Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 18

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndrewBellis (talk | contribs) at 22:03, 18 April 2006 (Greatest rock bands). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 17 >

Purge server cache

April 18

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- RHaworth 09:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tony Danza and The Tony Danza (sex move)

Found this under recent changes. Looks like it needs to be deleted. It's impossible to verify and very misogynistic. Erik the Rude 00:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating The Tony Danza (sex move). It's an exact copy. Erik the Rude 00:09, 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. Thryduulf 11:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touchyball & Crazypants

This is the english version translation of the Spanish webcomic Picapolla y Chocholoco seen here. They are both hosted on the same domain, and that domain comes back with an Alexa rank of 350,000. Note that the webcomic is not the only thing at that domain. "Picapolla y Chocholoco" gives just over 70 links and the word touchyball gives back 12 links. I do not think that either the Spanish webcomic nor the English translation is notable. However, if it is kept, I strongly suggest having the article under the original spanish name. - Hahnchen 00:08, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend Of Anne Bunny

Please take a look at the webcomic in question here. Anne Bunny is one of the several webcomics hosted on the Magpie House Designs website. Are they notable? Is this specific comic notable? "Legend of Anne Bunny" gives 36 hits on Google, and "Magpie House Design" gives 23 unique hits. (The reason the latter search gives thousands of none unique hits is due to Google messing up it's forum page caching). Alexa also ranks the site at which it's hosted on at 600,000+. I don't think the entire domain is notable enough for an article, let alone a single webcomic on it. - Hahnchen 00:08, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad World (comic)

Is this a notable website? Hosted on Comic Genesis, the webcomic can be seen here and is also mirrored on DrunkDuck. The article seems to be written by the webcomic author, Michael Wriston. The website is updated on a random schedule, so that is perhaps why it is not mentioned in the Alexa report for comic genesis. But I just can't find an establishment of notability online, it looks to be one of the thousands of small time webcomics on Comic Genesis. - Hahnchen 00:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulfside United Methodist Assembly

not really a notable church, parishcruft Montco 00:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you are not African American, or is this site not for what is notable for American of African heritage? This is a state of Mississippi Historic site. C. Baker Motley used it a the base of operations during the court sessions to integrate the Law school at Old MS University. Judge Marshall came there to work with other NAACP lawyers. Leontine Price sang there because it was one of a few places where she could sing opera to her own people in the south. It is not a Church but a 65 acre campus. The only place in this country where a Black person could legally walk on the beach or swim in a part of the Gulf of Mexico until after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

It would have been a bit more civilized if I had been allowed to finish writing the article before passing judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLJQuinn (talk • contribs)

sorry am new at this. Jacqui Quinn

  • My criteria for an AfD are based on objective criteria. The retreat has all of 75 unique hits on google. Some of which include:Gulfport Timeshares. There were 2 AP stories, both of which had to do with the rebuilding of the camp. Big deal, lots of stuff has to be rebuilt after the hurricanes. We don't list every apartment building and hotel on the Gulf Coast that was destroyed. I found nothing to assert the sort of notability which you claim for the place. According to the state's historical preservation, there are 588 state historical landmarks in Mississippi. [1] including post offices. Not all of those are notable. Montco 01:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup. I think, as JLJQuinn shows, the church is indeed notable. THe article needs some cleanup, but presumably that will come in due course. (Jacqui: see your talkpage) Bucketsofg 01:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the tone of this comment and the use of the term "foolheaded. " However, the article was tagged for deletion one hour after JLJQuinn (talk · contribs) started it, and regardless of whatever the nominator found via google, I find that the eighth hit on the first page is a newspaper article that verifies the essential details [2]. I notice that JLQuinn has not edited the article since then; maybe this is just her night out. I hope she hasn't been driven away from the project. Thatcher131 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Montco has apologized on JLQuinn's talk page, which I find commendable. I considered blanking my comment immediately above but I decided to leave it; maybe this episode will give someone else some food for thought too. Thatcher131 04:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Geogre with sumarry of (Vandalism). -- JLaTondre 02:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifitti


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABC idents

Comment. I think it is surprising that there are so many votes to keep this article even though it has no real text other than the heading paragraph. Georgia guy 22:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given the example from National Broadcasting Company logos, articles like this have some chance for expansion into a good article. Then again, articles like ABC idents and BBC television idents don't. I thinking moving to "List of ABC idents" would be a good idea, because "list of" articles are just that: a list, not an article. Jesuschex 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea_Rosen

vanity. Endless Shrimp 00:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The name "Fringe Festival" is self-consciously ironic; the event itself is well-known and extremely well-regarded. There are "Fringe Festivals" in major cities around the English-speaking world and more, including New York, Philadelphia, Boulder, San Francisco, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Ottawa, Melbourne, Prague, Singapore, Dublin, Brighton, Bath, and Edinburgh. Some are more substantial than others; the New York City event is extremely well-known, regularly covered in depth and treated as notable by media like the New York Times. The name, as I recall, goes back to one of the UK events in the late 1940s, staged in an area of the involved city known as "the Fringe". The last time I checked, an ironic name was not grounds for deprecating an otherwise substantial event. Monicasdude 15:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware that this discussion was about keeping or deleting any "Fringe" festival articles. And yes, the various "Fringe" festivals themselves are very notable. But what sort of individuals -- you know, the actual topic under discussion -- perform at the various "Fringe" festivals? Hmmm, the word "Fringe" should be a clue there, hoss. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's sort of a flimsy criterion. The festival is substantial—in a commercial sense—but the same can't automatically be said of individual participants. Should every single musician who participates in the CMJ Music Marathon or SXSW have their own wikipedia article? Endless Shrimp 20:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (ie - Hollywood Walk of Fame)? Nope.
  • # Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. A regular in a failed basic-cable series? Nope.
--Calton | Talk 06:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."--M@rēino 18:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And just because they got a listing on IMDB or collected a couple of paychecks doesn't mean they should be kept, either. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 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 Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downs/Archambault

Not a specific architect, it's a firm; reads like a business card or yellow pages entry; Brianporter 00:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article seems to say that the firm isn't that notable based on the limited amount of projects that the company has participated in; google gives no non-wikipedia hits for the term Where (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. delete self-promotion Williamb 03:29, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karren Reissmann

Non notable, minor party failed candidate, little extra available. Mtiedemann 01:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. The only main-space incoming link was unnecessary, and I removed it, leaving an orphan duplicate dab page. Deleted as a housekeeping procedure. kingboyk 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion (disambiguation)

Redundant with previously existing disambiguation page at Motion. Also, I believe equal topic disambiguation and not primary topic disambiguation is appropriate in this case because of the genericity of the term "motion", the number of articles linking to "motion" which clearly do not mean the physical sense, and similar disambiguation organization on other-language Wikipedias. —Psychonaut 01:14, 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 speedied due to request by creator. Ingoolemo talk 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States bomber scale-chart

I created this article some time ago, and I still believe that the information it contains is undeniably valuable. However, I have nominated it because I feel that the article is unencyclopedic in that it does not actually have a topic: it exists solely as a context for the scale-chart it contains—in fact, the article contains absolutely no information not already in the image it's built around. The GIF within it has been uploaded onto the commons, so no information will be lost. The commons is definitely a better place for this kind of thing. Ingoolemo talk 01:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with the exception of its subpages, it's entirely orphaned and has been for nearly two years. Ingoolemo talk 01:35, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweaty Brown Betty

Wikipedia is not for things made up while drunk one day. 0 google hits. {{prod}} failed. Delete -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austral-Asian Community Church

This was originally prodded by User:AYArktos on the grounds of questioning how this church stood out from others. User:Cynical then removed, on the grounds "churches are notable". I disagree that a religious centre is inherently important so here it is. I am unconvinced that the fact that this church was formed by a minority group adds any more notability to the fact that it is a church.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:48, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurfc


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ComSer

It's an internet forum with 167 total members. Interiot 02:37, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OCS Pakistan

Advertisement/NPOV, non-notable, not to wiki markup standards J.reed 02:55, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic Amenorrhea axon atrophy

Take a look at Axon, Atrophy, and Amenorrhea. This article talks about all three of those subjects, but fails to join them together. :: Colin Keigher 02:56, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado supreme

This article is more like a biography of two people in a band, probably does not show up on Google, and has reference only on a myspace page. Funnybunny 03:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why dont you tell us why your voting delete?65.8.35.219 03:46, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.R.X.

Article fails to assert notability of the band. It says that the group has "a large fan base in British Columbia", but does not state the source of that information, or provide statistics to support this claim. Thus, the article fails WP:MUSIC. Interesting name though, so a reluctant delete. Kimchi.sg | talk 03:02, 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. -lethe talk + 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theorem 1

Comment: Even with that revision, the problem remains that not every first theorem in books is called "Theorem 1". Oops, I guess I wasn't supposed to respond to that :-) --C S (Talk) 22:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why did you call this theorem 1 -- or rather on what list is it the first theorem? The name is puzzling (there are lots of theorem 1s in mathematics articles and book, sometimes even within the same book) and seems nonsensical in the context of WP.--CSTAR 17:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klambino Ball

nn game, zero Google hits for "Klambino Ball" or "Klambinoball". User:Zoe|(talk) 03:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

save Klambino Ball!


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exotical

Seems to have been placed here by someone mistaking Wikipedia for a gaming discussion forum. u p p l a n d 03:55, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

York University Student Centre

Non-notable building at York University. Wikipedia is not a junkyard Delete Ardenn 03:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Comment, You know, you have a valid point... mind changed. :) :: Colin Keigher 04:10, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

York University Ice Palace

Makes no claim as to why it deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete Ardenn 04:00, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Du Page 3

Neologism. I have lived in this general area for 15 years and I have never ever heard this phrase. Google has nothing of the sort no matter what combo I use. Moreover, DuPage County, Illinois is never spelled with a space between Du and Page. This just silly monikercruft or even vandalism & it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Trust me on this.Madman 04:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tait Mackenzie Building

Non-notable building at York University. Wikipedia is not a junkyard Delete --Ardenn 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Just enough for a consensus, methinks. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Ice Gardens

Makes no claim as to why it deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete --Ardenn 04:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment, Pm_shef, please do not make false slanderous accusations, its very worthy of an article and is definetly not any kind of "cruft" as you attempt to claim --JohnnyCanuck 17:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment over 33,000 results in Google, originally called Ice Gardens, later sold naming rights to be called Beatrice Ice Gardens--JohnnyCanuck 21:37, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atkinson College Building

Makes no claim as to why it deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete --Ardenn 04:13, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Rousseau (Lost)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election and Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election

Not encyclopedic. Pages for failed candidates of very minor party. brenneman{L} 04:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep for both. There are numerous pages like this on Wikipedia, and the article format is the result of a compromise that followed extensive discussions. CJCurrie 04:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for both. The CHP is just as notable as Marijuana Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. :: Colin Keigher 04:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I strongly feel that individual minor party candidates don't deserve their own articles, it is a good idea for an encyclopedic type production such as Wiki to keep a list of former candidates. Good reference material, without wasting space on non-noteable nobodies. pm_shef 05:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ardenn 05:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Gives us a place to store information on candidates for a party without clogging the place with non-notable biographies often cribbed if not copied from the Party website. Capitalistroadster 05:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At least some of this material belongs. If it doesn't warrant a separate article, then it may be merged to Christian Heritage Party of Canada, after discussion on the relevant talk page (not an AFD issue). Christian Heritage Party of Canada has nothing on individual candidates, and I think at least some, like those who's vote counts exceed the winner/runner-up spread, are worthy of inclusion in one or the other article. -Rob 05:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per CJCurrie and pm_shef. —GrantNeufeld 05:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks interesting, and much better than having articles on each of the candidates. Fagstein 06:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which sentence of it do you find interesting, choosing from those following the table of contents? The plain old results tables are, I expect, already summarised more sensibly elsewhere. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article on the Party is a different matter, but failed candidates are not notable. --kingboyk 06:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole idea was first proposed by AFD' as a solution to a very real and otherwise unresolvable debate. It's not an ideal solution, I grant, but it's the only way anybody's found to date to balance a very real and legitimate difference of opinion on the notability of electoral candidates. So, considering that this approach was AFD's idea to begin with, keep. Bearcat 06:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as status quo compromise. This 'List of...' article is a proactive alternative to individual candidate pages that spring up every election. Theoretically (in my mergist fantasy), all candidates get a redirect page to this kind of list page (or, more practically, as it is practised, all candidates get merged/redirected to such a page once someone creates an article on them). This page solves some rather annoying things, like endless afds on electoral candidates who just want the free ad space and get it for at least the 5 days the afd takes (hint: don't take it to afd, just merge/redirect it to the list pages) and a one-stop shop to monitor for abusive or peacock descriptions of the candidate (opposed to monitoring hundreds of pages during that grace period candidates are normally given during an election). This topic had a centralized discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates; and this proposal came up here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates#A mergist's solution. --maclean25 07:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a solution since we just keep the (non-)information somewhere else! What does it matter which title you put it under? If we get a bunch of politico-vanity-adverts every election, then that's fine. Delete them every election. I do not see, like Hiding below, that that discussion has any particular 'consensus' so strong as to overrule ordinary notability standards and to justify a dismissal of this entire AfD on the basis of it, as some seem to be suggesting. -194.247.247.60 19:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a "solution" to the problem you are posing, but it is a solution to the problem posed at the centralized discussion. This is an unofficial compromise, not a 'concensus' that emerged from centralized discussion (it never went to a straw poll). The reason the title matters is because it is much easier to deal with one article than a dozen. These are just little bios that illustrate what kind of people are running for these parties. They are not full-blown biographies that require hours of research. One of the reasons the centralized discussion occured was because the afd process was not working, some were kept, some deleted (some repeatedly) but most ended with 'no concensus'. --maclean25 01:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced, reading Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, that this compromise has any more consensus than any other. I'm also not sure we need seperate lists for each party, when they are of these lengths. I think I'd be inclined to keep merging these lists to a point where they aren't unwieldy and aren't potential forks and aren't granting undue balance. On the last point, do the major parties also have lists of their failed candidates? If not, we are creating articles on an undue balance basis. At the moment, delete. I could see a value in Candidates in the 2004 Canadian federal election, but we're not debating that here. Hiding talk 07:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems totally appropriate to me. While having a separate page for each of these candidates would be overkill, a list with some basic information certainly seems worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia of unlimited size such as Wikipedia. NoIdeaNick 09:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NoIdeaNick and others. Wikipedia is not paper. CJCurrie and others have gathered a lot of verifiable informaiton about these people into a small numbers of well-organized articles. It would be a shame to lose these. Ground Zero | t 11:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 12:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We need to get rid of the individual nn candidate entries, and need a place to put them. One article per party per election for losing candidates seems reasonable. Fan1967 14:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does keeping them get rid of them? Why do we need a place for below-average losers? One article per party that is actually relevant to the world outside their pub crew, I can understand. But an article just for signing a form once? That's a bit much. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm at a loss why a party that got way way less than 1% overall (yes, individual ridings varied but they competed in what, 15 ridings tops???) needs an article about a particular election outcome. I think merging this stuff with the main party article is the way to go. To those that cite other party articles, as examples that it should be done this way, I suggest perhaps that other minor party articles need the same merging/purging treatment too. Nothing much more could ever be said here, could it? As much as it pains me to do so, given my extreme detestation for Mr. Brenneman and his deletionist ways (KIDDING!) I must suggest that the right thing to do here is Merge with redirect... ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This is the sort of information that politics researchers find useful; one of the things that constantly hampers my discipline is not having information on the minor parties in countries outside the United States. Even if the article was not useful now, I can state without any reservation at all that, based on the research being done today, it will be useful a few years down the line.Captainktainer 16:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as CJCurrie pointed out, it is a reasonable compromise. Useful information for future research on Canadian elections. Note that Wikipedia is not paper. Luigizanasi 05:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per CJCurrie et al. BoojiBoy 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as irrelevant to the local community, the national community, the world community, the election, the other candidates in the election and as a grouping together of a whole bunch of utterly non-notable bios, each of which would be a near-speedy candidate if it weren't masquerading as an election result. There is little to no information in these articles that is informative of politics and there is no reason to spend time writing about a collection of literal losers. Losing by a stonkingly huge amount is something that Joe Anybody can do without even leaving their bedroom: literally. Add a passing mention to a main article or two, or a table of percentages somewhere. No need for a full-blown merge and redirect. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Above user has no prior contributions. CJCurrie 19:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I have about 25,000. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies, but you signed anonymously the first time. CJCurrie 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I did. And I imagine my comment sounds quite harsh to the author of the article. But really, did they have any impact on any of the things I mentioned in my first sentence? Are they likely ever too? Did they even get any significant media coverage, apart from some presumable stuff about being a fringe party (or whatever the terminology appropriately is)? Is the detailed info on the candidates actually of connection to anything other than this article? If you cut that out, at least we'd get a more focussed article. -Splashtalk 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't create the 2006 article -- someone else did. As has already been noted, the list system is a compromise: the candidates don't need to be individually important to qualify. To the party's importance, it might be noteworthy the Stephen Harper, Canada's current PM, once wrote about adding the CHP's support base to a broad "right-wing coalition" (not that I'm suggesting that the page should be kept for this reason alone). CJCurrie 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A minor party, but at least a notable one. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. RexNL 19:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where has everyone got the idea that Wikipedia should onlyu include things that are important or "notable" (which is as vague and useless a term as one could imagine)? The main advantage that Wikipedia has over paper encyclopedias is that is can cover the nooks and crannies of the sum of knowledge in this world. There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See the grounds for deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and, for interest, Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. Ground Zero | t 20:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is an endlessly rehearsed argument. It fails on several key counts: Jimbo's ordinary opinions, whilst of great interest, do not form policy or guideline absent some authority being granted to them, or him speaking ex cathedra. Also, "non-notable" is such an accepted deletion criterion that non-notable bios, bands etc, can be deleted on sight per CSD A7. "Non-notable" is a frequently successful argument for deletion because it is simply a collecting-together of many different things: WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information, of unencyclopedic information, etc etc. It is not as simple "i don't think he's interesting". It is clearly enough not a "useless" term, it is actually a usefully adaptive term that is just oft-debated as people differ on individual items. The nooks and crannies of the sum of knowledge indeed; it is questionable whether the school-days employment of a random loser qualifies as knowledge. -Splashtalk 20:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the counter-argument is that there are hundreds of articles on minor characters in Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Buffy, Pokemon, video game and lots of other fictional universes. There are articles on weaponry, spacecraft, battles, religions, languages and institutions of these universes that do not exist. These articles exist because people are interested enough to write about them, and because Wikipedia is willing to be the host for information about them. Here we are talking about real world candidates of real world political parties for real world political offices in a county that is, for the most part, a real place. There are people who are interested in writing about and reading about these people. How is Wikipedia diminished by allowing the stories of these real people sit alongside all of the articles about the stories of minor fictitional characters? Ground Zero | t 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep per Ground Zero's excellent argument. If we can have articles on every single damn pokemon that (N)ever existed, this should be a no brainer. Jcuk 21:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the party is notable and the information here could be useful to researchers. Wstaffor 23:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that records on small party candidates are important for historical reasons. Also, CHP canidates tend to run multiple times and in multiple ridings. This info will almost certainly be useful for future elections. Just nbecause you didn't get a lot of votes doesn't mean that a candidate didn't make an impact. NDP Johnny 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per pm_shef. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as above. Samaritan 07:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. While an article about the party is perfectly acceptable, these "list of failed candidates" pages are not appropriate to the encyclopedia. This is just a thinly veiled attempt to include content which would be unacceptable (per WP:BIO) if listed separately. If this trend is allowed to continue, Wikipedia will be flooded with these unmaintainable pages. Rossami (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry R. Heather

Has lost a few elections and made some ludicrous statements, but does not appear to pass guideline for inclusion of humans.
brenneman{L} 04:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you meant premier... Ralph Klein :: Colin Keigher 09:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant prime minister Stephen Harper, though he wasn't prime minister at the time, I suppose. Fagstein 18:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kempling

High school teacher suspended for being anti-gay. Does not appear to be notable per guideline for inclusion of people.
brenneman{L} 04:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJCurrie says. Otherwise keep, relatively notable court case in Canada. Luigizanasi 06:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article survives the afd process, as the primary author, I'll take responsibility for addressing all the concerns regarding references. Having said that, Browned, is there someone who wouldn't consider this to be a pro-homosexual agenda (the link was in the article but deleted by Brenneman)? That page starts with the terms "social justice activists" and "homophobia and heterosexism action group" to describe their approach. I still intend to keep all relevant facts in the revised article. Pointing out the activism of a group that identifies iteself as activist, is not an "attack", especially when it relates directly to the topic at hand. Deet 00:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that the term "pro-homosexual agenda" is itself slanted and POV. Anyway, this isn't relevant to the afd; please address the matter on the article talk page. CJCurrie 00:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Activists don't have agendas? Anyways, I take your point on discussing this in the other section.Deet 01:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All who are familiar with this case should know that the Kempling case has enormous ramifications. Certainly the College of Education saw it as important or they would not have pursued the matter so far. The BC Teachers' Federation saw it important in that even though they were against Kempling's statements they gave him financial backing at a higher court level than, I understand, they were required to. Practically everything in this article is neutral, and it would only take one or two minor ones to make it totally so. The facts of this case, including the decision which effectively bars teachers from independent public discussion of education unless they are politically in line with the correct thinking, is enormous. User: Ted Hewlett 21 April 2006
  • Article is now updated Deet 01:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coppola Group

Relevant policies: WP:CORP, WP:RS, WP:V

There is no indication that this corporation even exists, let alone meets the notability criteria of WP:CORP. "Coppola Investment Group" gets zero Google hits. The author, Awhitfie, has promised to add sources to this article (see his talk, my talk), but hasn't in fact done so yet. See also the Nathan Coppola AfD nomination. Sandstein 04:42, 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. Mailer Diablo 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Coppola

Relevant policies: WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:V

There is no indication that this individual even exists, let alone meets the notability criteria of WP:BIO. "Nathan Joseph Coppola" gets zero Google hits. The author, Awhitfie, has promised to add sources to this article (see his talk, my talk), but hasn't in fact done so yet. See also the Coppola Group AfD nomination. Sandstein 04:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election

Nothing encyclopedic here that could not go into parent article. There are lots of political parties that don't get elected, and lists such as this serve only to bulk up their on-line presence. brenneman{L} 05:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Wikipedia has an established precedent of permiting pages like this, and there is at least one instance of a similar page surviving afd [4]. I don't interpret this as "bulk[ing] up their on-line presence", so much as preserving information for future research. CJCurrie 05:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This "established precedent" seems to be, well, you. Looking at the discussions linked in the CHP pages AfD above, I'm mostly seeing the strong feeling that there is not a place in wikipedia for lists like this. If you'd like a wider net to be cast, feel free to use the WP:PUMP but right now there is no consensus. - brenneman{L} 05:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with your assessment: I was the one who proposed the compromise and I obviously take a strong interest in the matter, but I'm certainly not the only one who supports the continued existence of such pages. The list pages provided a functional resolution to a bitter debate, and they've worked as a compromise for over a year. CJCurrie 05:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per comments above. It is useful to store information without clogging up the Wikipedia with articles cribbed if not copied from the website. Capitalistroadster 05:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as CJCurrie pointed out, it is a reasonable compromise. Useful information for future research on Canadian elections. Note that Wikipedia is not paper. Luigizanasi 05:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per comments above :: Colin Keigher 05:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CJCurrie. —GrantNeufeld 06:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. -Rob 06:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article on the Party is a different matter, but failed candidates are not notable. --kingboyk 06:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as status quo compromise. This 'List of...' article is a proactive alternative to individual candidate pages that spring up every election. Theoretically (in my mergist fantasy), all candidates get a redirect page to this kind of list page (or, more practically, as it is practised, all candidates get merged/redirected to such a page once someone creates an article on them). This page solves some rather annoying things, like endless afds on electoral candidates who just want the free ad space and get it for at least the 5 days the afd takes (hint: don't take it to afd, just merge/redirect it to the list pages) and a one-stop shop to monitor for abusive or peacock descriptions of the candidate (opposed to monitoring hundreds of pages during that grace period candidates are normally given during an election). This topic had a centralized discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates; and this proposal came up here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates#A mergist's solution. --maclean25 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced, reading Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, that this compromise has any more consensus than any other. I'm also not sure we need seperate lists for each party, when they are of these lengths. I think I'd be inclined to keep merging these lists to a point where they aren't unwieldy and aren't potential forks and aren't granting undue balance. On the last point, do the major parties also have lists of their failed candidates? If not, we are creating articles on an undue balance basis. At the moment, delete. I could see a value in Candidates in the 2004 Canadian federal election, but we're not debating that here. Hiding talk 07:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per CJCurrie. NoIdeaNick 09:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per CJCurrie if there is an established precedent for these articles. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CJCurrie. --Terence Ong 13:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm at a loss why a party that got way way less than 1% overall (yes, individual ridings varied but they competed in what, 5 ridings tops??? even less than the other party articles Brenny put up today) needs an article about a particular election outcome. I think merging this stuff with the main party article is the way to go. To those that cite other party articles, as examples that it should be done this way, I suggest perhaps that other minor party articles need the same merging/purging treatment too. Nothing much more could ever be said here, could it? It is with great and over-riding (get it?) joy that I support Mr. Brenny in his noble endeavour. (KIDDING!!! about the noble part I mean...) and therefore I must suggest that the right thing to do here is Merge with redirect... (from the GRR airport, yay for wireless access) ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the Christian Heritage Party. I find this information useful, and I find its unmerged location helpful.Captainktainer 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per comments above  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a vanishingly small amount of encyclopedic information in this article, and the others. Why do we care what some irrelevant loser (yes, really, he lost) describes himself as? Why is the percentage information not properly in context in the main article about the election? Why do we care a fig, frankly, who failed to get a single candidate elected and who, judging from the article were of approximately zero impact at all levels. Add a passing mention to a main article, and delete. -Splashtalk 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to the first point: the page is a work-in-progress, and more information will be added. CJCurrie 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Also, the above user has no prior contributions apart from the CHP afd. CJCurrie 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...and apart from my other 25,000 or so. Deleting it now will save you the trouble of writing a collection of nn-bios on the used car salesmen that lost elections. Add some encyclopedic statistics to a main article and move on. -Splashtalk 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To the first point: my apologies, but you signed anonymously the first time (subsequently corrected). In any case, I'll reiterate that an afd decision and afd precedent supports the compromise. CJCurrie 19:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • One prior AfD decision (that was probably wrong) and little to no precedent. I don't think that either justify spending pixels explaining what someone with <1% of the vote "describes himself as". Adding a summary percentage somewhere relevant, would be fine, of course. I don't understand the reluctance to do so and be done with. -Splashtalk 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A minor party, but at least a notable one. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable for what? All they seem to have done is sort-of exist briefly, once. -Splashtalk 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They still exist. CJCurrie 19:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have the run in any elections other than in 2004? What I'm getting at is that neither the party nor the people have ever had an impact on anything and so don't belong anywhere, save a mention that the party scored a vote or two in the main election article. That really is all they've done, right? Or have they done something else that is mentionable? -Splashtalk 19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • They fielded candidates in 2000 and 2006 (and they didn't exist before 2000). The party most certainly did have an impact on the national debate on cannabis legislation. I believe it's established that the individual candidates don't (automatically) deserve bio pages, but they remain public figures and merit some coverage in a review of the nation's political history. Anyway, I'm not sure this debate is getting us anywhere. CJCurrie 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure that is established, and I'm reasonably conversant with AfD. I don't think that a single AfD in which the key assertion was "other articles exist" i.e. a repetition of the argument used here, making it at best a tail-biting assertion. The statistical info in this article can be and already is elsewhere. There is not much added by this article: I mean, why does it matter that "Zupansky has described himself as a business owner and salesperson"? The only reason this debate might not get us anywhere is if people decide not to engage in it: asserting that it should be overruled by a largely non-existent precedent. -Splashtalk 20:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the party is notable and this information could be useful for scholarly research. Wstaffor 23:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CJCurrie and others. Ground Zero | t 04:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CJCurrie. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CJCurrie. Bucketsofg 22:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep informative. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:48
  • Delete. The article about the party is fine (and is not up for deletion that I know of). This "list of failed candidates" page, on the other hand, is not inherently encyclopedic. I do not agree with the statements above that there is any precedent to keeping such pages. Note: This page has already proliferated to Marijuana Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. If allowed to continue, Wikipedia will be flooded with such unmaintainable pages. Rossami (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Ttranswiki to Wikisource. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 12711

Not encyclopedic, this article is simply a verbatim excerpt from 1990 U.S. document without context Richard 05:21, 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 moved to WikiSource. Mailer Diablo 15:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WP:Cleanup

December 27 2005

This should be deleted. It is simply an excerpt from a 1990 U.S. government document (executive order), posted by an anonymous user, probably copied from here: [5]John Broughton 23:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion. Richard 05:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJ2K_Software

This page is basically an advertisement. While there is not a specific "no adverts" policy, it comes close enough to a vanity page to merit deletion. Don't you have your own web page or something? Pfagerburg 05:25, 18 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. Mailer Diablo 07:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Nitrate Prize

Not a single result in Google, Yahoo, or Ask.com. Violates WP:V and should therefore be deleted. The redirect page Digial nitrate prize should also be deleted - Mboverload 06:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello.. it is a real prize and, like the X-Prize, is constantly raising new funding. That will go on until the initial prize is won. There is a Yahoo group for the prize and several film festivals are announcing participation. It involves many members of the film and archive community and will become better known over time. The fact that fundraising is going on (perpetually) shouldn't count against it. It also takes forever to show up in Google! :-) The "official" website is under construction. Thanks. Movieresearch 19:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the verification of this? When it becomes better known, then it's time to put it in Wikipedia. --John Nagle 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I know this whole process seems kind of anal to you. But you are MORE than welcome to resubmit once you have a website and some media coverage. --Mboverload 21:52, 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. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyNetSpot.org

Website does not seem to meet WP:WEB. ~ PseudoSudo 06:53, 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. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated Wire

NN band :: Colin Keigher 07:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep.... Mailer Diablo 07:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slurs/old

(Previous nomination is here.)

I categorically demand removal of this page from main article space. It blatantly and openly defies the major requirement of wikipedia: Verifiability. What is more, the fans of sexual slurs persistently link it from the normal article, List of sexual slurs. This is total disrespect of the major rule of wikipedia. Also article forks are forbidden in wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 07:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. The last AFD closed a little over three weeks ago and this is actually the third nomination. There has been no dramatic change in the article, Wikipedia policy, or the Wikipedia community in general since the last AFD. Thus, the will of the community has already been determined. Can another administrator please close the debate.--Primetime 07:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE This page was again linked from main article space, which is inadmissible by wikipedia standards. What is wrong with the common sense? I genuinely fail to understand why the unverified content cannot be stored at the Talk:List of sexual slurs while the fwork is in progress? `'mikka (t) 23:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storing it on the talkpage would make the slurs harder to find for visitors. We were considering placing them on a subpage of the talkpage and then adding a link to it. Would that be acceptable to you?--Primetime 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely my point: Making nonverifiable content visible to wikipedia users (as you say, "visitors") is inadmissible. If you start doing this, it will open doors to all kinds of legalized POV pushing in subpages, linked from main article space. I have nothing against slurs; I am liberally using them myself (and sometimes reprimanded in wikipedia). In this case I am pursuing the major rule of wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 23:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand. Viewers must have a way to see the list. It can either be a subpage of the talk page linked from the article, or a subpage of the main page linked to the article. Either way, there must be a link to it. If I created a subpage on the talk page and linked to it from the main article, would you remove it?--Primetime 00:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand. wikipedia:Verifiability policy says that encyclopedia readers must not see unverified information. Encyclopedia editors can find this page, e.g., by link from the article talk page. `'mikka (t) 00:59, 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. DS 18:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliyah Yya

Page is empty Deon555 07:20, 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. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aibotteam

Relevant policy: WP:CORP

Advertisement, no indication of being notable. Contested PROD. Sandstein 07:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you cite these sources in the article (see WP:CITE) and explain what specific notability criterion of WP:CORP this company (or group, or whatever) fulfils. Sandstein 18:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Being mentioned in print" is not enough. As per WP:CORP, the corporation must have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion excludes: Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories." Please cite these sources in the article. Sandstein 19:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not familiar with the publications mentioned (if there are any) but I've checked google and there are no other companies using this name, so I think this article can stay as there is no risk of misinformation. 213.158.197.33 20:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Misinformation is not the problem. Notability is. Read WP:CORP. Sandstein 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mobster lobster, you voted already above. Please stop the sockpuppetry, it's not helping you. We can see if a user is very new and the administrators will discount such opinions. As to the company, it does look very much like a for-profit entity (with links like "Portal for Business Partners" etc.) and even if it were not, it would still have to establish notability. Sandstein 07:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I am new here does not mean that I cannot state my opinion. Is this place for people who search for informatio or for people who spend their time harrasing other people ? Sorry for the double voting, but double voting is NOT a sockpupettery ("A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name.", I use only one, the undersigned). Moreover I suspect you Sandstein (a.k.a. Fagstein, not to mention TheBernFiles on Wikimedia Commons, am I right ?) that you use sockpuppetery yourself. I would suggest that the authors re-classify the article to something less controversial like 'non-profit organizations' or move to a domain-related classification (like: 'search techniques' or 'NLP'). Mobster lobster 08:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Nice try though. Check our edit histories. Fagstein 08:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate vote crossed out. Fagstein 08:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What with this edit histories ? I don't think I understand :((( Mobster lobster 08:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit histories (also known as User contributions) are a usefull test for sock puppety (not for meat puppets though), if the edit times over lap then it is very dificult for the two users to be puppet and master. For example if you check the edit histories for Fagstein and Sandstein you would find at least one over lap, with the edits at 05:10 (UTC) on 7 April 2006.--blue520 10:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure this is the sockpuppettery ? Please show some evidence, because without any your comment sounds just like pure insult.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Theological Society

Article tagged for a merge in Feb.[6] and received no attention. This page should be deleted because the information is redundant and offers no reason why it should be a separate article. In fact, the article admits its "an extension of Tyndale Theological Seminary." Arbusto 07:35, 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. Mailer Diablo 07:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Athletics: All-Time Team

Delete I think this article gives somebody's analysis on who they think what the all-time A's team is. In other words, it's sombody's opinion, not fact. I think that would constitute a "critical review" and violates WP:NOT Dspserpico 08:03, 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. Mailer Diablo 07:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of Pain

Contested PROD. A pro-wrestling website that does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for articles on websites. Delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete the article. Categories go to the CfD if needed, not AfDs. Mailer Diablo 07:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of drug scandals

Delete. Criteria for inclusion unclear - as its worded it could include countless incidents. The article has been here since October 2005 and has not been expanded beyond a single entry, which makes me wonder if it's there only to make a point. Category:Drug scandals should also go for the same reasons. I@n ≡ talk 08:14, 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: Speedily deleted by User:Davodd (vanity). - Mike Rosoft 11:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There and back agian

Vanity. The title is incorrect, so could at least be moved; and after listing it for speedy deletion, the user (Thereandbackagain) removed the template. Obviously self-promotion. – Jared Preston 08:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Kiss

Comment: Will you please investigate before you claim nn. They are notable all around the World and not just an ordinary cover band. --ElectricEye 13:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:BAND are "merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind". Electric eye also notes that WP:BAND says: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: ... For performers outside of mass media traditions: ... Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. NPR has covered them after many many many local publications around the world have covered them". For great justice. 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See MiniKiss: Life in a Little People Cover Band, NPR, Pop Culture, April 14, 2006 --ElectricEye 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: They also had a bit on MTV's Best Week Ever this past week, and pretty much treated as a sick joke on a par with circus geeks of a bygone day. This may be crossing the notoriety bar, if not in a way they might appreciate. RGTraynor 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per ElectricEye. NPR is a reliable source for determining noteworthiness. Captainktainer 16:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is being deleted because the nominator is not interested in little people bands, and so thinks that no one else should be able to read about them. This highlights the problems with the concept of notability. Just because they have a relatively targetted audience, someone will think we should remove them. For great justice. 21:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:For great justice, many articles go through this process and it helps to bring about discussion. Stay objective and comment on content. Making personal comments about others ("nominator is not...."), can get one into trouble in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Wikiki!!! ^_^ --User:ElectricEye (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks EE, I did not think that there was anything in my comment that could be called a personal attack. I don't think the nominator would disagree with my reasoning, but if they do, I would invite them to correct me. For great justice. 22:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep:I have seen them multiple times on VH1. They are definitely notable. -Bottesini 23:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the article needs to be expanded and sourced. Wstaffor 01:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cult band, treated as notable by media like Village Voice, even though the whole spectacle reminds me of what Lenny Bruce said about well-intended freak shows. Monicasdude 03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Although I don't believe the band to be of particular notability in the music realm (I'd be wary of them calling a cover band, perhaps cover performers would be the more accurate representation...), I do believe they are notable. ALthough I hadn't heard that particular NPR piece, they were mentioned in a question in last week's Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! (stump the listener I think?). Although I don't particularly respect this kind of exploitation (the one in process by the performers themselves), I won't allow that bias to ignore the likely notability of this band. However, the article needs and will need a lot of work. &#149;&#149;\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\&#149;&#149; 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to have received news converage. Fagstein 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they're notable now (why, for the life of me, I don't know) due to a spat with another (you, dear reader read right-- there are two) all-"vertically-challenged" KISS tribute band over whom should exist... Pat Payne 22:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Blue Book

A database of movies that is designed to help independent filmmakers connect with film agents. The fact that it only started this year has been edited out. Advert - the creator user:Lachiusa has contributed nothing else. Sorry Lachiusa, as always, wait until someone else writes about it. -- RHaworth 09:43, 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: Speedily deleted by User:Davodd ("hoax/fiction/test"). - Mike Rosoft 11:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demigod slayer

Clearly nonsense. I'm also attempting to "bundle" Omega Delta (legend) in here because the two pages only link to each other and are both apparently of the same origin. Appropriate Username 09:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a related image Image:Insignia.jpg, which I am attempting to figure out how to add in as well. Appropriate Username 10:09, 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 no consensus; I am turning this into a stub; everyone feel free to expand again (but not by readding the lyrics) or merge/redirect/whatever. - Liberatore(T) 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical Slaughter

Hardly a single. Poor article. No chance to get it expanded. Lajbi 09:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a huge part of papoose being known and its important to the article of papoose himself. The lyrics are extreme and should be kept since most people cant keep up with what he is saying. 10:01, 22 April 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.173.10 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Thryduulf 11:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragondoor

I have no idea what this article is about. A filmmaker? A traveling carnival? Who knows? Appropriate Username 10:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Dragondoor was a professional wrestling federation that failed. I've given some background info on it, hopefully someone who knows more will be able to clean it up for me, but there should be enough there to give a general idea. McJeff 04:45, 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 Kotepho 06:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Offer

Non-notable, defeated candidate, long way from next election to assess notability on that basis and we can't have every candidate on WP. Mtiedemann 10:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is ther person notable for anything besides his candidacy? Dspserpico 10:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently not, based on a glance at the 41 G-hits off of the UK Google. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is notable for securing one of the largest swings to Conservative in the 2005 election and is believed to be in the top swings to not gain a seat ever, as well as his campainging in Chester. It would be a bias for (hence break the NPOV rule) as both the Labour and Lib Dem candidates have their own page.
  • Keep Not because of bias issues, but because running for public office under a major political party in one of the world's oldest democracies is in and of itself notable. Expand and keep. Captainktainer 17:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We can't keep articles just to provide a balance of politics, notability for each individual article has to be asserted. Simply being a prominent losing candidate has several times not been considered notable enough - see Antonia Bance, which article was deleted despite her continuing prominence in the seat and her blog and other claims to notability. In contrast, losing candidates who have less subjective claims, e.g. being a local councillor, have won keep votes, hence I didn't think it worthwhile putting up Cllr Mia Jones, the LibDem candidate, up for AfD. We need some consistency. Mtiedemann 23:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and expand per all above Jcuk 21:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a stub for now, but needs to be sourced and expanded. Wstaffor 01:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some list of candidates we can merge this into? Fagstein 05:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can understand merging non-notable candidates, however this is a notable candidacy, and will remain memorable (even if only amongst Cestrians and polititians. This reason was for the SWING, the fact that this is one of the most marginal seats in the country. 84.64.161.206 12:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments about M. Jones are irrelevant, as she has not been adopted as a candidate for the next election by the LD's, whereas Offer has, he is one of only c.10 people to be adopted by their respective parties, and was the first candidate after the '05 election to win selection for the following election. 84.64.161.206 12:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hexa

  • Don't Delete hexa is actually a great and relatively successful band, it looks like they're just having fun with their definition

Non-notable + stupid remarks grafikm_fr 10:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are a relatively successful band. 11:01, 22 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 deletion nomination withdrawn in favour of merge

DLR P86 stock and DLR P89 stock

Non-notable articles on exact model of rolling stock on Docklands Light Railway. Not an encylopedic topic IMO and change of stock already in main article. Contested: I attempted PROD but author removed without comment or explanation. I vote delete. Cje 10:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK given precedents quoted I withdraw the nomination. The merge proposal sounds sensible. Cje 09:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Waite

This page reads like advertising for an upcoming Playboy magazine. It contains elements of speculation and is possibly written by the subject or a Playboy representative. Little of it is easily verifiable Delete Maustrauser 10:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the issue featuring Alison Waite went already out. All of the information contained in the article comes whether from the Magazine itself or several San Diego news websites (and can thus be verified). If it's compliant with the rules, I can obviously provide links. Don't Delete(Icepod 11:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

Keep per the dozens of other articles about Playmates. The article could use some work but that doesn't require us to delete it outright. GT 11:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per GT. Yeltensic42 don't panic 14:26, 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 redirected to List of gay slang words and phrases. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyke diva

Unverified/unverifiable; Likely original research. Dicdef. Davodd 10:57, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Mary's Catholic Primary School, Portslade

Nothing more than an ad for a minor non-notable school.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 11:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is easier than rehashing the arguments over and over in every AFD. Kotepho 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete, with page already userfied. Mailer Diablo 16:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape3

Personal essay about a claimed discovery. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- RHaworth 11:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok how about this. I'll move it to user:playasoccer like you suggested. Is that ok now? But I tried to move it and it said I could'nt move it. I'll need help with that. Playasoccer 11:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Playasoccer[reply]

So the what is the exact reason your going to delete this page? Playasoccer 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Playasoccer[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics

This page needs to be scrapped and begun again. It could not be less coherent or informative, since it is wholly unstructured and uses circular definitions. Dave1898 11:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - valid topic. Just needs a major cleanup. Davodd 11:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've turned Tactic into a disambig. page and suggest that Tactics be moved to Tactic (method). Then rewrite per nom. PJM 11:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Sure it needs a major overhaul, but does not mean it has to be erased. grafikm_fr 12:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I'll assume good faith on the part of the nom., but really this should have been dealt with through cleanup rather than AfD. :) — RJH 15:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your assumption of my good faith is touching. I find that far too few articles are deleted, rather than too many. It is preferable that the word tactics return to the ignominy of being a red edit link, and so offer someone who knows something about it the chance to create an entirely new article; cleanup should be for articles with superficial problems, not for articles that have no good points at all. The refusal to delete poor articles is a weakness of Wikipedia, not a strength. Dave1898 17:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Charmed I'm sure. Obviously I disagree with the approach of blasting every page that doesn't immediately live up to some arbitrarily high standard. Wikipedia is still very much a work in progress. :) — RJH
Problems that don't require deletion
Problem with page Solution Add this tag
Article needs improvement
 List on Wikipedia:Cleanup. {{cleanup}}, or preferably a more-specific tag.
Article needs a lot of improvement List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. {{attention}}


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Last Words of Christ (Bible)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nyle Wolfe

I think it is a vanity page:


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by User:Geogre. --Hetar 18:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Religion

Wikipedia is not a discussion, and certainly not on religion. WP:NOT. See also the article's talk page when reviewing. Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 12:14, 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. --JoanneB 12:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fontenot

Non-notable, no sources. grafikm_fr 12:38, 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. --JoanneB 12:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Bateman

Non-notable Police constable YUL89YYZ 12:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep.--Adam (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desaparecidos (band)

non-notable band, not sure if it is speedy deleteable Adam (talk) 03:45, 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.

Every piece of discussion on the band's page was to delete. --Walter Görlitz 23:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swing Kids (band)

nn-band, but don't have the courage to speedy it today Adam (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article was written out of consideration for other pages involving Justin Pearson and all other bands he has been in. Swing Kids are somewhat lesser known than his other bands but are more seminal in nature and referenced on many other Wikipedia entries, including the Hardcore Emo genre. What's worse is most of the links incorrectly linked to the Swing Kids movement of nazi-era Germany instead of the band before I wrote this article mere hours ago. It is an incomplete stub and I am still in the process of doing research. The patience and understanding of the Wikipedia admin community would be greatly appreciated here. As far as notability is concerned, the Swing Kids feature members of other notable bands and have toured internationally. Their records were released on an independent label alongside other notable bands.Curtyv 04:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep They are very notable, and all the members have formed other notable bands afterwards. First off Justin Pearson is in that band. If you don't know who he is, well he's also in this band called the The Locust. According to the guidelines found here Wikipedia:Notability (music), this band CANNOT be deleted off of Wikipedia because this group ...

  • Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources.
  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (such as Three One G) (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
  • Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
  • Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

So based on these grounds, I call for a Speedy Keep - RiseRobotRise 11:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. For one thing, RiseRobotRise may be confused; we're not debating the notability of The Locust, but of Swing Kids. That an unrelated band may register on WP:MUSIC's radar might be interesting but is certainly irrelevant. For another, while this Pearson fellow might have his fans, 280 G-hits isn't a lot, and calling Three One G (run, as it happens, by Pearson himself) one of the "more important indie labels" is an enormous stretch. I'd be interested to see sources for the inference that Pearson is the most prominent emo musician in San Diego. RGTraynor 14:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that in the part of WP:MUSIC (guidelines, not policy saying something "CANNOT be deleted") mentioning "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" also says "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Weak delete and redirect to Justin Pearson; and frankly I've never heard of him or The Locust. Barno 18:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be notable for touring and who members became involved with. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC due to an international tour. Also notable for kickstarting Pearson's career. Article should be stubbed as it needs to be verifiably sourced. Wstaffor 01:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this was such an influential band the members have gone on to do so much: Jose Palafox (of Struggle and Bread and Circuits), went on to be a UC Professor, earn his PhD and lecture on punk rock and the hardcore music scene. Justin Pearson who would release their recordings on his own Three One G record label, is in numerous other bands today along with starting and runing his own business. This was an extremely innovative and influential band.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.91.49.233 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge with Pearson and redirect. The band's importance cannot be separated from Pearson's membership, and the Pearson article could do with some actual content. -- GWO


Rebuttal to Above- Justin Pearson does have his own page on Wikipedia. As far as questioning the notability of his later band, well you may have to refer to this website [9] and this one [10] also proving further notability heres one from VH1[11] and Epitaph Records signed a deal with these guys [12], well if you need to merge it with the other articles, then I guess that’s okay (although I don't feel it would fit in with the other article), but don't attack the notability of other projects he became involved with. I still believe that this article shouldn’t be deleted based upon the WP:MUSIC guidelines. A few users listed above would like to agree with me on that one.RiseRobotRise 00:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I nominate it for db-bio? He's a band-a-holicic? Does it make any of the bands notable? Not really. Now if he was Garcia re-incarnated, maybe. Tell you what. When Justin next plays in Vancouver, BC, drop me a note and I'll go see him. Until then I suggest we keep his bands off Wikipedia. From what I can tell his bands only tour So. Cal. --Walter Görlitz 21:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Locust has toured internationally (this includes Europe and Asia). Tour dates are not posted on their website currently, but I was able to find the following two links. [13] - Partial tour with Yeah yeah yeahs in several midwest states in 2003. [14] - European tour with Kill Me Tomorrow in 2005. [15] - Brief Bio of The Locust from Gold Standard Labs who released most of their records before signing to Epitaph. Swing Kids tour dates would be tough to reproduce since they broke up about 10 years ago. However, there is video footage of Swing Kids playing in Belgium (to an audience of hundreds no less) on the Three One G DVD which was recently released. If you would like to see it for yourself, you may purchase a copy of the DVD [here]. Either way I do urge you to go see The Locust the next time they play in Vancouver. Curtyv 21:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Curtyv, infact next time they play in Vancouver, BC I'll make sure that I'll be the first one to let you know :P RiseRobotRise 10:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to comments made by user RGTraynor "and calling Three One G (run, as it happens, by Pearson himself) one of the "more important indie labels" is an enormous stretch." untrue, read this article [16] (scroll down until you see Three One G in bold text). Three One G is infact "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable." (I have more references to prove so) and since Swing Kids are infact on that label, that should give them a status of notability. "That an unrelated band may register on WP:MUSIC's" They are infact related by Justin Pearson. RiseRobotRise 05:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just read the article. Your rebuttal is seriously that Three One G made a list of the top fifteen indie labels in the city of San Diego? RGTraynor 07:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you missed my point. 31G has signed a plethora of notable bands, such as the Moving Units, who have gone on tour with Nine Inch Nails [17] [18], The Locust who also have been signed to Mike Patton's label Ipecac Recordings [19], and Epitaph Records [20], the Ex Models an influential noise band who have gone off on various nation-wide tours [21] [22], and The Blood Brothers who have went on nation-wide tours, most recently went on tour supporting Coheed and Cambria [23] [24] RiseRobotRise 09:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being a support act to a notable band doesn't make you notable. -- GWO
Being a support act on a national tour fulfills the touring requirement of WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being a support act on a national tour requires proof.
  • Did they tour the entire country or just one leg of the national tour? The NIN links above don't mention Swing Kids.
  • Did they get billing at the venues?
* Further, I don't think being the support act does qualify under WP:MUSIC. Implicitly, at least, I take the tour qualification to mean you were the main attraction. Back in the 1960s, literally thousands of rightfully-forgotten bands and singers toured the US and UK as bottom-of-the-bill on package tours, often supporting much bigger artists than NiN -- like Little Richard, Chuck Berry or Alma Cogan -- GWO
It seems that the entire Swing Kids entry is related to one member of the band, or am I mistaken? --Walter Görlitz 21:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, we we're talking about other bands on 31G, trying to make a point that 31G is a more important indie label. Also if you scroll above, you'll see that more then one member of the band went on to form other projects stated by other user. RiseRobotRise 04:30, 26 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!
Kotepho 06:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 08:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deletionists soon screech about it if a band doesnt pass wiki:music as if it were some immutable law of the universe, therefor if a band passes it, and this clearly does through virtue of notable members, the same rule should apply. Jcuk 11:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The band has proven some degree of notability by at least being linked around to by all the other NN bands on wiki... Mystache 12:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The blue links testify to its notability. Fishal 17:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per gidonb. --LambiamTalk 20:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Eric Allen, a member of Unbroken (perhaps one of the most important hardcore punk bands of the mid 1990s), was also in Swing Kids. This alone makes the band of high importance.
  • Comments: (1) This is a VfD on the defunct band Swing Kids, not on its members nor its members' subsequent bands nor a member's independent record label. We're only considering those to the extent that they bear on the Wikipedia:Notability guideline.

(2) From that guideline: "Many editors also believe that it is (a) fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies). Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included; meeting one or more of these criteria does not mean that a subject must be included." An "audience of hundreds no less" in any country doesn't meet the "audience of 5,000" guideline. Show evidence that SK were widely featured as being so innovative and influential, and we'll have reason to keep this article instead of redirecting it to the more-proven-notable topic Justin Pearson. (3) Mystache and Fishal aren't quite correct: The existence of articles on related topics linked to one another doesn't really indicate notability for any of them unless either they've survived AfD, or they contain citations to reliable sources proving notability. A whole bunch of fiction or trivia could be added as a "walled garden" of articles to give WP's credibility; people have tried this. Notable bands/musicians/etc, like notable fiction or religions, can have associated topics that are too minor or just not documented enough to keep as their own article. Some of this information is worth keeping, just in one article instead of five. No change of vote, pending evidence more directly relevant. Barno 23:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melchizedek Principle

Original, unverifiable research, borders on ad for own site Lundse 13:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because one is merely a redirect for the main page and the rest also further what seems to be one mans theories:[reply]

Please visit the Revelatorium Melchizedek Teachings a get an idea of what this is about. If nothing else, all this is original research, IMHO. Lundse 13:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per thatcher. Kukini 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may have been a bit (too) bold in including this, as the user voted when only the main article was on this page (see history).
Not sure as to what the above author is referring. If to my vote, it was based on the content at the time of the vote. Kukini 13:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC), Wikipedian.[reply]
  • It could be worse. You could have actually followed the link to the website, which is ten times worse. My eyes are bleeding, I think. Delete per nom as NN, OR gibberish. RGTraynor 14:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Result of debate was nomination withdrawn. Dakota ~ 04:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhatra

At first blush, this looked to be a real article effort, in need of wikifying and editing, but as it continued on, it began to look like a hoax. With no sources, it seems appropriate for deletion. Kukini 13:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The parts about eating eggs for breakfast on Tuesdays and what cars people like to buy are what brought me to nominate this. It just might need a lot of cleaning, though. Kukini 13:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel that it is an inportant cultral comunity living in England and have cultral traditions which should be shared to help educate others about there herotege and how there culture has become a part of british culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socarates (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Socarates, please look on the article's talk page (click 'discussion') for suggestions. --HJMG
  • Comment This is A genuine Article which is based on real Cultral Traditions from a member of the Bhatra comunity in the Uk plese feel free to get in touch or contact steve singh who is foundaer of the Bhatra Sikh information website this article is not ment to offend anyone however it is important to raise awreness and be REAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socarates (talk • contribs)
Can I do that or does an Administrator have to make that ruling? Kukini 17:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting culture would like to know more


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 12:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PGD IN IT

article written about a specific course with generic title Dunstan 13:13, 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. --JoanneB 12:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Crouter

Non-notable Canadian YUL89YYZ 13:17, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raindrop Studios

NN, vanity James Kendall [talk] 13:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity IMHO. grafikm_fr 13:55, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colbeckart

Contested prod. It's an artist's vanity page. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:12, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda in the United States

After attempting to cleanup and de-POVify this article I found it contained no useful information. It is composed entirely of the unsourced, unverified opinions of its primary author. --rehpotsirhc 14:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It already has a (better) start at Propaganda. You could consider splitting that article by geography, but it would lose a lot of important context. --Ajdz 00:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 17:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkism and Meimasism

Turkism/Meimasism appears to be a non-notable religion. The only source I've found is this freewebs hosted site http://www.freewebs.com/meimasism/ which does not use the term Turkism. Delete as unverifiable. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under CSD-G4 ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LostPedia

Recreation of an already deleted article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:58, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pixen Technologies

Contested prod. Company which gives no indication of meeting the notability guidelines at WP:CORP. Delete unless it can be shown to meet those guidelines. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Mujaddid. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majaddid

There is already an almost identical article on the same thing, Mujaddid, which is well-referenced and more detailed Tanzeel 15:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge into Horace Mann School (New York City) - Liberatore(T) 16:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After checking what's already in Horace Mann School (New York City) about this, it seems to me that there is no interesting information to merge, so I have just redirected. - Liberatore(T) 17:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cinemann

The presence of high schools on Wikipedia is already a debated issue. Whether or not they are considered encyclopedic is usually the main concern. However, unnoteworthy high school publications surely do not warrant their own page. Wikster72 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus - we've got all forms of different opinons here. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Boer - One Bullet

Extreme POV article without reliable references (the only reference points to an equally extreme POV website), created by an author User:Alcatel whose edits include addition of many unreferenced POV and racist statements to South Africa related articles. Also, in the context of South African history this slogan is nowhere near as politically significant as "One Settler, One Bullet", it is in fact a complete non-entity. Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:N as per above. Zunaid 15:29, 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. — Apr. 29, '06 [11:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Blizzhackers

  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. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.


With Alexa rating of 157,855, fails WP:WEB despite creator's laudable intentions on talk page. Daniel Case 15:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: This AfD page was also vandalized, but, I think, by someone trying to get at the creator, not the creator himself, since the anon in question also vandalized the article. He's been warned.

Daniel Case 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Remember people, just like the Wiki pages on small cults who commit 30 man suicides(as extreme as an example that might be), this is for information purpous only, on the history of a site that strongly effected many of Blizzard_Entertainment's top games. Yes it was a hacking site, but it niether supports or denotes it, being unbiased, and is completely factual. Also this page is not meant to support any hacks or link to any. So far Im getting the idea that people here think its supporting it, and that being their reason for deletion. This is simply not the case. Salgat 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Diablo 2 Hacking site. Off with their heads. Grafikm_fr 16:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided have any of the big names posted there? any significant cheats? Kotepho 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that phrase is not a reason for deletion. POV is not a problem that requires deletion. Also, your stance that it is ruining the game is soapboxing in the same sense. Kotepho 17:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is common sense, not soapboxing. Anyway, the rfd was made (and not by me), we'll let the votes decide.. ^_^ Grafikm_fr 17:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There have been many significant big name 'hackers' posting on BH, including mousepad (of D2 maphack fame), the makers of the prolific d2hackit program, the creator(s) of d2jsp and other 'bots', and other programs that have significantly affected the game. The forum has enough history and has been home to enough various programs and people who had a major impact, for better or worse, on Blizzard's games, that it deserves some mention. If imageboards like 4chan and forum sites like SomethingAwful or LUElinks get their own articles, certainly a board that has had over 200k registered users should be permitted a mention. A small disclaimer on this rant, I do have a slight bias in favour of keeping it as I am an staff member there, but I feel that this does not detract from my points.- Flaming_cows aka -Cthulhon 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I actually might have posted there back in the day. I don't really see this meeting WP:WEB or WP:V/WP:RS though. fhtagn Kotepho 15:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment': This user's sole edits are to the article and this discussion. Daniel Case 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does that detract from my points in any way? That seems like an ad hominem attack rather than a reason to not keep the article. And for the record, I have made other edits to various articles as an anonymous contributor.--Cthulhon 02:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to assessing the community consensus on whether this article will be kept, the history of the contributors to this discussion is relevant. Those users who pop up in response to the discussion (usually arguing "keep") are not considered to have truly put in the time on the project that would make their opinion worthwhile, and frequently their votes are discounted or discarded altogether. This is well stated in our deletion policies, in order to avoid ballot-stuffing using sock- or meatpuppets.
That you have made edits under other IPs is ... well, that's nice. Since we have no way of verifying this as you didn't start an account until today, we can't really say one thing or the other about your credibility on that basis. As it is we have no way of knowing what your agenda is here (If you want to be taken more seriously in this sort of discussion in the future, by all means edit under your current account and build up a history). Daniel Case 02:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fair enough, but I still feel that you haven't responded adequatly to any of my points and I feel that history and reputation should not be the sole factor in deciding this matter.--Cthulhon 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blizzhackers is a well known website. New users will want some information about it before using it, to make sure that the content available is trustworthy.
  • Comment Blizzhackers is far from being about 'hacking' despite the name. Its a community of relatively good, knowledgable people, and a rich source of information, on programming, graphics and general life problems. In my honest opinion, in relation to gaming, Blizzhackers is one of the more important pages on the internet. Deleting it would be a travesty - Jake aka -JsRide
  • Keep agree with supporting comments. -JsRide
Comment:This user's sole edits have been to this discussion as well. Daniel Case 02:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blizzhackers has been around for many years now, and has had a major impact on Blizzard Entertainments games. Many (in)famous diablo 2 hackers have posted on these forums, such as Mousepad, Netter, Rishodi, Darawk, and the like. Whether or not people agree of disgree with game hacking shouldn't really be an issue I think, as, either way, it HAS had a profound effect on the game. It has also gone through many changes, and has faced legal issues with blizzard and still come through. Also, similar groups, such as myg0t have a wiki, although blizzhackers has probably been the home to many more hack releases than it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KSagle (talk • contribs)
Above is user's first and only edit. Daniel Case 02:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Blizzhackers has been the subject of published work independant of the site. Specifically, it has been discussed on TechTV, with on of its more notable members appearing personally as a guest.--Cthulhon 02:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice claim, do you have a citation for that? --Hetar 03:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: And the last person on the thread actually took the time to look at WP:WEB and realized it didn't meet the criteria there. Daniel Case, 02:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See my comment on the directly above delete vote as for why I believe it does meet WP:WEB. For the record, I read over the entire page for WP:WEB as well as the other pages about deletion that I could find.--Cthulhon 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't see how your assertions, assuming you provide adequate sourcing for them, meet the WP:WEB criteria. Those say nothing about whether renowned hackers hang out there, or whether it's had an impact on some company's games, or been sued, or had its creator appear on TV, have anything to do with whether it's been written about indepedently, won awards, or hostred independently of the creators. Has it been written about in the gaming press? That would help satisfy the first criterion. If I were you that's what I'd be busy looking for.
Now I just Googled on the site name. I was told there were 114,000 or so hits, but after a mere 48 or so I ran out as it told me most of what was left was similar to what I'd already seen. And most of that was stuff posted on gaming forums, which doesn't meet our sourcing standards.
So, end result, I'm not encouraged unless you can find something I didn't. Daniel Case 03:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's a case for the notability of the member, not the site itself. See above. Daniel Case 03:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please take into consideration that since this is an Online Community, it relys soley on it's members in order to do anything. Blizzhackers has always been a host of files made by the members working together, so any effect its members had in relation to the site, that being a forum, is an effect that Blizzhackers as a community has made. --Salgat 23:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But do those people just do stuff at Blizzhackers, or elsewhere? If the former, then the credit for any impact they had goes to them and not to the site, I'm afraid. It would be like crediting the owner of the office building you work out of for your company's success. Daniel Case 03:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided I believe that if sites like SomethingAwful and LUElinks can have their own Wikipedia entries, that Blizzhackers should as well. However, I'm undecided on the matter. I don't want to say that it should stay without providing any proof, but I do personally believe it should stay. It has been host to some of the greatest and most controversial hacks against Blizzard Entertainment software to-date, including having not only its owner, but more than a few notable members threatened with litigation if they did not do what Blizzard Entertainment wanted them to. As far as Alexa ratings and traffic reports go, please bear in mind that the website was on a 5+ month hiatus when Blizzard attempted to take the site down due to WoW server emulation. Alexa rankings at this point mean next to nothing to the notability of the site. Also to note, if you do a Google search of the website's new name, Edge of Nowhere(using the search query "Edge of Nowhere forum", to remove the invalid results relating to various other things), you come up with 4,720,000 results. As a last note, I realize that I'm not a registered Wikipedia user. This is because I have never seen a need to register. I've never found any serious edits I've wanted to make to any artices, and in fact I still haven't seen a need to register. -lord2800 -- 67.134.133.216 03:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Consider Blizzhackers a community that helps develop programs through the help of eachother. Without Blizzhackers, many of the bots, including the Mephbot mentioned, would likely not exist. If anything, we can credit Blizzhackers for the works of it's members since Blizzhackers is where many of these members learned, discussed, and created their bots. An analogy could be a Blizzhacker member making a bot compared to a member or team of a University making an invention. Through the help of the University, they are able to get ideas and create this invention, and owe much credit to the University for thier aid.--Salgat 23:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, and ask them not to take it personally. Fagstein 05:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided I am in agreement with the comments of 'lord2800' above. Throughout Wikipedia, there are several articles relating to Blizzard and their games which mention hacks and programs that have propogated on, and in some cases originated on, BlizzHackers. If you talk to any Blizzard or Vivendi employee, I seriously doubt that they would consider BlizzHackers to be "non-notable"; rather, I imagine that they would respond quite to the contrary. On the other hand, I can see that the current BlizzHackers article does not meet the WP:WEB criteria, and although I have been an active, contributing member of BlizzHackers for several years now, I cannot immediately think of a single incident that would prove its notability. It seems that the media tends to avoid mentioning sites that originated with the purpose of game hacking, and for good reason. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that on the subject of Blizzard games, and specifically hacks for these games, BlizzHackers has been one of the most popular sites, if not the most popular site, for the duration of its existence. I would like to add, before someone else points out this fact for me, that this is indeed my first edit as a registered user. I have been using Wikipedia for a long time, but it had not until now come to my attention that I even had the option to register as a user here. If this article does stay, someone needs to take the time to improve it greatly. Rishodi 08:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Omnibus response to above and other comments: I would first like to take the time to thank the supporters of a Blizzhackers article for remaining civil and keeping their cool; given the way deletion discussions often shake out when people start coming to them from other sites this restraint is admirable and deserves commendation here. It augurs strongly in favor of an unprejudiced deletion.
But I still do not see this site as having met the criteria. Bottom line for me (and, I think, other long-time editors here) is that we need to see some media coverage.
I am struck in favor of notability by the lawsuit Blizzard filed against the original site that shut it down for some time, which many of you have pointed to. This does not seem like a common occurrence to me, even though I am not really plugged into the gaming community. Is there coverage of this lawsuit somewhere? Where were the legal papers filed? Are they accessible online? If I get more detail on this and it is reflected in the original article, I might well be persuaded to change my vote and withdraw the nom as long as other veteran editors are satisfied. Daniel Case 16:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, I have a feeling that legal papers were never filed, as Robert Laverick(the current owner of the site) settled out of court and before any legal procedings were attempted. Lawyers flew over to his home, showed up at his doorstep, threatened to sue, and he cooperated(which lead ultimately, but not directly, to a 5-month downtime). I'll see if I can find any non-trivial information about the potential lawsuit, though. Oh, and thanks for the compliments about the civility, I think the fact that this is Wikipedia has scared away most of the newbies from making edits(or they haven't figured out how, heh). -lord2800 -- 67.134.133.205 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dang. Something like that of course cannot be verified unless Mr. Laverick has written about for some reliable source. It seemed so promising. Daniel Case 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have read all the above comments and agree with them for the most part. I think Blizzhackers is a very important part of video game culture both online and off. It has had an impact on not only Blizzard Entertainment, but on those who play the games with Blizzard produced. I am willing to bet that a large majority (At least in 2002-2004) of Diablo 2 players have heard and about and maybe even visited Blizzhackers.com. Most everyone has been affected by Blizzhackers' members and their game-altering hacks and bots. This hacking was so widespread that it started to get the attention of real-world companies. The cable network TechTV even aired a edpisode of "The Screensavers" which interviewed the notorious Syadasti, a member of Blizzhackers. On the show, he demonstrates his MephBot, Tetris and other D2Hackit modules and makes reference to Blizzhackers.com. A copy of this clip can be found on TechTV's website: http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/features/41040/Play_Tetris_Within_Diablo_II.html Surley this mention alone constitutes a place on Wikipedia. -Clark3934 00:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As of now, unremarkable article and organization. Not notable. Gold Stur 04:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep The TechTv clip basically makes it meet WP:WEB, barely. JoshuaZ 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nerdy, perhaps, but whether it is "cruft" depends solely on your viewpoint. You might want to check out articles such as Fhqwhgads or Alt.fan.warlord, which have been allowed to stay despite being, in my opinion, just as "nerdy" and "crufty" as the subject of this article, if not more so. Believe it or not, these types of things have achieved mass popularity within certain communities. Rishodi 21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is notable calling something nerdcruft is rude Yuckfoo 04:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I(well, not me, but it was provided to me) found a Slashdot article where Blizzhackers(Edge of Nowhere) is explicitly linked to in the article text. Hope this helps in deciding whether or not this should be deleted. Also, to note, if the article is kept, users who have more knowledge about the website will be the primary users contributing. The current article is very poorly done because it was pretty much just plopped together before any of the site staff had any chance to have input. -lord2800 67.134.133.216 05:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the entire text of the abovementioned Slashdot "article" so linked: "Posted by CmdrTaco on Tue Jul 19, '05 11:11 AM from the only-a-matter-of-time dept. Over the course of this morning several people have sent me tidbits talking about an exploit on WoW that allows duping of items. Apparently forum posts are being removed on official channels, but there are a few places where you can learn about the exploit and see screenshot evidence. In equally exciting news, my Rogue on Azjol-nerub is probably 2 hours away from 60 and since Blizzard will undoubtedly fix this bug soon, I'll have to finance my epic mount the old fashioned way!" The italicized section is the link to the Blizzhackers' forum. Several of these psuedononymous tidbits get linked per day. I'll leave it to you folks whether the above, in your opinion, constitutes significant media coverage. RGTraynor 15:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the article, that link was added as a reference a few days ago, so you're just a bit late. Have you looked at the most recent version of the article? There is obviously a lot of room for improvement, but nevertheless it's currently much better than it was originally. Rishodi 08:40, 27 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!
Thryduulf 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now going with Keep per TechTV clip and Slashdot article. Meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 12:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Delete per RGTRaynor. JoshuaZ 15:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. meets WP:WEB, I suppose. Mystache 13:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 48 unique G-hits? A poor Alexa ranking? Sounds like the assertions of how much of a giant in gaming this group is are badly inflated. Beyond which, it does not meet WP:WEB on the strength of that article. If people follow the link to the article, you'll see it was just a citation of a gamecheat linking to the original finding. To quote from WP:WEB - "This criterion excludes: Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores." This is trivial content, folks. RGTraynor 15:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure to meet WP:WEB criteria.--Isotope23 16:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor --Astrokey44 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Nearly notable by google hits, but not by Alexa. bikeable (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In response to the above: You apparently did not read all of the information on this page, or did not believe it. I quote: As far as Alexa ratings and traffic reports go, please bear in mind that the website was on a 5+ month hiatus when Blizzard attempted to take the site down due to WoW server emulation. Alexa rankings at this point mean next to nothing to the notability of the site. Also to note, if you do a Google search of the website's new name, Edge of Nowhere(using the search query "Edge of Nowhere forum", to remove the invalid results relating to various other things), you come up with 4,720,000 results. Blizzhackers reached its peak just before Blizzard threatened legal action and the site was taken offline. Since then, its popularity as the respawned "Edge of Nowhere" has never been close to what it used to be. I encourage you all to look at Alexa's daily traffic rate graph which spans the 5-year existence of the site. As you can clearly see, in early 2005 the site had a peak daily traffic rank of under the 10,000 mark and was on a steady incline. You can also note on the graph the point at which the site was shut down, and the relatively poor traffic rankings after that point. I hope some of you reconsider, or at least make a delete vote based on better criteria than Alexa ratings, as I have shown the current ranking of 149,905 to be a false indicator of lack of notability. Rishodi 18:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, "Edge of Nowhere" forum gets 75,000, but many many of these are unrelated. it's really hard to tell. it does appear pretty close to googlish notability, which is why I voted "weak delete". "Blizzhackers" is a more unique word, and actually has quite a few hits... I may have to reconsider, although it takes a lot for a gaming forums page to achieve notability in my book. bikeable (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decent Alexa traffic suggests that a site is active, but no one who's actually looked at the forum would deny that; they've many registered users and many posts. The problem is that these folks' claim to notability is in significantly impacting the gaming world, and I just haven't seen any genuine evidence of that. I want slightly more than a handful of unique G-hits and a fleeting link on a Slashdot gamers' newswire. RGTraynor 20:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- with comment: it's not because Wikipedia has articles about similar and perhaps even less notable sites that this should just get a free pass. There will alway be a (too great) number of articles here that really shouldn't be, but that should not be justification to add more of them -- Hirudo 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- based on above posts, IMHO there is an insufficient consensus for deletion once the Cabal-ist votes (based on the simple premise that ordinary people should not get a mention on Wiki) are given their due weight -- Disguised pseudonym
  • Delete. Tiny, irrelevant self-aggrandising web community, apparently consisting entirely of ballot stuffers. Terminate with extreme prejudice. -- GWO
  • Comment. Unfortunately thus far most of these comments people have made have been because of ignorence or prejudice. The ract remains that Blizzhackers has been referenced by multiple reputable media sources, has over 100,000 members with millions of posts, and has legal history with Blizzard Entertainment. You would think these facts would be suffice for being in Wikipedia. And to all you who state about the Alexa Rating or the importance, please do some research before you post, ignorence doesn't help. And do you have any reason to state why this is "self-aggrandising"? And if even it was for promotional reasons, does that subtract from the fulfilled requirements Blizzhackers has provided(not to state that it is)?. And yes, if you feel that this is a ballot stuffing effort, ignore the amount of posts and just look at the content and reasons of each comment, whic is what really matters. See here for how "small" Edge of Nowhere, formerly Blizzhackers, really is. http://www.big-boards.com/board/351/-- Salgat
  • Delete group-vanity, fails WP:WEB. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor. The media section is pathetic, and there's no way it gets around WP:V or WP:NOR, let alone WP:WEB. Melchoir 07:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portsmouth metro

Likely to be original research, or just a plain hoax. Either way, there's no way it's an official proposal: various aspects just don't add up. RFBailey 15:42, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KitchBall

hoax Rklawton 15:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't a hoax. Read the article. Its a real sport. (by: 83.146.52.165)
I read the article. It's a ball game played in the kitchen. Ordinarily it would be deleted for non-notability. However, it's tenative claim of "millions" of players qualifies it as a hoax instead. Rklawton 15:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make abusive comments; they won't help persuade anybody to keep the article. Daniel Case 17:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Get me some sources if you want to convince us of the authenticity. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Likely a hoax. Grafikm_fr 16:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best it is not notable. No media Milton Keynes (where it supposed to have been invented) have ever mentioned it. Hoax. --Concrete Cowboy 16:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete NN, hoax, neologism, etc. --Darkfred Talk to me 18:25, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insomniacmania.com

Alexa rank of 85,955. Fails WP:WEB. Daniel Case 16:04, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Repurposing Technology

advertisement. I Vote Delete. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:14, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rummel Pinera

Contested prod. This guy doesn't look notable enough for an article. He gets 13 unique google hits which all appear to derive from the guy himself. Relevant guideline is WP:BIO. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This page has already been deleted once under a similar name. Does that make it speedyable? --Darkfred Talk to me 18:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the content itself is basically the same. And I can't view deleted pages, so I wouldn't know. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:31, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burble

Classic WP:NFT example; WP:HOAX for the truthfulness of the subject's existence. ~ PseudoSudo 16:56, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidential issues

Unencyclopedic listcruft that is best dealt with on Wikipedia, if at all, in other politics articles. Daniel Case 17:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Carrera

This article is not verifiable, and is therefore in conflict with WP:V. I know this woman exists, and I've seen her in porn videos, but other than that, there's no reliable information about her. From WP:V: "The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." We don't even know her birth name for sure. In the article, it's listed as "Jessica Andrea Steinhauser," but on her website she says that her father is Japanese and her mother is German. If her parents were as strict and traditional as she says, she'd have a Japanese last name. That discrepancy makes me doubt Asia herself as a reliable source. This is definitely not the only discrepancy in her biographical information. Without WP:RS, we can't have an article. I'm not objecting to how she became famous (porn), I'm objecting to the lack of reliable sources and the impossibility of verification. Should porn star articles be held to a lower or different standard of verifiability than articles on other living people? I don't think so. Erik the Rude 17:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Verifiable sources can be found such as imdb.com. Also this would not be the first person with disputed birthdate and name. Many people from before the 18th century have dubious birthdates. Should we delete Christopher Columbus because we are not sure when or where he was born? Joelito 17:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Internet Movie Database contradicts itself on Asia Carrera, and is therefore not a reliable source. I don't see what Christopher Columbus has to do with this. He has reliable sources. Erik the Rude 17:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he doesn't. Columbus has (partly conflicting) information in various unofficial and "official" (but not edited or peer-reviewed) documents. They qualify as "the most reliable sources available" and can be cited as such, but we don't treat them as absolute proof. IMDB, on the other hand, can have unverified information inserted by actors or wannabees or fans, so we treat it as just another pointer to possible information, whether self-contradictory or not. Barno 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To the extent of verifying a porn actress' real name, they should be held to a slightly lower standard of verifiability than someone not in that... industry. Anonymity is part and parcel of being in porn, and the stage name is more important for their work in any case, but like the Venerable Bede. Furthermore, in the United States children of Asian immigrants often have a non-Asian last name- whether matrilinearly acquired or invented- because of perceptions that it would reduce prejudice when interacting with government. Furthermore, the article itself cites IMDB as well as her personal website as sources, and her ethnic background is (tangentially) discussed in this article from the SFGate. At any rate, there is information in the article that is a matter of public record (her marriage, for instance), and whatever controversy there might be over her name is not grounds for deleting the entire article. If you want to point out some things that you see as discrepancies in her self-provided information, I'd recommend pointing them out in cleanup or someplace other than AfD. Captainktainer 18:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep don't think possibly incorrect information is a good reason to delete an article. If its incorrect fix it or add verify tags, don't send it to AFD. The subject is obviously notable. (plus to some it might smell of censorship) --Darkfred Talk to me 18:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep beat it down to a substub but I'm sure there is some verifiable stuff. I don't really care about her real name. I wonder if she still reads HardOCP. Kotepho 18:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, one of the five most notable people in her field, has sustained this status for years. Plenty of verifiable media coverage can be found. Porn stars' real names are not crucial to proper encyclopedic coverage, and (as in the Jordan Capri controversy in these pages) could cause their own troubles even if verified. Barno 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Beyond that, as far as I see so far, I'm the only editor signing a comment with anything other than a pseudonym, which is ironic in this conversation. RGTraynor 19:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I use my real surname. I only display naked opinions online, not naked flesh, and I don't think these comments will draw obsessed stalkers. Aren't you afraid of overeager fans of Dick Traynor's NASCAR Modified racing from the 1980s (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York) mistaking you for him? Barno 20:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, nor from fans of the Robert Traynor who's an English soccer striker, nor from the bit actor of that name, and I'm probably safe from crazed fans of my (90-year-old) eponymous grandfather as well. Life's too short. RGTraynor 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Although the issues of verifiability are interesting, IMHO they pertain more to page content, not whether or not she deserves an entry. --Lockley 20:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as obviously notable individual, only a content dispute. VegaDark 20:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All I can say is "huh?" Danny Lilithborne 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reluctantly. Fagstein 06:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, absolutely must keep. This biographical data dispute is no more remarkable than confusion over, say Al Lewis' birthdate. Chris Stangl 05:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Anyone verify the Bible? Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it false...The Virgin Mary, "they give her a pelvic exam to prove 100% she was pure", amyschubbyhubby 13:09, 21 April 2006 {UTC}
  • Speedy Keep - the veracity of some info isn't a reason to delete the whole thing. Dismas|(talk) 15:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, Gimme a break. if an article has small amount of unverifible/questionable info, tag it as such or take it out. You don't delete the whole article of a notable person. Crumbsucker 18:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep! Enough information is given to verify all the stuff you are arguing about. Her marriages are public record, and have her legal name. The Spelling award would have record of who won it that year, the piano award would also be verifiable if anyone cared to do so, and Mensa has her in their magazine. Surely they verified all her info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.114.156 (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 deletable spam that's already been deleted once. DS 19:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coddan

Pure promo about a British or Irish law firm. If there was any reason it was notable, it would be in the article. Daniel Case 17:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Looks like quite a big company. Article needs radical cleanup, that is true, but it's not a reason for deletion. Grafikm_fr 17:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as ad spam. Could we please do a little bit of research before taking an article's bald assertion of notability on faith? In point of fact, this firm has 33 unique G-hits, and each and every one of them is promotional spam; there isn't a single independent citation. Further, Martindale-Hubbell has never heard of it, and in a professional incorporation firm that's not only deeply troubling, I'd bet ten bucks against a nickel it's a scammer. RGTraynor 19:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly per RGTraynor. (There is no applicable speedy criterion). Henning Makholm 22:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:CORP. --Hetar 22:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by RexNL as CSD A7, nn-band. --Hetar 22:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vida-127

Non-notable band Grafikm_fr 17:27, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google guide

Article is an instruction manual/tutorial for using Google --mtz206 17:34, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pitabutterito

WP:BAND 12 unique hits in Google. John Nagle 17:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) .

Did Atari attempt to acquire Amiga?

This article, by its title alone, is speculative prose that does not belong on an encyclopedia. It therefore cannot ever truly be NPOV. Bumm13 17:57, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulysses and The Strangers

NN band, possible vanity. Only two Google hits, and the "record label" to which the band has signed has only three Google hits, is run by the band's frontman, and the lead hit is a Myspace page. RGTraynor 17:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge, as already done. - Liberatore(T) 17:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominar Bishan

Minor character that nobody seems interested in merging.

  • Comment He shows up in Peacekeeper Wars at least once, and I think twice. He's frequently discussed (or complained about) during the series and plays an important role in Rygel's backstory. As for merging, the Farscape article isn't very well set up to list by character rather than by actor. I wouldn't be averse to a merge, but until the Farscape page is reformatted to accept it or until there's an appropriate, separate article with a list of the Farscape characters, we should keep it where it is. I strongly urge against deleting for the simple fact that he does hold some importance, and WP:FICT explicitly warns not to delete meaningful content.Captainktainer 00:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I merged it into Farscape and it was promptly removed. The proposed list into which there was to have been a merge debate has been deleted and nobody contributed to the debate - nobody cares! So we should keep it because it's too trivial to merge anywhere? Dlyons493 Talk
  • Comment Then I suggest you create the list and do the merge since nobody else seems interested. Dlyons493 Talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This is a new discussion for the current version of the Mark Henderson wiki. It currently has been hijacked from its orginal purpose as a page for Mark Henderson of the Snow Bowl fame, and is being used for MArk Henderson, lighting director. Mark Henderson, lighting director is of considerable less fame and notoriety than the Mark Henderson of the Snow Bowl fame. The current article is barely a 2 line blurb on the lighting director, and should be deleted, possibly reverted back to the original purpose, and at most a disambiguation link be added for the lighting director. Alternativly, the current article on the lighting director should be merged with the tony awards page it links to.

Feel free to edit this to the correct format. I tried to make a new page for this discussion, as it is on a different subject than the previous AfD, but was not able to.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 History of the New England Patriots, where content is already. - Liberatore(T) 17:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Henderson

Very close to a speedy. No documentation offered (date this game was played?), but perhaps some hardcore American football fans can confirm whether or not this "famous" incident ever took place. -- Curps 18:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Actually, it did, in the 1982 playoffs, and engendered a change in the league rules concerning such things. Even as a Patriots' fan, though, since this was the only remotely newsworthy event of Henderson's life, I can't in good conscience give this one a keep. I'd Merge it into the Pats' article at best.Redirect and Delete; see below. RGTraynor 18:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should only have biographical articles if there is a reasonable liklihood of being able to put together a full life story up to date of death, whenever it happens, and I doubt anyone will publish his obituary. Hawkestone 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'm sure they will, as it was a significant event in football in the 1980s (there's a reasonable, but biased, summary here). However, I think this article would be better if it were to undergo a rename as The Snow Plow Game (which currently redirects to National Football League lore, where it can be found in the 80s list), with more info about the game and Henderson's effect on it. I'm not a Patriots expert but User:Deckiller is, and might be able to expand it under this new name.--Mike Selinker 20:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? How is this a noteworthy person that belongs in Wikipedia? It's like doing an article on some kid that gets to mop the free throw lane at an NBA game. Tijuana Brass 07:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your typical mopper at an NBA game isn't highlighted time and time again in highlight reels and best of moment lists. This guy is. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per some notability. A merge into National Football League Lore would also work though. Seeing as how it's already on the NFL Lore page, it's tough to say whether this deserves a keep. This article needs to be improved on, though. --Wizardman 00:24, 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 17:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political_Abrogationism

Neologism created for what appears to be an advertisement for a self published book. Only a handful of unique google hits. All are either the users own geocities site or the book page from the vanity publisher. See other deleted and up for deleted articles by this same user. (deleted) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RUMMEL PINERA (up for deletion) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rummel_Pinera -- Darkfred Talk to me 17:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete my own vote as per nom --Darkfred

Talk to me 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge/redirect Kotepho 06:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga software piracy

Article is speculative prose; Wikipedia is not an essay repository. The software piracy debate exists on all computer platforms and is covered in its own article. Bumm13 18:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris has merged it into Amiga software piracy. How about redirecting Amiga software piracy to software piracy then? - Richardcavell 11:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is neither speculative nor random. It gets the technical and social details right, and explains how the technical details mattered. It does not discuss the software piracy debate (whether, why and why not); instead it concentrates on the piracy process (why disk-based protection did not work on the Amiga, what Amiga publishers used instead). Note also that Software piracy redirects to Copyright infringement of software, which address the legal and ethical aspects of piracy quite well, but says nothing whatsoever about the technical aspects. Can I suggest that a little more effort in reading the articles under discussion might avoid future embarrassment?
Nevertheless, being somewhat of a mergist, I have WP:BOLDly merged the content of the article into Amiga software#Piracy. Not being an admin, I'll let someone else delete it.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A later thought: Amiga software piracy should redirect to Amiga software, since that's where the content now is. CWC(talk) 11:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just edited the article into a redirect to Amiga software, but left the AfD tag there. Are we finished here? CWC(talk) 17:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin P. Miller

Prod removed by author so bringing here. No vote. exolon 18:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think we need to do some digging here. This article and Miller's documentary We Become Silent represent the only contributions by the editor. There are only 89 G-hits for the film -- this after excising references to Martin Luther King, who used the phrase in a speech -- but those hits reference a speech Dennis Kucinich made citing it, and one of those hits is from Kucinich's Congressional web site, so it can't be spurious. As against that, the documentary has no IMDB entry, nor is it referenced in Dench's IMDB entry. RGTraynor 19:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unless someone has sources to show otherwise. Fagstein 06:31, 19 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!
Kotepho 06:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Day

Strikes me as unencylopedic. Essentially a joke/hoax article. Delete exolon 18:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It needs cleanup and removal of some parts that may be copyvio. However, a google search for "Z-day +zombies" uncovers a fairly large (10,000+) number of hits from Kotaku, Kuro5hin, and Technorati, and Z-Day is part of the title of one of the Shaun of the Dead special features. Article needs a refocus, keeping the good bits (which is basically the first and last sections).Captainktainer 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Fagstein 06:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same reasons as Captainktainer. Urhixidur 16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keeep* i think this is a great article. "z-day" is a fictional occurance but all of the details listed can be found and so therefore it is a factual and well made article. Dont delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.207.181 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. This is a movie idea, already well-traveled (hmm, "round heels" anyone?) As for factual -- this is a predicted event -- the scientists don't exist -- the instructions are directly from movies. Remove the crap and the article would be left saying "this is a name for a plot device". Sounds like a movie industry dictionary definition, not an encyclopedic entry. Shenme 03:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. --MaNeMeBasat 10:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has all the workings of a hoax/joke to me.--Cini 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide and Turkish National Movement

POV fork, no significant information pschemp | talk 18:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Golfcam 21:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious delete. The name of the article doesn't mean much, doesn't correspond to the content, and the content is just unrelated, I still have no clue about what this article is. Fad (ix) 23:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do understand what the article is about and how it relates to the title, but it is so badly written that there is little that can be done with it. If there is sufficient popular demand, I could try to paraphrase it into something understandable. It is strongly POV, from the Armenian side. If someone should think that is an issue: wake up: almost all content on the issue present on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) is poisoned with POV assumptions, terms and phrases, whether from one side or the other. There is some valid but not terribly interesting content here; it would take more effort than I can muster to try and see if it is represented elsewhere. And then I'm not even mentioning the effort of finding reliable neutral sources for verifiability. LambiamTalk 02:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That this article is POV from the Armenian side is questionable. It has been created by a Turk, the same that undangered the integrity of the main article. Why has he created an article which appear at first impression 'pro-Armenian' as you might call it, I have my suspicions but I'd rather not say it here, besides, does it make any difference that a bad quality articles POV is pro what? As it is, this entry from what it is now, doesn't have a justifiable existance. Also, I beg to disagree, and strongly, and I even find it offensive that you'd go as far as using the term 'poisoned' for 'almost all content,' but having yourself questioned the name of the main article because you considered it 'loaded,' I can't tell that it would have surprised me that the content itself isen't satisfying you, but the word poisoned was misplaced. Fad (ix) 03:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I mean by 'poisoned' is that if part of an article is POV it taints the whole article. I didn't mean to be offensive. I'm curious as to your suspicions, but maybe I shouldn't ask. LambiamTalk 07:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as content fork. Fagstein 06:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --DanielNuyu 03:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines

Notability is a subjective measure and as such not for debate. (Boborok 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
"No original research" only applies to Wikipedia articles, and not the works the articles are about. (Boborok 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Do you see any citations of coverage in peer-reviewed scholarly journals or mainstream media with fact-checkers? The only source in the article at this writing is the website with the anti-WP rant essay. Yes, the essay is OR, but the article (one sentence plus one promotional link) is also OR, lacking any sources, regardless of whether it's vanity. Who says it's satiric; who says it's "in the form of a scientific study about W.T."? Barno 22:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As if there were "peer-reviewed scholarly journals" of internet satire. Hits on Google Scholar (Boborok 23:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete (Boborok 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I added it to Criticism of Wikipedia. (Boborok 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider pit sequence

Article was created by a blatant vandal whose been blocked several times now. I've tried redirecting this one because I'm convinced it's vandalism/trolling as well, but it keeps getting restored, sometimes by the author, sometimes anonymously. All content is covered in King Kong (1933 film), but written so much better. The exceptions are a couple lines that are unreferenced and that I think are just jokes- eg. Poland. User has a history of hoaxes, see the prod notice on his talk page. Delete to just end this madness. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Levan

Appears to be fictional and/or vanity. Created by User:Mjclevan, a user that appears to have the same last name and has also vandalized other articles. I did a few Google searches and was unable to verify the information. JamesTeterenko 19:42, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claus Levan

Appears to be fiction and/or vanity along with Jacob Levan. JamesTeterenko 19:45, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psyche (psychology)

del original research, possibly based on a single book, full of unverifiable claims. `'mikka (t) 19:50, 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. Thryduulf 12:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzztakus

Fancruft, neologism, original non-notable fiction. Mr Bound 19:51, 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. DS 18:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliyah Yya

Page is empty Deon555 07:20, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea donkey

Contested prod, wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang, or unverifiable demeaning catch phrases DVD+ R/W 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has many entries on words that are both Slang and demeaning. Pretending these phrases do not exist is the wrong direction for wikipedia. An honest article that explores the origins and social reasons for such demaning slang is a necassary part of Wikipedia's purpose. Jeffrey


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bufonic parodhy

As far as I can see, it's a load of old nonsense. No sources, no assertion of notability, no context. —Whouk (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Looks like the article was rewritten. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginal_flatulence

This article borders on nonsense. It is woefully undersourced except for links to an urban dictionary and there is no ICD-9 listing for this condition. Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Delete --Malber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy deletion on this "article" please. Grafikm_fr 20:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Golfcam 21:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I've done a fair amount of research on this topic since moving this page and cleaning it up many months ago. It's a real phenomenon, which is not a matter for debate at all. It is covered in a number of external sources, and is related to serious medical conditions (colovaginal fistula, for example, has related symptoms as described in the article). How, exactly is this not an encyclopedic article? Is it the cataloging of slang terms (something which many Wikipedia articles do; e.g. fuck) or is it the fact that pornography is referenced (again, this is an attempt to be complete, not to dwell on what might offend). How can we not cover this topic? How many external references are required for an article of this length? Why would an article be deleted for having less citation than that, rather than enhancing the citations? -Harmil 21:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - A few more sources [28] German link. The problem is that this condition is not a treatable disease or syndrom, though it can be a symptom. For example, "Symptoms of genitourinary prolapse: [...] Coital difficulties–dyspareunia, loss of vaginal sensation, vaginal flatus" [29] -Harmil 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Malber, I realize that pussy fart and queef might not be pleasant words for most polite conversation, but they're certainly terms that are widely used. Why should they not appear on Wikipedia? As for the first part of your comment: I'm not sure that it makes sense to discuss the same phenomenon in multiple articles without giving it an article of its own. You also claimed that the article was "woefully undersourced except for links to an urban dictionary" in the listing summary. Could you please retract that comment, since it is a rather serious misrepresentation of the article (which contains 4 inline citations and 3 external links including links to sites such as UHRAD, WebMD and Medical Tribune). If someone has better references, please feel free to add them, but I think that this article is about as well sourced as one could expect at this point. I agree that the prevention section could be re-worded to avoid an instructional tone, and rather survey techniques more objectively... which I have now done. -Harmil 18:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. If anyone actually found anything in here worth merging that has not already been merged then a temporary undeletion to allow this should be OK (request at WP:DRV). Thryduulf 12:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 ways that slaves in the South Resisted Slavery

There are more ways of resisting slavery than just 7, and none of these are particularly unique to slavery in the South, or rather the South of the United States. Also this article as it now stands appears to focus on failure and lack of organization, not to mention seeming to divide the United States into "slaves" and "whites" Hackwrench 20:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of ways that slaves in the South Resisted Slavery Jonathan235 15:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primitive Yahwism

Delete Suspected hoax. Google search brings up 34 hits, most of which are actually talking about the actual Yahwism, in Primitive times rather than any kind of modern version. Does not assert notability and is not verifiable, nor does it have any sources/references. pm_shef 20:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you can provide reputable sources, I'll withdraw my nomination for AfD. - pm_shef 03:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no one said it has to be web-pages - it is just that the internet is usually a good source for phenomena too new to be found in scholarly journals or major magazines and newspapers. Certainly, if there are articles in academic journals, major magazines, or an enecylopedia of religions, or something like that (i.e. not from an exlusively partisan or in-house source), that would be a verifiable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:14, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports flops

In light of recent AfD deletions of List of NFL Draft busts and List of NFL Draft steals, I decided to send this one to AfD as well to get a consensus. Others were deleted largely due to the subjective manner of choosing additions to the list. No vote. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:26, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rusty Joystick

doesn't meet WP:WEB; this is just a forum --M@rēino 20:32, 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. Thryduulf 12:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melbone

Non-notable cocktail. Nothing more than a recipe. Prod removed without comment by article creator who also has not provided any references despite the article being tagged. Quale 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup. Needs to be way more understandable Jonathan235 21:31, 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. Thryduulf 12:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RootShell Security Group

Wikipedia is not meant to redirect people to Google. The company bears no apparent importance as well. Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:01, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kayode Modupe-Ojo

Blatant hoax. No such person plays football for Bolton Wanderers or basketball for the Harlem Globetrotters. A Google search for his name shows nothing except a couple of postings to forums with similar false information, and a school newsletter from 2001 [31]. Article has previously had {{prod}} added, but original author APC News (talk · contribs) removed notice. Delete. Qwghlm 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: The article Olukayode Modupe-Ojo covers the same person; although it is only a stub it is just as false as the larger article and should be deleted as well. Qwghlm 12:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I had previously brought my concerns to the author's attention. As I mentioned on his talk page I'd not been back, except to notice that he'd been editting, presumably in response to my criticisms. Back when the article was created I'd done what checking I could, and I had found only a couple news blogs mentioning this person's name, and always about a team being interested, testing out, considering him, etc. I added a {{prod}} with a reason, and echoed that with further explanation on the author's talk page. Since I don't know if my 'research' was sufficient, I won't vote here. So far I can't get any of the external links to work, but that might be editing problems (I see unclosed http tags - I'll fix them) Shenme 22:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if any of this was true he'd have at least hundreds of GHits, not nine [[32]]. --Eivindt@c 22:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I get two hits, one of which is this article. Fagstein 06:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some or most things in the article are true, i am a huge basketball fan and i have witnessed this person play at the 2004 tour with the HGT but...he stopped trialing with bolton wanderers a few months ago so why the heck is the author stating that he is still a bolton player?!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.24.230 (talk • contribs)
    • No verifiable reference for any of the above claims has been supplied. Also please note this IP address attempted to blank the article three times. Qwghlm 08:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 0 appearances. CTOAGN (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Its really funny as to how this geezers name has come to light at this present moment. Im a dye hard bolton fan and last I heard of him was at a suppoters meeting back in feb and one of the topics was rumours concerning the club, He didnt actualy get the gig at bwfc coz they werent interested, then he pissed off to united, god knows what happened there! What i can say tho is that apart from the naming of bwfc as his current club, everything else seems to match up with the research I did on him (and it wasnt via google). I have a few contacts that work for bwfc and they have (sort of) heard of him. I dont think he deserves a mention on wiki coz he isnt a full-fledged premiership player. The author obviously has to do his bloody research before posting. Steve —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.115.160 (talk • contribs) 21:44, April 20, 2006.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punkscene

Self-promotion of non-notable group promotion of non-notable bands (all but two of the 23 names are either redlinked or lead to unrelated disambigs or redirects. The two that have articles are not clearly notable either). Prod removed by creator without comment. Henning Makholm 21:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westside Barbell

non notable club Dunstan 21:46, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loc Le


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 23:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IQuest Dual Screen Tutor

Was listed as a speedy delete for being a hoax, but "hoax" is not a speedy criterion and no evidence of a hoax provided so sent here instead, No vote from me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:52, 18 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!
Thryduulf 12:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dixy Chicken

poorly sourced, slightly nonsensical, not terribly notable, however I feel the speedy tag was undeserved, so vote here--152.163.100.200 21:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect --Rob 01:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa J. Lennox

Was tagged as speedy for being "insufficiently notable". However, that is not a speedy criterion and article does assert notability, so sent here. No vote from me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only thing I could really salvage was some external sources. Everything else is just copyvio from IMDB. Now recommending delete and redirectCaptainktainer 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and rename. The renaming has already been done. Turnstep 16:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Western Hills High School (Cincinnati, Ohio

Was speedied as "no context", but does have context, even if it is not very good, so sent here. No vote from me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as copyvio. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest rock bands

Entirely subjective views; original content; POV

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_18&oldid=49065163"