet too but I don't see us deleting it. Kotepho 08:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. I can't imagine anyone wanting to delete this. Why on earth? It's a very important topic in current climates and just because an article may attract POV is no reason to delete it. It is quite possible to discuss the evolution and strength of religious fanaticism over the ages and the controversy surrounding it in a NPOV manner. It's possible to discuss who considers what to be religious fanatcism and who doesn't and how it affects global politics. This is so obviously encyclopaedia material. If you think it's POV, well clean it up or tag it but don't delete it. Abortion and Terrorism provide two perfect parrallas, I don't see any difference. This is one of the most absurd AfDs I've seen. Loom91 09:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Loom, this AfD is not absurd, and I resent the notion. Islamic R.F. should be covered in article on muslim religious philosophy, but not as "R.F.", rather as "this is what they do, this is why they do it, and here's who condemns it." You see, R.F. is inherently an epithet. For example, the article refers to the adherence to Shari'a as R.F. That just serves to denigrate the billion muslims who adhere to it. And I am arguing that there is no way to clean up an article like that, it's inherently uncleanupable. Please re-read the article and the nom carefully -- and consider being softer around the edges. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 14:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right in saying that the abortion, terrorism (and any other hot issue) articles attract POV edits, but that's not what the nom is for. The title itself is inherently POV. If we were to use those examples in comparison, the articles would instead have titles like "Abortion as Murder" or "Terrorist Arabs." I agree that there's useful content that could presumably be written here, but it would need to be added in a way that doesn't have tinge of a POV accusation of "fanaticism." Tijuana Brass 16:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that the title or subject are inherently POV--unless you are going to deny that it exists. This article could be easily written NPOV if well cited and it discussed psychological and sociological studies. Kotepho 17:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We should no delete an article because it's bad NOW, but only when it could be nothing but bad EVER. The article doesn't have to label any particular group as fanatics, it can discuss the CONCEPT of religious fanaticism and alleged examples with cited sources as to allegations and refutations. It is not necessary to say 'following Shariyat is religious fanaticism", we can say "this what religious fanaticism is, Reputable Source A calls following Shariyat religious fanaticism, but Reputable Source B refutes this claim". NPOV and bad material is not ground for deletion, bad topic is, and I don't think this opic is predestined to be bad. Certainly encyclopaedic content. Loom91 07:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, but it'd be difficult in practice — it's hard to do an article on religious fanaticism without mentioning at least a few groups (although there may be an appeal to a general agreement for certain groups, like Charles Manson's). I think that the argument in favor of deletion is concerned with the article's title labeling groups in a POV manner rather than the kind of content you're suggesting. Tijuana Brass 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to point the finger at all religions, balancing it out. Holds great promise for expansion. Religious fanaticism is a real phenomenon, and I don't see why--if it is such a strong influence in world affairs--not to have an article about it.--Primetime
  • Comment. I've extensively rewrote the article to prsent an encyclopaedic and NPOV approach to the matter, also trying to explain to some extent why it should be considered an encyclopaedic topic. Please review the article in its current form and reconsider your vote. Loom91 07:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You just deleted all of the examples. I thought they broadened the definition and gave made the article more complete.--Primetime 07:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoah. First, Catholics have not been the only Christian fundamentalists. Second, there is not a direct war going on between the West and the Middle East. I'm sorry, but I'm just going to have to revert the change.--Primetime 07:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would also add that the Crusades weren't one sided. It isn't as though that was a Christian fundamentalist issue with no fundamentalism at all on the Muslim side.IrishGuy 08:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a step in the right direction, but the very last sentence is exactly why POV is a problem — "Members of the religious mainstream usually disapprove of fanaticism, but some also feel it to be necessary to maintain cultural identity and spread the word of God." Your aim was clearly not to take any side on the issue, but it's exceedingly difficult to nail down objectivity on this one, as this sentence indicates. A noble effort, though. Thanks for taking the initiative to do it. Tijuana Brass 16:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article needs editing and cleanup, not deletion. It is (to me) clearly an encyclopedic topic. See the article on terrorism for a good example of how to approach this kind of stuff. Deleting notable articles without given them a chance to improve harms wikipedia, instead of helping it. Also I object that any encyclopedic article could be by necessity not NPOV. And if it is so, is that still grounds to delete if, if it is encyclopedic? Many topics would be missing if wikipedia avoided controversy. Perle 19:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lucid Dream Project

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

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


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Saidu hospial swat pakistan

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

I can read it, although, yes, I agree, it is horrendously written. I'm going to try and make some sense of it though - I will do so at Saidu hospital swat pakistan/2 and then move to the original page if that's okay with everyone. -zappa 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it got moved to Saidu Hospital. I cleaned up the history section, and it looks okay, but after reading the rest (or trying to) I figured it isn't notable enough to keep. Nevermind. -zappa 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Ashton

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

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

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

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

  • Merge Please do not keep. Commons has 308 seats. US House has 435. Conservatives, Liberals, NDPs, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and independents add up to a lot of losing candidates. A huge number lost the only election of their lives, and will go back to obscurity. Unless an individual has other notability, or made the campaign notable in some way, they should not have permanent articles. Fan1967 01:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO -- Ned Scott 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Fishhead64 21:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is a notable Northern Manitoban, not many of them, fewer people up there, so it's no surprise that she doesn't have many web hits, though the page does need to work. The Ashtons are a political family here in Manitoba, it might be better to make 1 page for both of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.179.252.24 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep or Merge to NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. The above anon is correct in saying that the Ashton family is highly influential in northern Manitoba. Also, someone above mentioned her unseating a three-term incumbent, which makes her notable in the history of Canadian politics; nomination unseatings are very rare in Canada. Also, on the Google search method - a poor choice indeed for a region where, despite high computer ownership in Canada, less than half of the population owns or has access to a computer. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:12 (UTC)
  • Comment. Google hits =/ page views; we're not measuring how popular Ms. Ashton is (I rather think the electoral results did that for us). They measure how notable she is. What you and several other noms are doing is arguing why she should be notable, and your arguments are defensible, but the purpose of AfD isn't as an advocacy group. Demonstrably, Ms. Ashton was a mere drop in the outside world, and barring greater success in politics, she just hasn't demonstrated that the world's particularly noticed her. RGTraynor 14:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it still doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. I'm sorry, but what is wrong with you people. Just because someone doesn't have their very own Wikipedia article doesn't make them not important. This article gives nothing to the world. -- Ned Scott 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Ashton was the only person to defeat any Canadian Member of Parliament running for reelection for their own party's nomination in the 2006 election. Political historians will value a quick biography of the victorious candidate who did so, even though she came second in the general election (to a well-known actor who seized on this split running for another party). Samaritan 00:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I realize that not everybody agrees on the notability of unelected political candidates, the precedent has already been set that federal candidates are entitled at least to inclusion in a merged list. I'm inclined to agree with Samaritan that l'affaire Desjarlais is, in and of itself, a sufficient criterion of notability, but per established practice, as a candidate in a federal election she's unequivocally entitled to at least a subsection in a merged candidates list. Either keep or merge into NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election; precedent already excludes outright deletion as an option. Bearcat 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on merits of notability as a federal NDP candidate, as well as nothing having changed since previous AfD. MCB 05:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was a huge change since the last AfD. The election happened. She lost. Fan1967 13:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was part of a nomination race and election campaign that garnered a lot of media attention. She's also pretty youung and could make future runs for office. It does need some heavy editing though. --NDP Johnny 07:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep I would have no doubts about voting delete were it not for the same sex marriage issue defeat of Bev Desjarlais for the nomination, which was extensively covered by the national media, and a notable (but transient) current event. Pete.Hurd 19:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ashlee Simpson remixes

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

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


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Marudubshinki at 06.37.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kwok Kin Kwong

nn secondary school teacher. Horribly POV ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Righteous Warrior Temple

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SubGenius must have SLACK!!!

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

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

Hanshin Republic

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


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Baird

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


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

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

Sheng Mi Tian

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


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

The result of the debate was no consensus tending towards keep. bainer (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koorong

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

  • Delete as spam. If this chain merits an article, don't build it off of an advertisement. Feezo (Talk) 06:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: maybe there are problems with POV but it isn't plain spam because we're talking here about a company which has an oligopoly in the Australian Christian bookstore market. as longhair says, the alexa ranking is also quite high. Also, if you search on Google for koorong christian book you get around 26,400 results which is quite significant.Rebecca Rowland 06:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: -- I didn't say the Alexa rank was high (by the way, low Alexa ranks are a good sign, not high ones), I merely told those interested in this debate what the actual ranking was to save them the bother of checking. - Longhair 06:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vinny's Pizza - Clarion

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

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


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as duplicate of Bridle Path, Toronto. – Robert 00:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bridal path

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


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as attack page. – Robert 00:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miss_Lau

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lenox (tools)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy userfy. -- RHaworth 16:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fuchs

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

You stated that, Except for this mere participation at the 2006 Commonwealth Games these athletes have achieved nothing of note, thus falling below the notability bar. To what notability standard do you refer to. The only one I could find is at WP:BIO, where it states that:
"the following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles:
  • Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles."
Now the 2006 Commonwealth Games, whilst not the Olympics or the World Championships, still had 71 nations and territories competing. It is classed as a Category A event by the IAAF when calculating world rankings. (see [6] - page 6)
I created these articles on the athletics participants and others based on the fact that 1) they had competed at this level, 2) they had a profile on iaaf.org and 3) these athletes, in each of their own countries, are considered notable. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Hello Ian. I have mentioned this a few times before, in other contemporary athlete deletion debates, that some weak countries are allowed entries on a wildcard basis, meaning their athletes do not have to meet the A-qualifying standard to qualify, unlike an athlete from a developed sport power, who must meet the A-qualifying standard to apply. So I am not convinced that wildcard-qualifiers are sufficiently notable on sporting-merit alone, as they have not earnt their position in the international arena on merit. (I am pretty sure the A-qualifier is less than 10% outside the WR).ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 04:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Blnguyen said. The WP:BIO guideline mentions "an individual professional sport". Whereas the top finishers at the Commonwealth Games are indeed fully professional, I don't think these athletes are. Mariuti Uan clocked a personal best time in 11.65 seconds. He would have entered a 98th place on the 2005 statistics in Norway, a rather small country which sent 1 athlete to the latest World Indoor Championships. Moreover, getting an IAAF profile is not a great achievement by itself, seeing that an athlete like Stian Andersen has a profile. What really puzzles me here though, it that you left my early attempt to contact you via your talk page unanswered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkmorten (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as per Zoe. MCB 05:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please these sprinters are important to the countries they represent `Yuckfoo 23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per zoe. Blink484 22:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Moussambani, Gibrilla Bangura

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

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted by Jaxl. Sango123 (e) 14:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tigor music and media

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies in autism

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

  • Weak keep: While it's a poor quality article that seems to mix autism in medicine and autism in pop culture, the various autism articles need someone really knowledgeable to sort them out. Peter Grey 08:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Yet another attempt by POV pushers to hide information that is important for anyone affected by this condition. Absolutely no basis for the assertion that it's a POV fork. --Leifern 10:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Leifern put all the redundant information back into the article that I selectively moved were it belonged. In the process he also reinserted all the speculations about vaccines that Wikipedia has been flooded with. --Rdos 11:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . Merge the verifiable non-duplicated information in it into the existing articles dealing will with those aspects. Failing that, if it were rewritten shorter, tighter, and about the controversies, rather than another copy of the usual article as they all tend toward, it would be reasonably useful. Midgley 10:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: articles cannot be merged and then deleted. The history of the article must be kept to preserve attribution. After merging, the article is redirected to the article that received the content. -- Kjkolb 12:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is hardly possible to do a simple redirect, as this article contains a lot of information that should be spread to many articles. --Rdos 12:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that in such a case you would simply redirect to the article that received the most content. If it is about equal, then redirect to the most notable article or just pick one. All of the pages that receive content should be mentioned in the edit summary. -- Kjkolb 12:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, point taken. I've changed my request. --Rdos 12:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: NO, Kjkolb IS INCORRECT. Articles certainly can be merged and deleted, preserving histories. The process is straightforward and described here. The only reason why "merge and delete" votes are strongly discouraged is that the process is very laborious for the closing sysop. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: There are numerous noteworthy controversies stemming from the iatrogenic epidemic of autistic spectrum diagnoses. This AfD is unlike the usual offensive attempts to silence dissenting medical opinions, as it seems likely to be a protest to make a point, triggered by the odd decision to delete Neanderthal theory of autism. The real reason this article needs to be kept is that big pharma has as much as admitted its culpability for the autism epidemic by launching an expensive, preemptive lobbying and propaganda assault aimed at securing immunity from the industry's enormous vaccine injury liabibilities (e.g. BioShield Two and PREPA). The assault also shows that the industry is unwilling to defend itself in the judicial system, which itself has been undermined to suit corporate special interests, rather than the mere carbon based life forms that courts were originally designed to serve. At least ten bills were in the works as of the end of last year to shield vaccine makers from any form of responsibility for these atrocities. Liabilities are projected by some observers far in excess of tens of billions of dollars. The controversies will only escalate as health care rationing decisions are made about the best/most cost effective treatments for this huge, emerging population. The controversies may be ignored deliberately by the mass media, as advocates like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. have found out, but there is no doubt that the increasingly unstable and inefficient medical system will be put under considerably more stress in the near term. Ombudsman 19:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in that the deletion of the Neanderthal theory of autism sets a preference for me (and should for others too). However, in this case I'm not arguing only this point, but for the bad idea to have similar information at many locations. If you and Leifern prefer to have the vaccine argument in this article that is fine with me, but then you will need to delete it from the other articles (like Causes of autism). --Rdos 05:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with redundancy, per se; the purpose of this article is to summarize the various controversies in one place and then provide links to the in-depth article on each one. I always wanted this article to be succinct, providing readers with the means to study each matter more deeply, but with the right context. The term "controversies" is carefully chosen to avoid bias. Although I think the Neanderthal theory is specious, I think it should be kept and would have voted to keep it. I want all the controversies here. --Leifern 14:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The causes of autism themselves are all controvesial. However merging causes and controversies pages would make the article too long. I believe that all causes information should be kept with causes, with a link from controversies Alister Namarra 02:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowland Challenge

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

Comment. I have trimmed it down, wikified it and changed it from a copyvio of the web page for the event. It is now in a form that could be merged into Forest of Bowland. Does anyone object if I do that? --Bduke 22:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Go ahead and do it - WP:BOLD backs you up! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Goodfellow

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Ce Wei

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ego non fui

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


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

The result of the debate was merge. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great_Expectations_plot_details

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brianism

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

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

The result of the debate was keep; cleanup and expand. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Blooms

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Cablemodem

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor online

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


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Alhutch 14:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney

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

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

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

The Ram Cam

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

  • Please Note: The "Ram Cam" was only officially called "The Ram Cam" from the year 2005. I recommend you re-check the site under the search name "RAMEY GHOST CAM" which comes up with completely relating links which shows it is amongst the most popular of webcams and has been for years.
  • Sorry friends i dont mean to be annoying but this article took so long and i hope i can spare it with one more chance. Here goes...Please use dogpile instead of Google. Searching with one search engine cannot simply disquality something for being popular or not. Taken from the Geocities Stats for website /rameysrealm stats show: www.rameysrealm.com has been visited a total of 92,363 times. A link here with a huge comprehensive gallery on the cam found at :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business planning (an integrated plan approach)

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

  • Delete per nom. And watch out for more of the same kind - I think we may have a student class project here - see The Buyer Utility Map. We also have Product Software Pricing - especially the see also with assigned author names!
Note also that it includes Image:Concepts.JPG. Creating what should be a Wikitable as a JPG file is a totally anti-colaborative action which should be stomped upon firmly. -- RHaworth 11:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NDI University Award Center

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toromat1 Games

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Buyer Utility Map

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

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

Root it in Real Life rather than academic hypothesis. Cite documented instances in which this paradigm has been used (or has been disproved for a specific microcosm), so that a reader could relate it to their own experience. -- Simon Cursitor 07:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoembryology

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Proto||type 10:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sun City Palm Desert, California

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

  • Comment. I believe there is precedent for communities and neighborhoods to have their own articles, however. I don't know enough about this particular one to cast a vote myself. 23skidoo 12:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see the notability. Metamagician3000 12:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real place. If we can have articles on neighborhoods in major cities, then housing developments of over 5000 homes should be kept as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wrote the article and I live here. This is a huge community and shows on all the tourist and real estate maps in the area. There is more than one Sun City. The community I wrote about is Sun City Palm Desert and is a community of nearly 5000 homes. There is also another Sun City near Hemet in Riverside County and yet another in Indio (also in Riverside County) called "Sun City Shadow Hills". I don't feel that Sun City Palm Desert should be deleted, rather, the Sun City near Hemet can simply be added with it's own article. When you have a community with over 10,000 residents, which is more than many incorporated cities in America that are recognized here, that should not simply be written off. Rchristiananderson 11:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can I withdraw a nomination? There's only one vote to delete here, and I already understand the reasoning. To Rchristananderson, there is an article for Sun City here. :) Danny Lilithborne 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hi Danny.... yes, that article you refer to is the Sun City near Hemet, California, which is also in Riverside County. Besides the sheer size of Sun City Palm Desert, the main reason for the notability of it is the golf club, which is open to members who don't actually live in the community itself. Within the community is a huge "par 72", 36-hole regulation golf club. The course is known as "Mountain Vista". It was designed by former PGA Tour great and two-time PGA Player of the Year, Billy Casper and Greg Nash. The club is divided into 2 courses: The San Gorgonio (6,669 yards) course and the Santa Rosa (6,720 yards) course. This is one of the most significant courses in southern California and is only a few miles south east of the new Classic Golf club being built for the Internationally known Bob Hope Golf Classic. Rchristiananderson 12:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 15:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for 10,000 in population and the Mountain Vista Golf Club. Nearby Thousand Palms, California has a Wikipage and it's population is only half of this community. Here is an overview of the golf club from the Palm Springs.com website: [Mountain Vista Golf Club] --sandowmuseum 16:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die Ritter von Bork

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

  • A prod was contested by an anon (70.32.10.59) who added on the talk page:
Often times things about the Knigts Templar and any other group from that era are hard to find. Is it possible that the author is a mason, and cannot give us the sources?
Said anon's only logged contributions is removing the prod and vandalising Bork to point exclusively to Die Ritter von Bork. Suspect anon is identical to User:11spike whose only contrib is creating Die Ritter von Bork. In any case, the explanation offered here is not a valid argument for keeping, because it directly contradicts Wikipedia's fundamental verifiability standard. Henning Makholm 12:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

I don't think this sport is notable. It seems very much tied to various micronations and most of the Google hits originate from Wikipedia. I'll reconsider my vote if enough people know of it. David Remahl 20:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. David Remahl 20:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert for website, well done and perhaps well intended but not what we want. From the official website :Organization is the key to this, and right now, this is essentially a one-man operation. I have some close friends who help me out with various objectives, and several good people who have helped test the sport out. If you would like to help with the organizing of this sport, drop me a line here. I would love to hear from you and would really love additional input into developing the sport. So it's not yet encyclopedic, and may never be. Andrewa 21:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I fully agree with Andrewa for a change. Skyler 22:18, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Just a Comment. The sport is real, it's not fictional. It has been played, and it has a set of cohesive rules. It does exist. I thought Wikipedia was an information source. I had no idea that just because someone has not heard of something that it deserves to be deleted. Delete it if it doesn't pass this litmus test, but 'not notable' is quite arbitrary. scuffleball 22:24, Aug 11, 2004
    • Comment: Welcome to Wikipedia! See your talk page if you haven't already. Andrewa 13:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Whether it exists or not, it is not yet notable. Indeed, we are confined to notable information, in context. The reason for this is simply to set some limit. Were we to not have that limitation, then we would be including every product of every imagination anywhere at any time. All terms, such as "notable," "significant," and "important" are going to be open to some argument, and that's why the deletion process is by vote. Geogre 00:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • While I have no desire to bash Everything2, having contributed to their pages myself, I will say that the primary difference between E2 and Wikipedia is that E2 is prepared to accept any article on any topic. E2 is a much more suitable repository for neologisms, neopolitics, neoeconomics, and neosports such as scuffleball. What I most appreciate about Wikipedia is its insistence on some kind of history for its topics. Even though that may be, in some cases, only four or five years, at least there is some legacy to demonstrate perpetuity. Denni☯ 02:41, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Product Software Pricing

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloggy style

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


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

The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikisource and delete - Couldn't find it on Wikisource, so I'll just transwiki it myself. Proto||type 11:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Cobain's Suicide Note

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


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

The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 19:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dangerously

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

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

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

  • Copy/paste from another source can be problematic at times. I'll try to give it a rewrite when I get home from work and see if it helps things.Tony Fox 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The very basis of this genre is indy, DIY, self-produced and self-released artists. Many notable nerdcore artists will probably never release on any label whatsoever. Jason Gortician 01:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that it's been rewritten (Good job, Tony). A lot of the music stuff just skirts around the fringes of WP:MUSIC (especially C1.3, C1.9, and C1.12), and I went back and forth on it a couple times, but the newspaper column clearly qualifies him under WP:BIO's requirements for writers (circulation figures here). All's well that ends well. -Colin Kimbrell 03:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have to go with the keep here. Although I admit that it's surfing close to the line in some respects, I can't and won't put an artist I've actually heard on the radio with my own ears on the delete side of the line. (And besides, I'm down with anything that actually inspires Lefty Lucy to become a Wikipedia contributor.) Bearcat 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep does pass WP:MUSIC, and is verifiable, in my opinion. For that matter I think the verifiability clauses are mostly crap, since they tend to encourage wikipedia turning into a lame mash-up of the New York Times and Wired, which is not anything the world has been particular clamoring for. Perle 03:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. This article does not meet any criteria for deletion. – Robert 23:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in the United States

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second thought

Appears to be non-notable musician, does not pass WP:BAND. One self-burned CD-r album. Prod contested without comment. "Second nomination" apparently because the common phrase "second thought" was nominated earlier. Weregerbil 14:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating Purlieu (album) for deletion. Note I'm doing this after User:Isotope23 cast his vote (...yea yea AfD is a discussion not a vote...) but let's say he agrees with the bundling as he suggested it. Weregerbil 16:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:12, 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 delete. – Robert 15:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth Seven

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

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert 23:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion Solutions Corporation

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

Here, can help with WP:CORP:
  1. Non-press release news coverage is detailed here. There's about a couple hundred articles, you should be able to dredge up several dozen that are respectable magazines or newspapers and cover the company in a non-trivial fashion (i.e. not some blurb about an executive change).
  2. Should appear on any ranking of financial or analytical services products. Here's Forbes, Frobes again, American Banker.
  3. Stock indexes: Hyperion is a component of the S&P 600 SmallCap and the S&P 1500 Super Comp.
So, at a glace it would appear to meet "any one" of the three, as well as all three. Kuru talk 00:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy userfy and replace with bio stub about a more notable person. -- RHaworth 21:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Close

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

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

The result of the debate was Userfy Kotepho 19:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayender

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

  • Userfy per nom. Gwernol 15:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

War on Easter

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

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

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

Brian Flemming is a notable director of a very notable documentary Wrong and wrong, ast least as far as "notable" is concerned. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you have some references to third parties saying this is important? Press reviews, ...? Notability of the person does not necessarily transfer to everything he does or says. Google finds very little [12]. Weregerbil 17:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it doesn't matter how notable Flemming is; that does not confer any notability to a one-off publicity stunt unless major media outlets cover his "War on Easter". to use your example Zeroverse, if Michael More took a dump in a paper bag, walked it up to the front porch of Bush's Crawford Ranch, lit the bag on fire, hid in the bushes, filmed George Bush stomping it out, and them someone created an article called Crawford Ranch Flaming Poo on Bush's Hush Puppies I'd still say delete. If this is important information to you and you can source it then add it to Brian Flemming, but right now I see no strong case for this to exist as a standalone article.--Isotope23 17:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunno The site 404s for me and it isn't googling well. Maybe turn this into more than just about Brian Flemming as Bill O'Reilly has gone on at least one War on Easter rant on his radio show. Kotepho 17:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I understand that Bill O'Reilly will be featuring The War on Easter very prominently tonight on his TV show. This isn't a non-issue. Thought I do agree that the "War on Easter" can and should be about more than Flemming's and the Rational Response Sqaud's movement. There is a BIG article here...it just hasn't been written yet. As I've said earlier, when I have more time tonight, I'll get to it. My hope was that others might be able to contribute in the meantime...that is the whole point of wikipedia right? Zeroverse 19:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong DELETE or merge. Whether or not this Flemming character is notable is not in question. War on Easter, the subject of the article, is not notable. PS, I do not like Moore but will admit that Moore is a household name. Flemming does not even begin to compare.--Strothra 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least you are starting to move in the right direction here Zeroverse... yes media coverage is essential in this sort of situation. If nobody covers it a publicity stunt, then really what is the point? I'd still like to see more important national sources... local radio interviews and a blog (lavoice) just don't cut it as sources in my book. worldnetdaily.com isn't what I would call a reliable source. I can't say I have a high opinion of Fox News's journalistic integrity, but Fox New Radio is a good first stab at proving reasonable national media coverage.--Isotope23 19:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stated "household name" meaning his name is common knowledge among most Americans. You can have a conversation with any half-wit on the street and they are highly likely to know who Michael Moore is. Whereas this Flemming fellow cannot claim the same. I'm sure he's a nice guy but not notable. Media coverage does not make an individual notable. The individual's achievements make them notable. There are standards to judge this but as I said before, no one here cares if Flemming is notable. You are not arguing along the lines of this AfD which is concerns if War on Easter is notable. It is not. --Strothra 21:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I appreciate that you are trying to be objective, but I think it's incorrect to say that "the individual's achievements make them notable." What exactly has Michael Moore achieved that Brian Flemming hasn't (other than make more money)? While all your other points about moving/merging this article may be valid, I don't think they should be done under the cloak of "notability." If the article is insufficient at this time, fine...but saying that something isn't notable because Flemming hasn't "achieved" as much as say, Michael Moore, is a poor reason to exclude this article from the public...especially as Easter 2006 is only a few days away and there is very little critism of the holiday in general. The very fact that someone vehemently opposses Easter is notable in itself, and the fact that a growing group of people are committed to this effort is notable on its own merit, Flemming or no Flemming. Brian Flemming is an extremely notable individual in the atheist community anyway. He might not be a "household name" to religious folk that prefer not listening to opposing perspectives, but that doesn't discount his importance to rational thinkers in the freethought community. The War on Easter is extremely important to atheists and freethinkers, and calling it "not notable" because the relative size of the freethought community is miniscule is really just a form of mob rule and bullying. Zeroverse 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly has Michael Moore achieved that Brian Flemming hasn't (other than make more money)? Well, there's making several internationally released movies, winning an Oscar, producing and hosting two TV series (one in primetime), writing a few internationally best-selling books, and popping up as a pop-culture reference everywhere from Team America: World Police to 24 to Family Guy. Other those things, yeah, he's just like Brian Flemming. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

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

  • Absolutely Do Not Delete I do suggest this article be merged with another, but there is no way you can delete this article for being irrelevant or not notable enough. That's just a ridiculous proposition. More than half of the information on this site is only recognizable by a number of people that you can count to in about 30 seconds. Even if notability was the case, Brian Flemming the man who wrote the article on "The War On Easter" also directed a movie: "The God Who Wasn't There" which is the current Number 1 Best Seller on [13] indie film list. On top of that, there are thousands of people that have visited the Rational Responders Website and most of them regulary attend a radio show or catch the latest news on the irrational. Hmm, sounds like The Rational Responders need to take a peek at wiki's editors...--Animefreak1390 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Besides, I couldn't find any mention of O'Reilly doing a piece on this on his website archives. All I could find was a bunch of blogging about Fox News doing a piece about employers not allowing people to display Easter decorations and other cultural bias against Easter. As far as I can tell it had nothing to do with Brian Flemming and The Rational Response Squad and in fact is exactly the opposite of what Flemming is trying to do.--Isotope23 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete: My home, snailmail and email boxes are spammed with religious propaganda weekly. Some people trying to share an alternative point of view should be applauded. I recently became a fan of the Rational Response Squad, and through them, found this movie. The fact that atheists are giving out copies of their movie for free seems a very "christian" thing to do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.80.74 (talk • contribs)
What?? That's not even an arguement - just nonsense. Also, please sign your comments. --Strothra 01:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isotope like I suggested twice in my previous comment on the article, the "The war on easter" article should be merged with either brian flemmings article or one of the correlating Rational Responders biographies. --Animefreak1390 01:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, at least for the next couple months. This topic may ultimately justify it's own web page, or be more appropriate for a section in TGWWT. It all depends on how Christians respond. If today's DoS attack on Flemming's web sites is any indication, this could be significant in it's own right. In summary, my vote is KEEP. Human455 04:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More promotional fluff from the ego of Brian Flemming, the distinctly minor movie-maker. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Come on. Are personal attacks really necessary to justify your position? Brian Flemming had nothing to do with the addition of this article and he certainly doesn't make films or spread rational thinking for an ego-boost. A distinctly minor movie-maker? Your unsubtle bias completely undermines any valid points you may have had and frankly didn't add anything constructive to this discussion. I vote not to count your vote. Zeroverse 14:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what personal attacks would those be? ...frankly didn't add anything constructive to this discussion. On the contrary, they're noting the source of this particular aggressive PR campaign. Wikipedia? NOT a free PR resource, no matter how fervent. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take this opportunity to point out that User:Jason Gastrich was banned in part for attempting an actual campaign against articles on atheists. We don't put up with that kind of crap here, and the fact that nothing bad's happened to Carlton is pretty good evidence that he's not doing anything of the sort. The only campaign I've seen him wage is against bad articles. -Colin Kimbrell 13:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete: Has it occured to those from Wiki that maybe some of us have been coming to this site for the longest time and have not posted anything on any topic, however but because this issue is so important for us, we feel the need to post for the first time?! Thanks for not allowing my one post to get less weight than those regular posters, although I have been and am a lifetime user. 65.40.245.66
If you really were longtime lurkers, I think you would've known more about the way AFD works. -Colin Kimbrell 13:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Proto||type 11:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cimorene

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Proto||type 11:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gesellschaft für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik

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

Comment This is not a definition article but rather a stub about an organization. Mike (T C) 17:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a German Society so has a German name. The english name could well redirect to the main article. --Bduke 23:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article used to be GAMM, I moved it to the German name as it is more common than both "German Society of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics" and "International Society of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics". The organization seems notable enough so the article should be expanded not deleted. Kotepho 10:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Patti

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LONG ISLAND CLUB SCENE 1970-1989

Article is not WP:V and apparently violates WP:NOR as it was posted and "verified" by a booking agent familiar with the club scene in the 70's and 80's. Delete.--Isotope23 16:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 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 redirect Kotepho 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Itani

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Alkivar on 12 April 2006. – Robert 00:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-Mat

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Road 34 Bike Bar

Previously unlisted.Listing now. --Melaen 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 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 keep. – Robert 23:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Deegan

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Randall

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 21:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CR Comics

Probably a hoax, due its relationship to the Charlie Randall article. There does appear to a Japanese something called CR Comics, but it's doubtful that it is related to this stub, as it exists now. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvi

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

Exactly my point. Radagast83 06:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why transwiki? If it's trash, we shouldn't really be putting it in someone else's yard, should we? NickelShoe (Talk) 13:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found [16][17][18] three mentions in student newspapers. Good enough for me. Kotepho 15:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 03:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TGSN

Non-notable Lycos-hosted website and free-hosted forum. Google returns lots of results - all mirrors, old hosts or entirely unrelated. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 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 delete. The consensus is borderline, but one 'vote' rests on an assertion of notability for which there is no evidence. Note that this article did not concern the John Scherer linked to from By Jeeves (the only articlespace link to this article), who may merit an article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Scherer

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep Kotepho 18:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dawkins

Reason why the page should be deleted

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert 15:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic.com

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mental existence

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 16:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downrising, Matt Bieler

  • Delete - Downrising is not notable. If they were notable, there would be revelant results for a google search besides their own website. There is no proof of notability from reliable sources. The only reference to them outside of their website is a brief mention on a local radio station's website. There are ZERO results for them on Last.fm. I don't really know what else you can ask for as proof of a non-notable band. I think we agreed with the deletion of Matt Bieler from the previous nomination. There was no consesus the first time for deletion for this band after relisting. Wickethewok 16:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Information this in-depth on a subject this obscure could only have come from the band themselves. Harp Heaven 17:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only assertion of notability (per WP:MUSIC) is that some of the members were also in other bands, most of which I would also question the notability of. If this band deverves mention at all it is in the profiles of those peole or that notable bands they may have been members of. Spewin 00:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of computer syntax patterns

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about phantom or sentient animals

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystick Krewe Mush

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 11:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Screen of Death

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

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

NON_VERIFIABLE_CONTENT_AND_RELATION_WITH_BSOD

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 § 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Dukes

I can't WP:V any of this and even if I could, he doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Delete--Isotope23 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 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 Deleted under G4 by User:Fang Aili. Kotepho 19:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackness scale

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Shanel § 04:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iscathamiya

The article's title is misspelled and the content on this page is mostly the same as Isicathamiya, the proper name for the genre. LBM 18:48, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 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 Delete. Tawker 08:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Psoas Muscles and Abdominal Exercises for Back Pain

This looks like original research, and is a direct copy of http://www.somatics.com/psoas.htm. Eron 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Lendt

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

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 articles. Mailer Diablo 21:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe: The Ballads

This article on a rumoured Britney Spears album does not cite its sources, and Googling yields no related results (apart from Wikipedia mirrors, or websites using Wikipedia as a source). WP:NOT a crystal ball. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Extraordinary Machine 18:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 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 keep. Proto||type 11:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Kids

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as an attack page. Stifle (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Na Pal Gyi Shwebomin

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

Speedy Redirect to Shwebomin. Some guy 21:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as personal attack. A redirect is not necessary (and POV) because the insult appears to non-notable when applied to Shwebomin. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:31 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

South Pal Gyi Shwebomin

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

Speedy Redirect to Shwebomin. Some guy 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Angr (tɔk) 17:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool (African philosophy)

Fails the Google test, goes under many things that Wikipedia is not and attempts at improvement have failed thanks to constant reverts. Urthogie 23:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More than that, even the original research itself isn't encyclopedic. I've talked with the guy himself, hes an art interpreter, not a scientist.--Urthogie 02:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article's talking about art and not physics, this actually strikes me as entirely appropriate. --Dvyost 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not called Cool(African art). It's presented as philosophically true.--Urthogie 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noone has ever contributed to it, except DCV, and she made it impossible to remove the POV from her works, thanks to reverting. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, so we shouldn't have an article that claims as true things that are unscientific.--Urthogie 01:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history, this doesn't appear to be true. --Dvyost 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there have been failed attempts at objectivity in this article's history. Look at the talk pages for a chronicle of enraged wikipedians, each giving their stab at balancing the article throughout its history.--Urthogie 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never edited a page with DCV before this article, and please view the talk pages if you think I came in with a bad attitude. You'll see that I've tried to handle this with complete objectivity and respect.--Urthogie 21:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only causes circuitous arguments and tiresome edit wars. Either delete or rewrite the article entirely using verifiable sources. --Modulatum
  • Keep. I don't understand why an article that is as well-referenced as this one would be considered for deletion. If anything, I think the article should be expanded. I am a sociologist and have come across other articles on this and closely related subjects over the years. To delete an article like this one seems almost a racial act to me. Wikipedia needs more articles like this one on African art and culture, not fewer. There is also the possibility (from what I've gleaned elsewhere on this) that there are personal aspects to this VfD, based on an RfA. I don't know all the facts on this yet, but have it from a source I trust. Berenise 11:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you didn't see the old version, the article is currently the result of my deleting the subjective content. I assure you this isnt a personal issue. This is the only article I've done with DCV. Also, if you look at the talk page, you can see in my first post that I clearly support the pages existence, and wanted it improved. It was only when I recognized that POV was the reason for the article's creation-- the essence of the content, that I put this on AfD. Also, if anyone else falsely thinks that this is a personal problem of mine, rather than the crappiness of the article, please understand that Wikipedia has a rule about primary sources. And this article doesn't follow it.--Urthogie 15:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Following comments were made in reference to Dvyost

Ok, ill answer this one by one:
  • Constant reverts aren't the grounds, they are just what makes it worse.
  • It violates the following sections of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
  • To claim it has primary sources would be in complete contradiction with the words of Deeceevoice herself(who put all of the content up), who said the following in her attack on the established "eurocentric policy" of primary sources:
In subject matter such as this which treat third-world cultural/anthropological matters, primary ::sources often are not available. It is, in a way, saying no article treating San culture has ::credibility unless we can find an authoritative text written by a Bushman. Ridiculously eurocentric and absurd. [26]
  • The problem isn't lack of sources, its lack of encyclopedic primary sources. All of her sources are art interpretations. People can come to many conclusions when viewing art. If she were to approach this objectively, she would say that so and so believes this, unfortunately, she had to take a leave from wikipedia before this could be forced into the ridiculous article.
  • Coolness in african art has meaning, but the article has not a single encyclopedic paragraph. I defy you to find one paragraph written by her in this article which subscribes to wikipedia's guidelines.

--Urthogie 21:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a bit confused by your insistence on primary sources here, as WP:NOR seems to say that secondary sources are fine for constructing articles. What's even more confusing to me is your insistence on "scientific" or "empirical" evidence; how do you see this coming about in an article on aesthetics? Generally the precedent in art/aestethics articles seems to be to cite the relevant critics (or "interpreters," if you prefer); so far as "scientists" exist in the field, this is them. Anyway, I don't understand how summarizing scholarly secondary sources in this case is any different than what I've seen in dozens of history articles. It's certainly not required that we agree with this (I for one don't) but I don't see the harm in saying that "scholar X and scholar Y advocate a philosophy of Z". That's how Wikipedia articles are built, right? --Dvyost 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK to base articles on secondary sources, but she presented the secondary source as a primary one. She actually said "Cool is feminine energy, cool is etc." You can't do that! Even if you do suggest a keep of this article can you please address the fact that that isn't allowed by wikipedia policy? Furthermore, before my mass deletion of the article's content, there weren't statements like "scholar X advocates this". heres an example of how she would say stuff before my edits:
Cool is feminine energy; it is stillness, calm and strength. Cool is composure, dignity in being and comportment and a practiced stoicism. It is a way of being, a way of walking in the world. Cool abides. Heat is masculine energy, strength and movement; it acts. Both elements assume co-equal values in African movement and dance, in African music and art. The cool aesthetic permeates traditional West African cultures and African-American culture, as well— in black artistic and musical expression, in the hitch in the "pimp" strut of urban, African American men; in African American dress and adornment, demeanor and speech.
Not only is that a misinterpretation of Thompson(I've exchanged emails about the article with the man himself), but even if it were a proper citing of his view, it would be presenting his interpretations as the gospel truth! It's a soapbox, no? (PS I want to thank you for maintaing objectivity in this discussion, and im honestly very thankful for your approach to this article. Much respect for that.)--Urthogie 15:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those who think I have an anti-african bias

Go read the history section on the article rapping. Hip-hop (my favorite music), is linked to griots, which were essential to west african culture. If I had an anti-african bias that warped my objectivity, why would I bring it in to my favorite thing? Please stop the personal implications.--Urthogie 15:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete; although it doesn't seem it, all the keeps are puppet infested. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pace (Slang Term)

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

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

  • Keep Me and my friends came to New Orleans to volunteer cleaning the city. We heard the term 'Pace' throughout the 2 weeks we were there. We brought it back to Boston, and the term has been spreading in New England ever since. -- [[User:# Juiceonyourface|# Juiceonyourface]]
  • Keep The term pace has become an important part of the culture of post-Katrina New Orleans. Deleting it would be an injustice to the city in this sensitive time. --MVK
  • Keep Pace has become a legitimate phenomenon in New Orleans, especially in the Uptown area around Tulane University. It is not merely a word, but a movement. Your feeble attempts to have this article deleted just to stroke your own inflated ego are neither needed nor warranted. Take your pettiness elsewhere. And yes, you may consider yourself PACED. -- Wstaffor
  • Keep You know what, I think you're right. Maybe everything you don't care about should be deleted from wikipedia. I KNOW! Maybe we should rename it Elkmanpedia! That way it can only have topics that the MIGHTY Elkman deems reasonable. Get a life, and consider yourself PACED as well. -- Wstaffor Note: User:Wstaffor already voted above. --Metropolitan90 05:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the page should be kept up. Though I don't attend Tulane, I do live in the New Orleans area, and I've heard this around town quite a bit. The character Turtle on "Entourage" has forcefully said "Pace" upon exiting a room and may have originated this usage. While "pace" is definitely a neologism, I disagree that it is a protologism because of this source. Furthermore, since this is a reaction to the growing, post-Katrina changes besetting New Orleanians--e.g., "My house in Lakeview got paced in the storm."--I think pace takes on an important cultural context and is thus just as appropriate on Wikipedia as UrbanDictionary. Admittedly, the definition is vague and needs to be refined. -- CBowes
  • Keep Pace is a slang term derived from esoteric Cajun/French vernacular. Only recently has it been resurrected by twenty-somethings native to the area and entrenched in Cajun culture and history. With the geographically diverse blend of undergraduates at Tulane University, the term has spread as far west as Bellevue, WA, and as far north as New York.
  • This unfounded criticism of Cajun jargon is a direct insult to the unique culture and lifestyle of Acadiana already diminished by two devastating hurricanes in August and September. Surely, one from across state lines, and certainly national lines, would not be able to trace its word-of-mouth origins. GoPaceYourself
  • Keep This is legit. Travisjj
  • Delete. Even if this is a legitimate slang term, the article is just a dictionary definition-type entry. (I don't know how to verify it, since "pace" is a common English word anyway.) If the word is worthy, submit it to Wiktionary instead. --Metropolitan90 01:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dicdef, neologism, bored-college-kid-cruft -- GWO
  • Keep All these deleters are the biggest chili doggers ever. PACE. Jimmy 8:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment This comment was actually left by 129.81.248.124 whose only contributions are these two comments. The signature is faked. Gwernol 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete my culture like Katrina deleted my city. Serioulsy. TNT 9:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment This comment was actually left by 129.81.248.124 whose only contributions are these two comments. The signature is faked. Gwernol 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The term pace is a legitmate slang term originating in New Orleans, LA and has been adopted by people from Washington state, New York, Miami and Dallas. Just because you do not understand the significance of the term yet does not take away any of the merit of this entry. There are certainly people out there that do not know what bling bling is either but that entry is in wikipedia and has been for awhile. PACE! --TheKingOfNOLA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.81.74.125 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep I am still very intrigued by this page. It is inappropriate for me to modify the original definition, but I urge the original poster to do so to reflect both a more specific denotation and the reasons we have defended "pace's" use. By the way, it is also possible that "pace" in this context could have originated from "hale and pace," the cockney rhyming slang for "face." Thus, the expressions "I paced my face" and "I have to pace myself before I *pace* myself." I would appreciate if the people pushing for deletion would be more descriptive in their reasons, instead of just insulting the people who are defending the listing. What exactly are you looking for in regards to "pace's" relevance, and what would satisfy your need for outside sources? No matter what verdict Wikipedia decides upon, it is entries like this that define its relevance. Either it is a democratic medium for the progression of knowledge and culture, or it is as pedantic and intolerant as a first grade teacher. I think deleting this entry would be a line in the sand pushing Wikipedia into the latter group. User:CBowes Note: User:CBowes already voted above. --Metropolitan90 05:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is it inappropriate for you to modify the page? If you think it should be kept, and if you can modify it to improve the chances that it will be, be bold. As to satisfying the need for outside sources, a good place to start would be reviewing the verifiability policy. Eron 17:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also note that user CBowes has voted twice in this discussion. Gwernol 20:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

  • Keep Please don't get pretentious and pace, pace. At the heart of the matter for those of you shouting "delete" is that you do not live in New Orleans, where the term has its origins, and you have no compassion for just how paced your city can become when it's hit by a hurricane. Do you really feel any better when you kick those who are down? Is there a reason why we can't have our culture displayed in Wikipedia? I think not. Please, just give pace a chance. -Dgran
Comment You most certainly can display your culture here. It's just that this particular article might not be the best way to do so. Eron 21:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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


  • Keep I believe Pace is an important new term both for New Orleans and for all of Louisiana. As a resident of Baton Rouge I can attest to having heard the term Pace on several occasions which proves that it is not just a local phenomenon. Pace is becoming an important part of Louisiana culture and is proving its viability by spreading to different cities and even different states. To delete this term would be both close minded and intolerant. RockerBT 22:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unstable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Without the word pace I would not have been able to complete my thesis for grad school.

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beechdean

Blatant advertising. Created by Andreruss who has contributed nothing else and which looks like an amalgam of the founders' names (Andrew and Susie Howard). Seem to have forgotten their password because editing continued by Ice cream who has contributed nothing else. (I am prepared to be told they are notable even so - but we should not support their guerrilla marketing practises. Meanwhile, Beechdean hasn't the funds to advertise on television. They turn to guerrilla marketing to promote themselves. [27]) -- RHaworth 18:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert S. Ross

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

The result of the debate was merge to Jim Jarmusch. I didn't smerge the incident with his son into Tom Waits, as it doesn't seem notable enough to appear in that article, though it is in Jim Jarmusch. The content (all one line of it) can still easily be seen by bypassing the redirect if anyone disagrees. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sons of Lee Marvin

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

  • Merge with Jim Jarmusch, with a smerge of the incident with Marvin's real son to Tom Waits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Colin Kimbrell, but only verifiable information. Delete if unverifiable. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've seen both Waits and Jarmusch make mention of aspects of this before, so at least some of it should be verifiable. -Colin Kimbrell 20:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. It can be verified, Jarmusch, Waits and Cave have all discussed it in interview. It's a joke organisation but it's still significant pop culture, providing commentary on the artistic relationship between Waits and Jarmusch. That it was even proposed for deletion is preposterous. If it is going to be merged, than it needs to be put with Jarmusch, and the other pages need to reference it, but I think keeping the original page as the best option. Robinoke. 15 April.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Shitmix

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 articles. Mailer Diablo 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swords of the Ancients

Advertising spam TexasAndroid 19:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Cinthorc, Luciendar, Mithrodin. and Valermos, specific sword in the collection. All spam, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 19:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all, adverts. --Tone 21:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hm, I suppose that the author calling the swords "collector's items" is an assertion of notability, however much it's an unsourced, unverified ad claim, so that takes A7 off the table. I've changed my vote to just plain Delete. What's your basis for voting to keep, while we're questioning one another's votes? RGTraynor 14:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete and protect. Slightly different from the versions deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Carlow Crab but equally short on references. -- RHaworth 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C@rlow Crab

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

Delete per nom. Some guy 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Carlow Crab page was deleted. All occurrances of Carlow Crab that I found by Googling are created by users. It appears to be a hoax. If an external link for the series or a network that hosted any of the shows can be be produced, then keep, otherwise it's a hoax. --Walter Görlitz 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Transwiki this discussion to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ed Poor/count strokes, where it should have started. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ed Poor/count strokes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect Kotepho 20:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla Tokyo SOS

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

Somehow one movie has gotten two pages...

Should we not delete one of them?

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, withdrawn by nominator. NTK 16:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WRCG-AM 1420

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

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (also after discounting anons). Kusma (討論) 02:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghosts of Libertatia

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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


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

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

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

Tyler house

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -Obli (Talk)? 22:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snuff Daddy

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


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crenoid

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

The result of the debate was delete. RobertG ♬ talk 09:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Island Census

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

To clarify - this content was already part of Characters of Lost and has been restored there. Rillian 21:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: speedy deleted as an attack page and blatant nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe (talk • contribs)

Jeffrey Montgomery Burns

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

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


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

The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mescalinum Music Research and List of Mescalinum Music Research releases

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

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


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car Crash Television

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

Delete. nn. --Tone 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eleap

Non-notable training program. Was PRODded, but tag removed after article edited to remove advertising. Notability not established or asserted. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems to me, beta services should be given the opportunity to rise or fall. Kinda "eating their young" mentality going on? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.84.42.234 (talk • contribs) .
  • Rebuttal Is that why Gmail is in Wiki. It even has a nice Beta sign on its logo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pungu (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, unless it can be proved through the use of verifiable information taken from reliable, third-party sources that this web-based training program meets the criteria displayed at the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline. The current-proposed criteria at the Wikipedia:Notability (software) guideline proposal may also apply. If deleted, this AfD discussion should not prevent thr re-creation of this article at a later date, provided that the above criteria can be demonstratably met. -- Saberwyn 13:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • eLeaP reviewed, I will encourage readers to follow Saul Weiner's review of the eLeaP platform. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pungu (talk • contribs) .
  • Do not delete, I have been looking for a way to streamline my orientation practices in healthcare and this tool is something I'd like to test for usability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.203.245.175 (talk • contribs) .
  • Is it normal to delete from wiki a complete and useful tool? mke 81.181.126.68 08:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • If it cannot demonstratably meet the guidelines and criteria I have mentioned above, usually yes. "Useful" is a very subjective term, and should only be used when backed up by a reliable source, such as a review from a newspaper or computing magazine. -- Saberwyn 11:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note, a large number of unsigned votes or comments from unregistered authors may be seen as detrimental to the 'cause' of keeping an article on Wikipedia. You are free to make your point, but be careful --JeffUK
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 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 Keep. Kusma (討論) 02:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pobal Scoil Iosa, Malahide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lists of string quartets

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial mills

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (as per concensus). — FireFox • T [18:42, 12 April 2006]

Donkey punch

This is a very problematic page that violates WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:WINAD. Let me state that I am not at all motivated by any desire to censor Wikipedia. There are plenty of sex articles I would never dream of deleting, because they have been properly documented in psychiatric and medical literature. This is different. I'm nominating this because its existence clearly violates policy, and it is a very attractive target to vandals. I also don't like having what are supposed to be factual articles that are filled with speculation, fiction, and outright lies. A couple of days ago, this was added to the article:

"The most unique and hilarious variation, however, is the one where it is said that immediately upon being punched, the partner taking it up the ass contracts so forcefully, the active partner's penis is ejected three winks prior to ejaculation. At this critical juncture, a delicate BABY is also evacuated, and it immediately begins to eS the Dee of the repudiated partner to finish him off. If the baby is a good girl, she will swallow. Male babies never never nerver swallow. Good luck to everyone!"

I don't know what kind of person it takes to come up with this stuff, but I suspect it's not the kind of person we need to write articles. I've tried to edit out the fiction, but without any success. One user repeatedly puts back information that he really can't be bothered to provide sources for. Other editors have repeatedly removed the information, and it has been put back. One such piece of information is the idea that punching someone hard enough in the back will cause their rectum to prolapse and form a so-called "pink sock." I'm not a physician, but I know that simply being punched does not cause rectal prolapse. I'd like to see this article deleted, but perhaps it and its kind could be put on one page, perhaps titled sexual urban legends, to make it easier to monitor vandalism, to give all these terms context, and to limit the amount of trivial references to movies, cartoons, TV shows, and video games each one inevitably attracts. At any rate, I'm done with this article. Monitoring it and others like it is a thankless job, and no one seems to care anyway about whether it is factual or not. Comments directed at me personally during this discussion will not be answered on this page, and should instead be directed to my talk page where they will be promptly ignored. People crying "censorship!" will not be taken seriously. Brian G. Crawford 20:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep your laziness in not wanting to vandal patrol is not a reason to delete an article. A simple google shows the term is quite frequently used and as such BELONGS on wikipedia. Stop being lazy and verify the damn thing rather than spending the time to rant on AFD.  ALKIVAR™ 20:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep indeed. WP:AFD is not a soapboax. Vandalism is a problem in every facet of Wikipedia, and we already have tools to deal with it. Deletion is not one of those tools. Silensor 20:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a very well-known phrase/concept, and is appropriate to Wikipedia. The vandalsim you quote is irrelevant to whether or not that article should be deleted. Brian G. Crawford has repeatedly attempted to blank and remove this article. — Linnwood 20:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening debate to gather a wider concensus, seeing as I closed it too early the first time. — FireFox • T [21:46, 11 April 2006]
  • Merge with Cleveland steamer, Dirty sanchez, et al into Invented extreme sex acts or something of the sort. Since nobody can find any documentation for these acts being carried out (and people referring to them with these phrases) anytime before they became a popular internet meme, it's about time we started treating them not as legitimate phrases that any sexual researcher would use, but as the toilet humor they were intended to be.GT 08:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Sloychuk (politician)

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

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

Merge to New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election as should be done with all other failed candidates without other serious clims to notability. Luigizanasi 05:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rebecca Blaikie was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep

Not notable in her own right. RickK 05:55, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Keep, though for heaven's sake with a little more content. She stood for election against Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in his electoral district in Montreal in 2004. Cannon fodder, for sure, but far enough above the radar to merit note. The previous NDP candidate against Martin made a documentary about the experience, which was widely screened. Most Google hits seem to be mainstream news articles, most from media 'outside Montreal'; she's of some national interest. If the piece was more than one line about who her dad was we might not be having this discussion. Yes, I would add to it myself. Don't have time this very moment, but if it isn't deleted... Finally, a Canadian politician's progeny who has done even less of note, but is moderately famous and gets an entry: Justin Trudeau. 64.229.35.130 06:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Standing against an incumbent who is going to win easily isn't notable. Her public profile as the daughter of a mid rank politician won't be that high either. If she was standing for experience this time and gets nominated for, and wins, a seat in the next election, then she can have a page. But at the moment, I don't see sufficient importance. Average Earthman 10:55, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know how familiar you are with Canadian politics, but Bill Blaikie is far from a mid rank politician. He is, in fact, a major figure in Canadian political life. On his importance alone, his daughter would be a keeper for doing anything that got her in the news...like, say, standing as an electoral candidate. Keep. Bearcat 10:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep we have many articles on less notable candidates in the Canadian election. - SimonP 12:48, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I disagree with Avg. Earthman; standing for election (assuming you're from a leading party) is in fact notable. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:33, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
    • Even if you get less than 5% of the vote? Average Earthman 17:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes. If anything, the fact that she ran against a leading political figure makes her more notable. Either way, this is over my personal line for keeping. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:32, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
  • Keep - Could mature into a (short) article. We're not starved for namespace in and around "Rebecca Blaikie". - TB 14:39, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and built the article up a little bit - TB 14:48, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, particularly since Topbanana's edits. Ambi 02:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I think there's too many articles on obscure politicians but why single her out? RedWolf 03:26, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would be a shame to have every character in the Pokemon universe but not a real person who was considered newsworthy. --LeeHunter 19:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Rick Barsky

This article lists elections in which this person was a candidate for various parties and was not elected. The same information would appear on the election results pages where appropriate. The article appears to be non-notable and was marked for cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big iron (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 September 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As a general rule, I'd suggest that anyone who runs in a Canadian general election is eligible for an entry on Wikipedia. This page needs a cleanup; it doesn't need to be deleted. CJCurrie 00:15, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I presume if this person had run for office on a Star Trek episode it would be fine to keep them. The Recycling Troll 04:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I would say as a rule that running for election does not make you notable. I could stand in the next General Election in the UK - apart from the fact I'd lose my deposit and it would be a waste of time, there is nothing to stop me (as you can tell by looking at the loonies that stand in UK by-elections). That wouldn't make me notable. If the most notable thing he has done is not be elected, delete. Average Earthman 10:01, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Forgot to say - he didn't lose by a bit, he lost massively. Getting 841 votes isn't impressive when the winner gets over 11,000. Average Earthman 10:07, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Average Earthman. --Improv 12:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it - this person was on the ballot in a real election. That's notable enough. Intrigue 19:45, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wiki is the only place you'll find this info. the world needs a place for these people.Kevintoronto 20:59, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Running for election three time and losing very very easily in all of them is not notable. As Average Earthman said, almost anyone can run for election. If Average Earthman can find 6 mates to nominate him and has the cash for the deposit, I look forward to not voting for him in the next UK election. If someone can find something else interesting that he's done, I'll change my mind. Jongarrettuk 22:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but add more info such as ridings he's run in and perhaps vote totals. Running in federal and provincial elections is "notable" enough for a reference, particularly if he's prone to run again thus avoiding dead links in future election articles. AndyL 22:53, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Running in an election is not especially notable. Running in a federal election with no chance of winning is no more notable than running as a fringe candidate for mayor of a very small town with no hope of winning. Jallan 16:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete As Jallan. GWO 18:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I notice a certain trend around VfD: unelected political candidates for minor parties are notable for their candidacy alone, if they're American. Ten minutes of searching gave me Beau Gunderson, Jerry Kohn, Tim Smith, Tom Bailey, Andrés Soto, Gayle McLaughlin, Nicole Sarmiento and Rick Griffin, and I'm sure countless others would show up if I kept looking. But if they're Canadian, watch the deletes come out of the woodwork. Keep as equally notable to anyone on that list, or VfD that list too. Bearcat 00:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • If you feel they are not notable, nominate them for VfD. Average Earthman 08:42, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • keep Earl Andrew 21:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Angelina Jolie. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zahara Jolie-Pitt

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


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Angelina Jolie. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maddox Jolie-Pitt

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


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

The result of the debate was merge to Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Barendregt

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

  • While I realize that not everybody agrees on the notability of unelected political candidates, the precedent has already been set that federal candidates are entitled at least to inclusion in a merged list. Either keep or merge into a CHP candidates list; precedent already excludes outright deletion as an option. Bearcat 00:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's some other claim to notability. There isn't. Merge if you can find an article for his party. Fan1967 01:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Baldasaro

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Atkins

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman{L} 05:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Metroid series characters

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OT5

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Queensland Cowboys History

There is no need for two pages that cover the North Queensland Cowboys. Furthermore, much of this material is unsuitable and some of it copyrighted.

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Kusma (討論) 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to Star Trek in South Park

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16th March 2006 Navi Mumbai riot

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


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

The result of the debate was redirect. There is no "cast biography" on that page as yet to merge to. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Bolton (reality TV star)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of themed timelines

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

  • Strong Keep. Anyone can edit wikipedia so if there is something missing, by all means, add it to the list. It's your participation that will help this list expand over time. -- JJay 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point, which was that if all the timelines are added to the list that should be (it doesn't matter by whom) then the list will be too long to be one page anymore. Thus the argument that it is all on one page is a red herring. --JeffW 00:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When it gets that long where it is almost complete then we can examine our options such as deletion. For the time being, considering it is all on one page and far from complete, deletion is obviously premature. Of course, it is also possible that many of our existing timeline pages would themselves be merged or deleted over time, thereby eliminating the risk that the list would ever achieve a length that would even suggest the need for deconsolidation. Not that this is intended in any way to disparage the often very real benefits derived from spinning-off articles and lists. Despite your well-meaning question that seems to view AfD as a discounting mechanism establishing a net present value for articles based on future editing flows, my personal timeline for forming an opinion on AfD only runs for five days. Put simply, I am uncomfortable with a capital sentence rendered for alleged future crimes. In the present case, now well beyond my timeline due to the quite unfortunate initial close, no crime has been committed so the judgement must be to acquit. -- JJay 02:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was raised at the Administrators' noticeboard (permalink) and on Deletion Review. Restored and re-opened without prejudice.
  • For previous existing backlinks I removed see here for edits with summary "removed red link (themed timeline)."
  • Also here for redlinks removed by User:JeffW in this period.
brenneman{L} 03:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Kusma (討論) 02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana)

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

Have a read of Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana) and look at its history. Instead of the knee-jerk "It's a school, therefore it must stay" mindset, I urge you to re-think this vote. I understand the importance of schools and school-related articles, (I initiated Wikiproject:Schools more than 2 years ago) but this article and its archived edit history is clogging the WP servers with obscene name-calling, libelous comments, and attacks on real, living people. That is exposing the WP Foundation to possible legal action. It needs deleted and started over from scratchwith a cleansed history. Davodd 23:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are voting to keep his article - which was started as a vandal's attack and its archived edit history is clogging the WP servers with obscene name-calling, libelous comments, and attacks on real, living people. That is exposing the WP Foundation to possible legal action. - Davodd 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the umpteenth time, delete the libelous info and move on with your life. Sheesh. Aplomado - UTC 00:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I am trying to do here - but you are voting to keep them. Davodd 00:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the entire article, I'm talking about just the libel. If you would take a second to look at the article, you would see that the libel has been removed. Aplomado - UTC 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I didn't realize you have only been a member of Wikipedia for a couple of months. The libel exists archived forever and publicly viewable on Wikipedia servers in the article's edit history. I am trying to get permission to delete the parts of the history that are libelous. Sorry for the confusion. Davodd 00:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your condescending remarks notwithstanding, I know perfectly well that the history is available. It's not necessary to delete entire articles every time something libelous happens to show up in them, which is all the time. Aplomado - UTC 01:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if you were offended. I am not asking to delete the article - I am asking to selectively delete various vandal-type edits from multiple IP addresses, sockpuppets and known vandals while keeping the legit edits. 01:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, welcome to another new user! I hope you stay and help Wikipedia improve for years to come. I am only seeking permission to clean up the article's history - not prevent any article about this school in the future. Thanks, and sorry for the confusion. - Davodd 00:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there are better avenues for this. If you delete the history, what's to stop someone from sticking that nonsense in again and fouling things up? Aplomado - UTC 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Normally these are caught early on. But occasionally we need to go through this process - particularly if an article doesn't get the attention of our vandal fighters from the get-go. Davodd 01:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rfrisbietalk 01:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current attack-free revision per precedent, but delete the history. Note: the history of an article with such libel can and often is deleted by an admin, selectively, without an AFD. AFDs are just for total removal of an aricle. So, please don't even wait for this AFD to finisih, and purge the attack history. I'm sorry, but I've seen this selective deletion with other articles (during an AFD, or after a keep), and just don't see the big deal. --Rob 03:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Keep Can you show some precedence for deleting article history? The way I see it that would remove all evidence of user contribution to the article, both positive and negative and therefore defeating the purpose of the Wikipedia licence. I also think this article should be kept, and users who vandalise warned or banned. Deleting article history isnt going to stop them. Tyhopho 07:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recently I requested it to be done for Roy Gordon Lawrence. I think GFDL is a a concern. But this has solutions:
      • Mere lists of facts aren't copyrightable. Most of this article, is that, and as such, its not a concern
      • If the good content is substantially different then the bad content (e.g. a total rewrite) it's a new work. This is just like if you take contents from an external web site, and totally reword it. That's ok. Basically, I'm saying the vandals have a copyright, and works derived from that, but not works that aren't derived from it. The fact two versions exist in the same article's history, does not mean one was is truly derived from another (retaining mere facts does not count).
      • We can record a list of edits (user id/datestamps) in the talk page, for attribution purposes
      • Finally, given that there is so little content, if any admin wishes to, without an AFD, they can just go ahead and delete the article *while* immedidately remaking it with new content (e.g. a substub).
    • Finally, I welcome any admin to interpret my vote to mean I want the attacks gone, and I want an article for this school to exist, however that is accomplished, whatever has to be done. --Rob 08:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is precendent for deleting edits from history such as personal information in edit summaries and in cases of WP:LIBEL. Even if an admin cannot undelete only the top revision a developer can fix it, but I don't think this is that important. I agree that what you suggest would be advisable, but I'm sure people are breaking GDFL with history deletions, cut+paste moves, and other things so I'm not sure people care. Kotepho 11:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the libel. Newspaper semi-covers it. I'll look for more stuff from periodicals such as the supposed NYT article. Kotepho 11:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — PoV issues are not a valid reason for a delete. Valid High Schools are notable institutions IMO. :) — RJH 15:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't the right process. CalJW 01:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For future reference, this (WP:AFD) is not the place to bring an article that requires cleanup. Silensor 02:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you don't live in NACS school district you could not possible understand the context of this and that this article, in fact, is a quality well-written piece on how the school is viewed. It is neutral and considers both sides while portraying what the media has reported. Keep it as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.193.210 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: No, actually your edits are extremely biased and will be reverted by me every time you add them. You are well on your way to a ban if you continue. Aplomado - UTC 19:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: That User is a repeat vandal, part of a teenage sockpuppet cabal and already has been banned. - Davodd 19:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earthdramon

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman{L} 04:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander J. Rudall

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_11&oldid=48084156"