Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 18 >

Purge server cache

March 19

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

The result of the debate was keep, nomination withdrawn. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of LEXX episodes

[edit]

I loved this show dearly, having watched every episode aired on the SciFi Channel in the U.S. I even have autographed pictures of two major cast members, Patricia Zentilli and Eva Habermann. In spite of all this, I must say that this article is unencyclopedic fancruft and listcruft and needs to go. I can't think of a single reason to save it, and the existing systemic bias towards science fiction fandom means that we should hold articles on science fiction topics to a very high standard. Brian G. Crawford 00:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am going to do the work on the episode guide, as I'm watching the series currently. I can see both sides of the argument. I've looked at the Southpark guide, which is extensive and bulky, but a different form to Star Trek. The problem I've got is that not a lot needs to be said about some episodes of Lexx... yet people talk extensively about other crappy shows. I have no idea how to judge this, as Wiki is expanding rapidly, and soon avi files will end up in here as well. We're obviously devoting more space to Buffy than Shakespeare. What can you say? Bipedia 12:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above and merge episode articles into this article. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn. Since there's a consensus on keeping this, there's no reason to keep this in AfD. Apparently, presence in pop culture and mass media guarantees presence in Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford 16:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was tagged with {{orfud}}. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TacticsOgreGameCover.jpg

[edit]

Because it is a duplicate. All of it. Vae 00:38, 19 March 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. DS 16:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yourphone

[edit]

Article about non-notable company. Original contributor (perhaps the company itself) contested prod and attempted to rewrite the article to be less advert-like, which however does not make the company notable. Henning Makholm 00:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Tips

[edit]

I'm sure it's really useful, but WP:NOT a how-to guide. Would Wikibooks want this? Mithent 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Does not fit in with The Sims 2. Anyone who can find a better place to merge, feel free to do so. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Challenge (The Sims 2)

[edit]

It has never been fully merged with the Sims 2—neither was the redirect to avoid people reading it or re-creating it. But, anyway, the main reason is really because WP is not a how-to. Kilo-Lima Vous pouvez parler 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is not a how-to. Wikipedia is not Gamefaqs.com. Wikipedia is not for challenges for PC games you just make up one day. However, there is an interview by the Sims2 community on this. If evidence of more mainstream attention can be provided, I'll change my mind, but at this time, delete. -- Saberwyn 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Wiki note a gamefaq..agree KsprayDad 21:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per the original VfD (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Legacy Challenge (The Sims 2); that was 5 votes to merge, 4 to keep). Melissa Della 22:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Legacy challenge concept is extremely popular. Check the [2 Website] and other popular Sims websites to see how many people are doing this. Even if they aren't following the rules the legacy concept of following many generations of Sims is very popular. That said, the topic does need to be cleaned up to more about what Legacies are as opposed to how to play one properly. --Ryuukuro 04:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
In light of the previous AfD, and in the interest of getting it right rather than just closing the AfD, I'm relisting to allow for a more clear consensus to be reached.W.marsh 01:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality and Christian Art

[edit]

Article barely touched for some time, nothing was there except original research and rampant speculation. I'm not sure there ever could be much content here except criticism of Christian sexual ethics which belong in other articles. -- Jbamb 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NatureSoft

[edit]

Advert. Nothing links here. Delete? Sammysam 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Xaosflux. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fighting Cocks (volleyball)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 05:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Leisure Center

[edit]

Article fails to state notablity, 4 google hit [2]. With Canadian spelling (centre) a mighty 8 [3] Eivindt@c 01:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corkman Irish Pub

[edit]

Non-notable, prod removed Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Bobby. JoshuaZ 03:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC) rename and redirect per below. JoshuaZ 22:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Pizza Championship

[edit]

This is just some non-notable pizza eating contest. Gets 501 Google hits [6] A Clown in the Dark 02:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy WP:CSD A8: copyvio. mikka (t) 02:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panupand Vijjuprabha

[edit]

Non-notable bio, appears to be political campaign piece for upcoming FIDE election. Phr 02:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planehugger

[edit]

non-notable (POV) only 47 googles. Some conspiracy theory term. RJFJR 02:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 17:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silicone holocaust

[edit]

del nonnotable attempt to introduce a buzzword, pushed mainly by http://www.siliconeholocaust.org. mikka (t) 02:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirected to his daddy. DS 17:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Beckham

[edit]

{{{text}}} Rklawton 03:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC) as per CalJWRklawton 06:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Already mentioned on father's page. JoshuaZ 03:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Abstaining for now per CalJW. JoshuaZ 05:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dagdi chawl

[edit]

Hi - this one-liner's subject is non-notable. I don't see the point of naming every Indian MLA's bungalow. Rama's Arrow 03:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 03:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Cocaine

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Bobby1011 03:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well in that case the whole list is in serious need of a clean up. Most of the articles are about cocktails that have no significance, historical or otherwise, associated with them. The list should probably also be restructured to reflect the nature of the cocktails' signicance as opposed to the base beverages that go into creating it. Bobby1011 04:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Luigi30. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fry-dogs

[edit]

This is about a neologism that isn't notable. Bobby1011 04:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 04:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aristiside

[edit]

non-notable (or worse) Rklawton 04:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was already redirected --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-Rap

[edit]

Delete NN neologism. Article makes little sense.the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) WITHDRAWN the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 22:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People speculated to have been autistic

[edit]

List is entirely speculative as the title and the introduction blatantly say. As speculation there is no way to support any of this with facts and speculation does not have a place on Wikipedia. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you please elaborate on your thinking here. If medical journals and other scholarly reviews are publishing works on the topic, why can't we discuss it here? Should we ignore the fact that the medical conditions of famous personalities are a real field of historical scholarship that is frequently echoed in the popular press? Going further, wouldn't that type of thinking eliminate the possibility of incorporating any new material into our historical articles since the new interpretations could just as quickly be branded speculation? -- JJay 20:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is this in any way better than adding the speculation to the notable person's biography? I can see that medical conditions of famous individuals are a proper filed of historic study (did Napoleon have severe piles, thus arriving at Waterloo shorter of sleep than Wellington, and less mobile?) but I can't see tha that is assisted by the historian having a list of people with piles, running his finger down it and picking out Napoleon to consider biographising. Is it a reflection of limitations in the search facilities available - a way of doing a search for Cat:people word:autis* ? Weak delete, or merge to talk page of main article on the condition. Midgley 02:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's the same logic as that behind categories and lists in general - it's a way of centralizing and grouping the information for a user whose interest is in autism/asperger's generally, rather than in a specific person who may have had autism/asperger's Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 02:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best, this page can aspire to be original research! Absolute garbage, would love to see it gone. Ben-w 06:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but remove the large amount of dubious and badly-sourced material in it, and in future apply WP:V and WP:CITE punctiliously and promptly move unsourced items to the Talk page. There's nothing wrong with reporting well-sourced opinions, and there is some point in localizing this material in a single article than rather than having individual discussions biographies. But. This is a page where the verifiability policy needs to be applied punctiliously. I notice that a number of seemingly sourced items have pretty unsatisfactory sources; for example, Alan Turing is referenced to a page on a medium-credible website—it's about "sexual health" and the source is an RN with an autistic child, who in turn, cites "Tony Attwood 2000" but does not actually give a reference. Attwood in turn is quoted rather vaguely as saying "Examples of possible 'Asperger's Achievers' are Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Mozart, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Glenn Gould and Alan Turing ... such illustrious individuals could be valuable heroes to children with Asperger's Syndrome." I don't think that's good enough, particularly since the statement suggests Attwood is motivated by a wish to provide "heroes" to children with Asperger's, rather than a desire for encyclopedic accuracy. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as long as Wikipedia is not doing the speculating, it's all right. It could be improved and better sourced, but the article is interesting and noteworthy. ProhibitOnions 20:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we'll have People speculated to have been Shirley MacLaine in a prior life, People speculated to have voted for George Bush, People speculated to have enjoyed their martinis stirred not shaken, People speculated to be space aliens.. Or more seriously (perhaps)....People speculated to have been gay, People speculated to have been born out of wedlock, People speculated to have had plastic surgery, which are all fair game if this stays and Wikipedia isn't doing the speculating.... Carlossuarez46 01:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The last three seem reasonable to me, especially given that when such speculation is common it is already on some of the individuals pages. JoshuaZ 18:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Nobody has mentioned that there are a very large number of articles on Wikipedia that already contain rumors or speculation. Future products, such as Nintendo Revolution are an example. Or most future years that have articles. Any article about something in the future (or otherwise) is game for speculation, and if it's sourced and is not a far-out fringe belief I don't see what the big problem is. Grandmasterka 23:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This page is not about Wikipedia or Wikipedians making speculations, but about scientific speculations. This is an acceptable Wiki subject, as it seems to be a genuine area of scientific interest. The article seems well sourced and with a lot of references, and is NPOV and does not contain original research. I see no reason to delete it, and many reasons to keep it. -- Ritchy 18:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a good, interesting article. Kill it and wikipedia will die a little death. Sparsefarce 22:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article does no speculation. There are many scientists who believe some people in the past have been autistic and the article is about their speculation(which is pretty well known and could be considered quite important) and not the editor's speculations. This article could be useful and as long as everything is cited would not detract from the quality of Wikipedia. Shadowoftime 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notice some people are saying that even if the speculation is documented speculation from experts it should still be deleted. By this logic, articles on evolution, quantum physics, or religion should be removed as well since not everybody agrees on their truths and being unprovable, they are speculations. Encyclopedias do, however, include articles on science, religion, history, and many other subjects that rely on speculation. As long as the speculation into the possibly autistic nature of historical individuals is well documented speculation from experts and not editors, the fact that this type of speculation exists should be included in Wikipedia. Shadowoftime 03:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Grandmasterka 04:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to set the record straight, there is no real scientific controversy over evolution. It's all manufactured. --Cyde Weys 04:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However likely it may be that evolution is correct(and personally I believe it is), it is still speculation about something that happened millions of years ago. If Wikipedia can have well documented speculation by experts about things that happened a million years ago, I think it can afford to have well documented speculation by experts about something that took place within the last thousand years(the lives of these people suspected of Autism). Shadowoftime 04:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only that, every single aspect of autism (from treatment to causes to whether or not it is a disorder) is controversial and autism itself is so poorly understood that I think it might be fair to say that all claims about autism are speculative. If this article is deleted for reporting speculation, then it would make sense to delete all autism related articles. Q0 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted. DS 17:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zhenteng Li

[edit]

Probable hoax. PROD removed by article creator. The content of the article changed from basketball player to pingpong player in various incarnations of the article, leading to the hoax conclusion. Article's creator has created several other dubious articles. Joyous | Talk 04:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note: if deleted, please note numerous links have been added to other articles. Joyous | Talk 05:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ready Aim Fire! 05:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was gone. DS 17:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Lin

[edit]

Another probable hoax, by the creator of Zhenteng Li. PROD tag removed, so I'm bringing to AfD. Joyous | Talk 05:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix reflections

[edit]

Delete promotional article for a non-notable book. --Dell Adams 05:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think it fulfills the spirit of several CSD's, although admittedly not the letter. As a side note we could redirect it to The Matrix. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 16:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Krane

[edit]

Delete Notwithstanding the copyvio tag, the subject is a non-notable politican; the page is also likely autobio/vanity, inasmuch as its the only page the editor has edited or created in two-plus years. Joe 05:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy kept as nomination withdrawn. Capitalistroadster 02:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moni Aizik

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, reads like a resume. Ckessler 05:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Keep rewritten article, notability proven. (changed vote) Ckessler 22:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is therefore withdrawn. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 22:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dror Saporta

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable krav maga instructor. Ckessler 05:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yigal Arbiv

[edit]

Non-notable krav maga instructor. Ckessler 05:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hisarya, India

[edit]

Mostly duplicates Hisar, India. Not a merge because there's no new info. Not a redirect because Hisarya, India is neither a city nor a nickname, and Hisarya, Bulgaria is unrelated. See Talk:Hisar, India Art LaPella 05:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Allard

[edit]

Not sure which "google" you searched, but I found quite a lot on google.com. I know the alt.fan.adamallard news group has been around for at least 10 years because it was one of the first to be found way back in the archie and veronica days. I don't know much about the "musician" part but I did find something on purevolume.com/adamallard.

I know about him from a technology perspective since that I my field. He was one of the first people to use Java in a large-scale public site... he created the original Pepsi.com in all-Java in 1995. I also know the Plenium company because of the Wired article that Chris Oakes wrote in 1997 about their company and the netdesk thingy.

Just clicking around on other people in wikipedia, its easy for me to find many other people in the main collection that appear to have done much less.


Strong whiff of vanity about this. Googling doesn't unearth much evidence of his notability as a musician or "technologist", and I'm not at all clear what our notability standards for the "visionaries" is. Alai 05:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book Extras

[edit]

Delete Contested prod. Webcomic with no alexa rating and no evidence of size of audience. Only one independent Ghit--Porturology 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Subetapets

[edit]

This page is linked to from Subeta. I have my doubts about that page too, but Subeta has a number of Google links, and appearantly some following. This list, though, is not even a list, and I cannot see its purpose. Delete, or possibly merge with Subeta (although I doubt it). Egil 06:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feted Inner Core

[edit]

Unsourced and self-admittedly fringe conspiracy theory about the goings-on in an online game. Very broadly non-encyclopaedic, this. WP:NOT, WP:OR apply. Contested PROD.Sandstein 06:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larafairie

[edit]

Internet photomanipulation artist, apparently popular online, but no independent sources or apparent impact in the real world, so delete. Contested PROD. Sandstein 06:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 23:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Christian Ørsted Institute

[edit]

Not an actual institute, just a building at an university. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of all the buildings in the world. PROD contested. Sandstein 06:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. -- King of Hearts talk 23:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Anatomy of the Body of God

[edit]

Non-notable book, Amazon rank 1,657,640 (or 2,319,877 for paperback). Was de-prodded for the reason of being a published book. However, WP:NOT a catalogue of all the books in the world. Merge and redirect to the author, Frater Achad (whose notability is dubious himself, IMHO). Sandstein 07:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Keep, nomination retracted per Perfecto below. Sandstein 19:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the "merge and redirect" nomination wins, what is the closing admin to do? Add the merge tags? Execute the merge? Do we want the closing admin to create Talk:The Anatomy of the Body of God and recustomise {{oldafdfull}} to "This article was nominated for merging and redirecting on 19 March 2006. The result of the discussion was "merge and redirect"."??
Well, okay, guys, I'll move on and leave this nom alone. I have several new articles to create today. :) -- Perfecto 16:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Xezbeth. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portchie

[edit]

deproded. Seems to be a long article about someones nickname for his significant other. Henrik 08:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bwianese

[edit]

Not a real concept. 5 Google hits. Punkmorten 08:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gunbound Grandprix

[edit]

Delete - google search returns no results. Wickethewok 08:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as non-notable band Just zis Guy you know? 12:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7th Cross

[edit]

Self-promoting band Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 08:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7 Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda Panda?

[edit]

Delete - contested PROD, nn band. Wickethewok 08:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zitzles

[edit]

Delete - simply a definition of an inside joke Wickethewok 08:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well certainly it's not common, but that's why people come to Wikipedia and not Dictionary.com. It is a legitemate slang term I've heard numerous times at Chapman HS. Proteus9k 12:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Moeller

[edit]

I'd speedy this myself, but I'm obviously biased. Not notable, not encyclopedic. Delete.--Eloquence* 09:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Result : Speedy delete as nn-bio JoJan 12:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will Steele

[edit]

Delete. This article violates an order of the Youth Court of Auckland, New Zealand, forbidding the offender's name or details of this case to be published until May 2006. Article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willnz (talk • contribs)

*Keep Part of newsworthy events and thus passes WP:BIO and we do not kowtow to New Zealand. kotepho 09:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete partly for being a nn-criminal (crime often makes the news, that doesn't mean all criminals are notable), partly for privacy reasons. That raises some hard issues though. I'm not sure juvenile offenders should be included in wikipedia with name, except in very special cases. Henrik 10:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. --Hyphen5 11:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PhpBB version history

[edit]

List of versions of piece of software is not encyclopaedic. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 23:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motivations for Contributing to Online Communities

[edit]

Unencyclopedic style, seems to be original research. It's possible it could blossom into a proper article, but I have my doubts. - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punxclan

[edit]

Delete. Prod deleted without reason,Web site with alexa rating> 2000000. Claims 1000 members. Reads like a vanity piece--Porturology 10:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  19:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-blocking

[edit]

Not updated in two years.. insufficient context - nobody seems to care about it anyway - we can do without this article Werdna648T/C\@ 11:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Knight (patent agent)

[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. He has filed a patent application for a storyline, but a patent is not granted yet. Anybody can file a patent application. This is not recognized as exceptional and this does not make the applicant notable, even if the invention described in the application is unusual. (This may be reconsidered if the patent is granted or if wide publicity is made in the literature about this type of applications for whatever reason). A report in one blog is not enough to make it notable. Edcolins 12:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyvio. Fetofs Hello! 14:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BookFinder4U

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punanimal

[edit]

Only a definition of a slang term. Could be merged with List of sexual slurs. Schzmo 13:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable band. Just zis Guy you know? 13:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xmuzik

[edit]

Non-notable band that provides no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC. Previous {{prod}} was removed by article creator. --Allen3 talk 13:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per nom. 13,500 ghits [14], but not good considering that first five links are to band's official website, and the group's profile on myspace, purevolume, mp3.com and distinctiverecords.com. (Btw, their website appears to be no more than a list of links to their profiles elsewhere. Ugh.) — Kimchi.sg | Talk 14:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Most people voting "keep" also wanted a move to Naked party, so it has been done. -- King of Hearts talk 23:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Naked party"

[edit]

Seeing as this article was listed under Category:Articles lacking sources, I tried looking up sources. However, too many of the results either were galleries of naked parties or having to do with the 1997 movie. Basically put, there are too little viable sources for such a topic matter. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sill is a bit stubby but the cleanup/rewrites are good, keep and move to a better title with out the " " per Night Gyr/Haza-w.--Blue520 20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant to youth culture and college life. I've improved the article a bit, too. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely rewrote it with more references. It's still stubby, but it's workable now. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, "naked yoga" into "yoga" makes more sense than merging this into "party". I mean, we wouldn't merge "nudist movement" into "movement" or "naked gun" into "gun" - a naked party is pretty different from a regular party, and has its own purpose. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 04:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point, but on this particular topic I would disagree as naked party seems to be a variant of party. It sounds like a themed party, just like toga party. Are you making a case that a naked party is more distinct from other variants such as "office party" or "dance party"? Its just a dress code just like a toga party or themed dance parties. If I think of something radically distressing, like a suicide party (does it even exist?) or something weird, it would not really fit in to the same general function of having a party, and I thus could see it being kept separate from "party".
I was mostly kidding with the gun/movement analogies, but in seriousness, I think toga party is worthy of its own article, like "naked party", whereas office parties, dance parties, and birthday parties are more traditional, simple "parties". My standard would basically be this: if a friend simply told you they were "going to a party", would you reasonably assume that they might be going to a naked party? I, for one, might assume that they were talking about an office party or a dance party or a birthday party (depending on the context) - moreover, I'd assume that, were they going to a toga party or a naked party or a costume party (costume parties have their own article at masquerade ball), they would specify such. I'd be open to well-written and susbstantial articles on "office party" or "dance party", of course, but until then, they seem to fit more comfortably and completely within the standard meaning of, simply, "party". Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that there are naked parties outside of the college age crowd, often thrown by nudists and naturists and they are just like other parties except there is a lot more nudity.Dandelion1 23:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should be added, I think. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I would have never personally merged that. Hm. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but link to party, remove quotes around title. Now I'm going to disagree with myself. I think there is enough info on naked party to justify its own article, but I think that their should be a reference at party as the other types also have.
This is like voting to cut the baby in half :) Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 20:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and cleanup: the article is vaguely sourced and has a rather specific perspective (talks about Yale a lot). However, the phenomenon is apparently real... I say let the page editors decide on the best name for it, but the quotes have to go. Mangojuice 18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  19:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Donal

[edit]

Blog/website for which I have not been able to find much reference — but maybe someone else will know better ? Already tagged {{context}}, orphan. Schutz 14:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article has been blanked because of copyright problems; please see the page's history (in particular this version) for the version relevant to this AfD discussion. Schutz 16:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I have blanked the page, and added a copyvio message. However, since we already have a discussion here, I have not refered the page to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Schutz 15:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note, however, that the article does not meet the conditions for speedy deletion per CSD A8 (the content does not come from a commercial provider, and the material has been uploaded more than 48 hours ago). Schutz 16:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


RE: The copyright Issue, Iwrote the article and you have my full permission to use it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.182.135 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 March 2006

Thank you for your comment — at the moment, this is a side issue, since we are debating if the topic itself is worth an article in an encyclopedia. However, if you wrote this article and agree for other people to use it, you should mention this on the web page itself, and indicate which licence describe your permission, or which conditions are attached to the use of the text (no condition ? GFDL ? Creative Commons ? So far, the only thing we can know about you is your IP address, and this is not enough to actually link you with the article. Best, Schutz 17:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  19:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Maxey

[edit]

Rescued from speedy, sent here for advisory opinion. Stated to be first openly gay Texas state legislator. This makes him brave I guess, but does it make him notable? Eventually we will have 50 first-gay-state-legislators (which might be OK). Also stated to have done some local activism. Unfortunately article is sparse on references. Herostratus 14:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added wikilink to Texas Legislature and specified that he was in the TX House. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts talk 23:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small business

[edit]

This is a "how to" type article, giving advice on how to run a small business. I would have just put a cleanup tag on it, but it's so bad, I'm not convinced it can be salvaged. The discussion page has evidence of earlier attempts that have failed -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BASICALLY BRIAN

[edit]

Non-notable. Probably borderline to speedy deletion. Schutz 14:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found it informative as a fan of Basically Brians columns. —This unsigned comment was added by 194.165.183.223 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 March 2006.

Over 50,000 members of his fan club, I think he's notable enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.171.181 (talk • contribs)

Capitalistroadster 02:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete, he's actually very popular in his locality in Dublin, a bit of a cult hero— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.182.135 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 20 March 2006


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  19:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth (Star Trek: Enterprise)

[edit]

This is a page about a fictional baby who only appeared in one or two episodes. Not notable enough for Wikipedia.Philip Stevens 15:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talon Industries

[edit]

No claim to notability or importance. Edcolins 15:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that above comment is from nominator) Henning Makholm 17:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Xaosflux. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatai bayo yussuff

[edit]

Non-notable person. Only 5 Google hits. Schzmo 15:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horsefrog

[edit]

Web site. No claim to notability or importance. Probably promotional. Edcolins 15:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IVAR

[edit]

Brand. No claim to notability or importance. The fact that the product has been patented is not enough to be notable. Edcolins 15:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that htis comment is from the nominator) Henning Makholm 17:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  19:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivarson USA

[edit]

Promotional. Non-notable company. Edcolins 15:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  19:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Mandate

[edit]

TV branding minutae. I'm a broadcasting nut, but this just doesn't seem encyclopedic. Any branding changes can go on the individual station pages. Kirjtc2 15:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  19:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WSMV TV-Tower

[edit]

Delete. Unencyclopedic. Little information. Nothing overly important enough about this radio/TV tower to necessitate its own encyclopedia entry. --Zpb52 15:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  19:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poizon Green

[edit]

Delete. Please delete this page, because it had been a victim of vandalism many times in recent days. The page is about a minor band in Bangladesh, however i am not to judge if it's deserving of it's own spot in Wikipedia. Abid Ahmed 14:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Abid Ahmed[reply]

  • Comment — I'm not convinced that they are non-notable. Some reviews indicate they have a growing fan base and are one of the better known new bands (in their genre) within the region. The page seemed to start off harmlessly enough. But some of the edits have been of a non-neutral, publicity-seeking variety. — RJH 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if what the article states is true they are notable. Vandalism is not a reason for deletion. Eivindspeak! 23:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Could use just a little bit more discussion to get things right.W.marsh 16:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Just putting my two words in. The vandals have not yet confirmed their claim despite multiple requests. I, personally, don't think this article meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Abid Ahmed 02:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  18:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penrhos

[edit]

Proposed deletion removed. Arguements over notability. Computerjoe's talk 16:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  18:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drudgen

[edit]

Some obscure word that was mentioned on a TV show, which I have never yet heard used in common usage. -- 9cds(talk) 16:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dancom, DANCOM Online Services

[edit]

Adverts for non-notable ISP. Henning Makholm 16:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  18:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubercaster

[edit]

Placed on prod as an advertisement, then the creator, Featheredtar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), removed it. Next, I placed it back on prod without checking history to see it had been pulled. But now I have, so here we are. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  18:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kadesu

[edit]

non-notable blog website RJFJR 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 21:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Miss Stakes

[edit]

doesn't seem notable to me Where (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lowey

[edit]

I'm not convinced that the award he has received is sufficiently important to be noteworthy - just about every research area has awards somewhere or other, so winning an award that possibly nobody outside the industry will have heard of isn't a conclusive claim to notability to me. Searching "Pharmaceutical Care Awards" only gets 200 odd hits, which suggests to me the winners aren't exactly gaining wider fame. Average Earthman 18:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  18:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vettuparampil

[edit]

Hi - this is a non-notable, unsubstantiated subject. Rama's Arrow 18:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was hard as I tried, I didn't find any differences between the articles, so...redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharr mountain

[edit]

This is a duplicate of Šar mountain, created for the purpose of vandalism. For more info, compare [22] and [23] Dijxtra 19:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This particular spelling issue needs to be discussed somewhere (see Priština or Prishtina?) and I would hope we could develop a reasoned debate at (somewhere like) Talk:List of cities in Serbia and Montenegro (is this the most appropriate place? if not, then where?) before bringing a policy proposal to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
- Nigosh 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but not deleting this article would issue a statement that creating duplicate pages to proove a point is a good think. Am I really only one here who finds this article a violation of WP:POINT? --Dijxtra 00:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dijxtra keeps reverting the double naming of locations in the article, and thus creates the need to have a double article. In order to have a fair article we should either include both names, in Albanian and Serbian, or two separate articles. benny 11:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to enter flame wars, but here I must react on behalf of my good name :-) I do not "keep reverting the double naming of locations in the article": a) I reverted the article only once; b) I wasn't the first to revert: the first revert was done by User:Khoikhoi, I just reinforced the revert when User:Ilir pz reverted back to his version which I find bordering with vandalism; c) I didn't revert the double naming, what I did can be seen here and I will again point out that I consider removing a name of a country from the article with no prior discussion an act of vandalism. There. --Dijxtra 11:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  18:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Key Games

[edit]

Spam. Less than 400 google hits there is nothing intinsacly notible about tripod sites.Geni 19:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good website, most likely made for advertising.
Spam. Website has over 5000 hits but i cant find any external info on it anywhere.
Keep! Nice website, notable number of site hits.
Yawn. not worth being on Wikipedia
Keep. Currently a member. Good website.
Trash it Too many bugs
Save Notable number of site hits. Seems to be some activity about this site else where.
Keep! not much google results. perhaps it wasnt sumbmited to google. but good site
Good Article. Nice article, perhaps somebody should clean it up. ok web site
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people speculated to have been syphilitic

[edit]

List is entirely speculative as the title and the introduction blatantly say. As speculation there is no way to support any of this with facts and speculation does not have a place on Wikipedia. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Delete. This article is nothing more than a way to imply notible figures in history were infected with STDs. When information is factually verifiable, write such an article. Otherwise we could speculate anyone died of syphilis and associate their name with such defamation. Wikipedia is not the place for unfounded speculations.C3H5N3O92010 01:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see a bunch of references and medical conditions of famous figures, Napoleon being an example that springs to mind, are frequently discussed by serious historians (see Hayden's book on historical syphilis [24]). Often, there is a fair bit of evidence, which combined with modern techniques (DNA testing), goes well beyond simple speculation. While this list needs more footnoting, there is no reason to remove it. Also, to state that speculation has no place on wikipedia is a bit of a joke given that we have hundreds of articles on conspiracy theories or other oddities such as Elvis Sightings. Speculation is fine as long as we just report on the speculation of others. -- JJay 19:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think we need to be careful not to mix up speculations made by editors, and referenced/historical/notable speculations. — TheKMantalk 20:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is sourced and well written. JoshuaZ 20:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because some of these were known to have been syphilitic, so to describe it as speculation is false; the arbitray selection of syphilis is questionable (why not flu?), the text is self-referential in places. No prejudice against a list of notable syphilitics, I uess, although even that is a bit arbitrary. Just zis Guy you know? 20:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why not flu?? You must be joking. There are very good reasons for the historical interest in syphilis, not the least for the behavioral impact of the disease and its slow progression. -- JJay 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regarding "speculation", see Category:Conspiracy theories... Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks...Category:Holocaust denial, ...16 Questions on the Kennedy Assassination, etc. -- JJay 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's statements like this, which make me wonder if people are really familiar with the issues involved and our bigraphical coverage of the individuals on this list. Taking a random selection, I find direct discussions or speculation of possible syphilitic infection in our bios of Lenin, Idi Amin, Van Gogh, Al Capone, Howard Hughes, Scott Joplin, Edgar Allan Poe , to name just a few. Are people really suggesting that we delete this list, and then excise any discussion of possible causes of death from our bio pages? Are people really suggesting that we eliminate discussion of syphilis as a possible explanation of the irrational behavior of a Van Gogh or Idi Amin, even when major historians openly discuss the historical evidence in biographies and other scholarly works? Are people really arguing that we eliminate any discussion of medical conditions unless medical records have been released into the public domain? If so, I think there is a very serious misreading at work here of how historical scholarship works and the meaning and intent of WP:V. -- JJay 23:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In each of those articles, there are editors familiar with the subject, who will actively challenge any bogus information. However, bio editors are generally unaware of a person being on a list like this. Lists like this often have editors who like to add as many people as possible, and get little scrutiny. You would help your cause if you explained what the minimum criteria for the list is. Is any published rumor sufficient (how about tabloids)? Also, we do have to consider Wikipedia's history with lists like this. They simply aren't maintained properly, and people will inevitable add inappropriate names (hard to stop, if you don't define what's inappropriate). Only lists with absolutely clear criteria can be maintained properly. --Rob 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, I see your point, but those seem fairly unconvincing arguments for deletion and relate more to editing problems than the underlying validity of the concept. They also join with what I said above about the list requiring more footnotes, which is how we have dealt with the problem on numerous other lists. However, to a very great extent this list was compiled directly from the bio pages. Your issue with the tabloids is not very applicable in this context, because tabloids do not pick up these types of stories unless someone has just published a book or released new evidence- and even then the coverage would be marginal because Edgar Allen Poe is not Paris Hilton. It seems that you are more concerned with some ill defined risk factor a la Siegenthaler. Considering that everyone on this list is dead, most for a very long time, I think the risk is lessened. I also think that the list at present is fairly well maintained. It is relatively short, despite having been spun out from Syphilis almost two years ago, and while there are a few names I would question, I don't see it spinning out of control in the near future. In my view, it needs a minor rethink and direct sourcing of every component (rather than the general references at present) not deletion.-- JJay 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should not have said "tabloid". I should have said "tabloid level" writers. The only *true* expert opinion of the article is "Hayden was not competent to make the judgments that she tried to make." Every name on the list (except Hitler) relies on discredited source (I admit more sources are easily available for some). As you say, the article's been around a long time. So, I doubt this will be fixed soon. I think we both agree proper detailed citations are appropriate. But, where we disagree, is I think they are needed when such information is added, and may be removed when it lacks it. --Rob 02:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Calling Hayden a "tabloid level" writer is way, way too harsh. An enormous amount of research went into her book, the reviews were largely positive and she is a university lecturer on the topic. She has been criticized because she is not a medical Dr, but that by no means makes her a discredited source. Very few historians working on the history of medecine are Doctors. In any case, you should note that many of the bio articles either lack sources or do not source information on medical conditions. However, I don't believe it would be particularly difficult to add references for many of the names on the list without relying on Hayden at all. Despite what most people think, lists often end up far more bulletproof in terms of verification than the standard bio or other articles. -- JJay 03:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If she got good reviews, from experts, those should have been in article's "Background" section. Better yet, an article should have been made on her and/or the book. In fact such an article would be quite interesting, and could even name of few of the more famous cases (that others have said similiar things on). Such a bio article would be quite useful, as a NPOV discussion of her approach (citing favorable and unfavorable reviews). It would actually be more useful than this list article. Also, you're quite right that many bio articles put medical problems of people without references. The solution is to remove the unsourced information. --Rob 03:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let me stop you from starting new articles. An article on Hayden would be good, but the list is not about Hayden and she did not invent scholarship in this area. Also if you think that the solution is to remove unsourced information, there are thousands of articles on major figures that you can start blanking. I would suggest, though, that you begin with the unreferenced tag. -- JJay 03:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheKMan,JoshuaZ —kotepho 2006-03-19 23:34Z
  • Delete per "Thus, many of the names given on the list below must be considered quite speculative." Many of these entries would be blasted from existence in their parent articles faster than a rat up a drainpipe, and but for the apparent laxness in referencing that infests "lists" shouldn't go here either. It's not encyclopedic to include everything that author Deborah Hayden says about anyone, you know. - brenneman{T}{L} 00:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep per all above who are making the basic point that this is not speculation, it is the encyclopedia documentation of existing, ongoing, notable and verifiable historical speculation by historians and the like !! Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Define contradiction, saying something isn't speculation then saying one line later that it is speculation. Your vote contradicts itself. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Speculation" is when you do the speculating. "Documentation of speculation" is when you record the fact that others have speculated or are speculating. They're different, man. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the speculation comes form multiple sources, that's fine. If it comes from only one, it's far more problematic. And in some of these cases it's documented fact, anyway, not speculation. There is somethig fundamentally broken about an article which gives equal apparent weight to known cases and cases speculated by a single author. Just zis Guy you know? 15:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, seems to be speculation in a single source some of which are proven syphilitics. A mess, in other words. Just zis Guy you know? 22:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, but the article could be improved with better sourcing; here we've got one source and a peer review. There are others out there; more than one historian has wondered about the likes of Henry VIII. In that case, rename it to List of syphilitics, with the "widely thought to be" ones noted instead, and those that can't be better sourced omitted. (BTW, that was a generic "you" in my initial vote, not meant as a reference to your vote, Guy. I don't want to look like I'm finding fault with your reasoning, which was certainly not my intention, so I've changed it to "we".) ProhibitOnions 23:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakur

[edit]

Wholly irrelevant, no citations, no explanation of importance, etc. Mistamagic28 20:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hometown High-Q

[edit]

DELETE Completely Non-Noteable high school local quiz show. Broadcast on a nn local network. Obscure topic of little interest to anyone. Unencyclopedic. pm_shef 20:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Forgot to mention, WP:PROD was contested.
  • My point is that there's no aricle on things like KDKA-TV's 11 o'clock news (which WOULD be a unique to the same station). Many individual programs on individual local stations aren't independently notable. An article on the "genre" or phenomena of shows of a given type might be valuable or the page on the station might include some examples of content. In this context, I think the 11 o'clock news article is good in that it is general. Perhaps an article on local quiz shows? --Karnesky 18:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete

Major characters from The Carlow Crab

[edit]

Tagged for speedy as nonsense, but isn't patent nonsense. It is, howerver, a massive collection of redlinks none of which should be going blue any time soon. Just zis Guy you know? 20:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  18:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Romanov II

[edit]

Delete non-notable photographer. The most the article appears to claim for him is that he had one local show of several photographs (not a very difficult accomplishment). Most of it appears to be vain puffery ("...it immediately generated a local buzz about the artists return to the scene..."). This has already been speedied twice as a non-notable bio (including once by myself), but I'm listing it here for wider consideration and a more definite resolution. Postdlf 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This IP's first edit. Postdlf 22:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its second edit was to vandalize this discussion.[25] Postdlf 19:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just so happened to stumble across this article accidentally and, having never seen an entry marked for deletion decided to speak my piece. While you may call this “vain puffery” I pose this question to you. Who has a life pathetic enough to waste time ripping down an aspiring artist? In all seriousness, I believe it would be highly beneficial if you walked outside, experienced the beauty away from your computer screen and then (dare I say?) have physical contact with another being. While I do chide, I am serious in saying that this young Andrei does seem to have the keen eye needed for successful life photography. You, being a person who embracing electronic information can surely understand the need for promotion and how the Internet can be a useful tool in aiding a career of any sort. I’m sure you have your uses for the web as well, such as uploading pictures of the children you molest or masturbating to bestiality movies. I’m sorry to be so coarse, however why have you taken it upon yourself to attempt to stifle the next generation of American artist? I see you as a vile being, not worthy of critiquing anything except for the child porn, which I am almost certain you produce. Good day sir, I have nothing more to say to someone with such a scatological psyche. —This unsigned comment was added by JFreshman (talk • contribs) .


Well I think this isn’t a discussion as much as a charade, a smoke and dagger case against an innocent man. Yes a man, who simply wants to show his artistic side, is it so hard to accept, does it hurt you to see this Man have even the tiniest amount of happiness? What is so horrible about your life that you must constantly attack outwards at others in order to make yourself look and feel better? This is not China no matter how much you might want it to be. Google does not limit the searches of these free people of the United States of America. If you want to oppress personal expression, freedom of speech, and creativity than perhaps you should consider moving to China, they are quite proficient at that. I for one plan on staying right here in the good ol’ US of A where freedom reigns no matter how many countries we have to bomb to keep it that way. SO to you neigh sayers, trash talkers, hoodlums, I say this, with the freest of speech and truest love for our fair country, FUCK YOU, and FUCK YOU COMMI WAYS… —This unsigned comment was added by 129.194.8.73 (talk • contribs) .

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  18:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bischeme

[edit]

A well thought out, but utterly OR-based article. Wikipedia is not the place for this; hopefully it will find a nice home elsewhere. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 20:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  18:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiGadugi Website

[edit]

Tagged for speedy as empty, but not empty. It is, however, plainly vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 20:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But thanks for the insight into "process" around here... -- talks_to_birds 16:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merkey's websites tend to have very short lifespans. This is the second time he has created wikigadugi. An article can be written about it later if it survives past his current tantrum and becomes notable enough. Currently, I don't think it even deserves a mention in Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. — MediaMangler 22:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no point in documenting every hickup and outburst of Jeff Merkey here; they generally are no more than that. --MJ(☎|@|C) 07:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  18:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armor for the broken

[edit]

Delete Non-noteable, seemingly a vanity article. Google search turns up about 100 hits, most of which are MySpace pages, no linking pages, doesn't deserve an article. pm_shef 20:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was gone. DS 21:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebelutions

[edit]

Tagged for speedy as spam, but spam is not a speedy criterion, however accurate that might be in this case (and it is absolutely spot-on). No evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Closing Admin: Don't forget the logo. Just zis Guy you know? 20:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts talk 23:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scintilla (editing component)

[edit]

Looks like a vanity page; provides little to no information about an unknown product.

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  18:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIS asylum

[edit]

Contested prod. "Ais asylum is a web forum created by a student of the Asian International School. The users are limited to the higher classes of the school, and number to 15 to 30 as time varies" No indication of meeting notability guidelines at WP:WEB. Delete NickelShoe (Talk) 20:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete If the website subsequently becomes notable then the article can be rewritten to reflect this.  (aeropagitica)  22:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred the Monkey.com

[edit]

Non-notable website, 280 google hits for "fredthemonkey.com", no Alexa rating. Kuzaar 13:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: can't even find this addition to the vote to do an unsigned template. Take that as you will. Kuzaar 17:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep it! you can't just get rid of something because you think it's "not-notable." as an encyclopedia you are supposed to be nutral and to label something like that is obviously giving it a bias. this article should be kept, and who do you think you are to decide whether or not something is notable anyway? —This unsigned comment was added by Beatrixcastle (talk • contribs) .

User ComKeen has been registered for less than four days and has approximately fifteen edits. Kuzaar 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NON Relevant???? Fred the Monkey is about as relevant as an animation website could possibly be. The characters are completely relevant - some might even say significant. MrD 22:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User MrD is not registered. Kuzaar 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, but MrD is registered. Ardric47 23:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP MAN WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO SEE THIS GREAT WEBSITE GO AWAY MAN U GUYS ARE IDIOTS

TOADFAN5 aka FRED THE MONKEY FANATIC 5 —This unsigned comment was added by Toadfan5 (talk • contribs) .

Keep! Please don't delete! It's my favorite site in the world and I don't know what I'd do without it! —This unsigned comment was added by 69.171.32.231 (talk • contribs) .

User D_X has less than 30 edits, all pertaining to this subject. Not to point the finger, but this is suspicious to me. Kuzaar 17:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has less than 40 contributions and is less than 10 days old. Kuzaar 18:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepKeep, pretty popular, especially among afficionados of flash. —This unsigned comment was added by CrazyEyes (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment I just went thru and identified some unsigned posts and commented on users without significant contribution histories. It doesn't mean I don't think new users can contribute, but it points out who might not be familiar with Wikipedia policy and might only have an account for the purpose of "voting" here. (Decisions are made by consensus, not vote.) NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three years old, does carry an audience on the net, and I haven't heard any grounds for deletion that appear reasonable other than the per nom which I assume has to do with the policy. The newest post on Newgrounds is a social commentary that I find pretty good, similar to the battle between "Cyanide and Happiness" with "Top Web Comics". Give the artist time and I'm sure he'll battle this deletion to the bitter end. —This unsigned comment was added by 128.195.78.102 (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP - Exactly like that guy says ^^ it's a monkey for christ's sakes! - monkeys rule :( —This unsigned comment was added by 83.216.136.62 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete and Comment. To justify my deletion vote I just want to say that even if it will become notable it doesn't mean it is now. Joseph Blanchette aka Legendary Frog had his entry removed despite being several times more famous than "Fred the monkey". My comment is, the creator of Fred the monkey has started a campaign to make sure his entry doesn't get deleted, through a flash movie submitted to newgrounds.com and probably elsewehere as well where he tells people to go to Wikipedia and "tell them to shut their stupid faces" (and a clickable link that leads to the Fred the Monkey entry). This surely explains the many recent unsigned "Keep" votes. I am appaled by the creator of "fred the monkey"'s lack of understanding for what wikipedia stands for (it's an encyclopedia and not a showcase for up and coming artists) and I think this move makes it much harder to hold a fair vote, which I think in the end will only weigh FOR the deletion of this article. Here's the animation on Newgrounds: Fred the notable monkeyMackan 11:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another Comment: There is not only a single (1) google hit on "fredthemonkey.com", search for any page name and you'll only get one result. From there you click "Find web pages that contain the term "fredthemonkey.com"". This gives 243 hits (note, by looking on the first page of results I get the impression that many of them are created by the maker himself). This does however, in my opionion, doesn't change anything. I'd vote "delete" if it had 10 000 hits. In fact, my own flash game "Shotgun Orc" comes up with 30,000-65,000 hits on google (currently 65,000), but I wouldn't dream of suggesting an entry to be made for it and if somebody did make one I would definately nominate it for deletion myself. Mackan 12:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable - 280 Google hits. -- infinity0 15:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn --mmeinhart 17:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you're gonna delete this from The Wiki, then Delete Homestar Runner, too. This site has been around for about as long as them, and they've made tons of laughs amd is enjoyable by many people. And, why does Clydex get his own Wiki Page, but this one is on the edge of deletion? He isn't ver a main character! Anyways, keep the page up. The Pro X

Delete-non-notable cartoon ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Day of Political Lies

[edit]

Well, this is certainly an interesting idea for an international holiday. I'm not sure it has asserted enough notability however, so I have brought it here for discussion. No vote. Grandmasterka 20:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Kasravi

[edit]

Non-notable airline pilot. Delete. DMG413 21:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- King of Hearts talk 23:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pennrose Mall

[edit]

non notable mall ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Pennrose Mall, Mayberry Mall. The creator of all these articles is the North Carolina vandal, who uses large numbers of sockpuppets. -- Curps 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUTE keep, there is not even any question. Infact I demand IMMEDIATE removal of the AfD!Some guy from tennessee 21:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this precedent should be challenged, as it is a product of simple anti-mall cultural bias. Large malls are more notable than most museums documented on Wikipedia - I don't particularly love them, but malls are very notable local institutions and centers of commerce. Simple distaste for the subject, and a view that different instances of the subject are a bit samey...does not suffice as a criterion for deletion when the subject is of clear note. The massive size of many individual malls makes them features in the lives of millions or hundreds of thousands of people and clearly notable. Anyone who has a similar opinion of this precedent (i.e. that it excludes notable institutions from the encyclopedia due to cultural bias), let's begin opposing it here. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being located in a small community, it is likely a commercial center of that community - and, as such, as important as a local state park or something on that idea. What's more, it's been around for decades. Notable commercial institution. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Local notability, if it is relatively unknown outside its immediate community, does not meet the standard for notability on Wikipedia. Slowmover 15:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it has been notable for the community then it might make sense to merge it in to the article about the community. It doesn't deserve its own article. JoshuaZ 22:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could do the same with museum articles, but no one seems to do that Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the most notable mall since Mayodan.Reidkins 02:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town squares. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic. -- JJay 11:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: see Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_buildings for an attempt at discussion of notability of buildings (including malls) in general. Friday (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Encyclopedias are reference books that deal with all fields of knowledge (the word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning general or well-rounded education). Since Wikipedia doesn't have very many size constraints, we can include a lot of stuff. Also, I'm not sure it's worth destroying someone else's work and alienating that person--who could be a contributor to other articles as well--over an issue as uncertain as notability. Something increadibly notable to a physicist may be non-notable to a chemist, for example.--Primetime 21:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Speedy deletion. — TheKMantalk 22:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Revolution

[edit]

Delete:Viva la spam, created by TJ White himself as a joke, the user has subsequently banned, and this remained lanquishing in the new articles category, speedly deletion here. PS - deletes make my head hurt Highway 21:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Mall

[edit]

non notable mall ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Pennrose Mall, Mayberry Mall. The creator of all these articles is the North Carolina vandal, who uses large numbers of sockpuppets. -- Curps 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Infinite keep, go to hell if you think otherwise.Some guy from tennessee 21:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a perfectly notable mall. What's with "delete per nom". People should vote on what they think, not just vote because the article was Afd'd?Parkerhimin 20:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the above is yet another sockpuppet of the North Carolina vandal, no other contributions. -- Curps 21:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, despite compelling defense by Parkerhimin. Slowmover 22:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the recent spate of mall AfD's is an example of an anti-mall cultural bias, as are any anti-mall precedents in deletion policy. I strongly feel that Wikipedia is being kept from covering many massive, notable, quasi-permanent commercial institutions (many of which are important features in the lives of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people - entire communities!) simply because of cultural bias. I am not a huge mall-lover myself, but most large malls are more notable than many of the small museums that wikipedia covers, and are treated differently mainly because they are seen as distasteful or dislikeable. Wikipedia should not censor or delete an entire category of information (we already cover a number of malls), information that is relevant and important to an electronic encyclopedia, simply because some people find that subject a bit crass. Covering individual malls is not comparable to, say, covering individual Wal-Mart stores (which should not be done), because each mall is different. The layout, location, and composition of a mall is important geographic and cultural information. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Bobby, if you want to propose a standard for what malls should be kept, we might listen. Note that I take slight issue with the comparison to wallmart, many malls have roughly the same level of notability (especially compared to a wallmart in a small town). JoshuaZ 22:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd agree that Wal-Marts often have the same notability as a smallish-medium mall, but having articles on individual Wal-Marts would be hard, given how they're all so alike. Malls may superficially seem to be alike but they often have different store compositions based on the size and affluence of the community, and they also sometimes have interesting quirks in architecture and layout. A provisional proposal for a notability standard might run along the lines of: 1.) Must be of sufficient size and stability (relative to the surrounding community) to be a major and central commercial institution in a given geographical area, 2.) Must have 20+ stores (a somewhat arbitrary number; we can obviously work on that), 3.) Must have some possibility for documenting the composition of the mall, in terms of constituent stores (as this is the heart of the usefulness of an article), 4.) Must have the possibility for some description of the layout, architecture, and type of the mall. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge Like Mayberry Mall, and unlike Pennrose Mall, this might be merged.Reidkins 02:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town square. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic. -- JJay 11:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: see Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_buildings for an attempt at discussion of notability of buildings (including malls) in general. Friday (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No showing of why this is encylopedic. Vegaswikian 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very useful and informative.--Primetime 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popaganda!!!

[edit]

Album as yet unreleased. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Originally placed PROD tag but that was removed. Ifnord 21:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be crystal-clear here, this is not a nomination about notability of the band, nor their previous records. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this album does not yet exist. Even the title is undecided - per the article's own source on MTV. Ifnord 03:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And according to their own Myspace blog, which the lead singer wrote, the album name is going to be what's listed here. The only change may be the exclamation points, but that's what the move button is for, right? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Album is set to be released in June by a notable band, Head Automatica. Sources within article, song up on the band's Myspace, and they're a major label act to boot. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The band will only meet notability guidelines under WP:MUSIC after this album is released, if it ever is, and therefore, the band itself is not notable. There's no assertion of notability on the Head Automatica or Decadence (album) pages other than the fact that the band is signed to Warner Brothers. I'm putting PROD templates up on their other two pages. The band can put their page back up on Wikipedia after they have become sufficently notable. Brian G. Crawford 22:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed those prods. The band reaches notability standards thanks to their multiple tours of the United States, their two albums on WB (even if one is due to be released in a couple months), their multiple major music media mentions, and the lead singer's membership in the rock band Glassjaw. I only got to the Head Automatica article today, so I'll have sources and an expansion shortly, but a little bit of research would have made this fairly evident. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per badlydrawnjeff. The 2-album standard is sufficient, but not necessary, for notability. Monicasdude 00:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blockbuster Trade on Halloween 1987

[edit]

Just a common trade of some players, Merge to somewhere, if not Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 21:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mall Athens

[edit]

No assertion of notability, non-encylopediodic design ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mall (Edgware)

[edit]

non-notable mall ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this is a notable institution of commerce. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 04:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per policy. feydey 19:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in the article makes it appear encylopedic. Vegaswikian 01:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Encyclopedias are reference books that deal with all fields of knowledge (the word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning general or well-rounded education). Since Wikipedia doesn't have very many size constraints, we can include a lot of stuff. Also, I'm not sure it's worth destroying someone else's work and alienating that person--who could be a contributor to other articles as well--over an issue as uncertain as notability. Something increadibly notable to a physicist may be non-notable to a chemist, for example.--Primetime 21:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miami International Mall

[edit]

Article does not assert notability of mall ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the basic asserted grounds of notability is its large size - it has to have a huge shopping population if it can sustain that many active stores. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in the article makes one think it is encylopedic. Vegaswikian 01:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Encyclopedias are reference books that deal with all fields of knowledge (the word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning general or well-rounded education). Since Wikipedia doesn't have very many size constraints, we can include a lot of stuff. Also, I'm not sure it's worth destroying someone else's work and alienating that person--who could be a contributor to other articles as well--over an issue as uncertain as notability. Something increadibly notable to a physicist may be non-notable to a chemist, for example.--Primetime 21:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goo (cartoon character)

[edit]

Delete: Made by a new user, they've received the welcome, but this is still here. I really don't have a clue here... Really vague, and indescript. Highway 21:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A Google search for "Matt Wills" and "Goo" returns no relevant hits. The cartoon is unverifiable and must be non-notable. --TantalumTelluride 21:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The article was created in order to promote the cartoon. This is obvious by the fact that it was posted by an anonymous user (only important to show no background)and if you look at the summary of the uploaded picture, it says "Author: Matt Wills url: none, i created it. I CREATED THIS PICTURE!". Wikipedia is NOT a billboard.C3H5N3O92010 00:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously. Nigelthefish 17:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it Obviously, NOT. Look at this, "...although the website is still underconstruction." Of course google didn't turn anything up!!! On the other notion, you said above, "The article was created in order to promote the cartoon. This is obvious by the fact that it was posted by an anonymous user (only important to show no background)and if you look at the summary of the uploaded picture, it says 'Author: Matt Wills url: none, i created it. I CREATED THIS PICTURE!'. Wikipedia is NOT a billboard." My response to you: All of that rubbish you posted is untrue and insulting. The user was not anonymous, because it was me! The article was NOT posted to promote the cartoon. Oh and by the way, I DREW THAT PICTURE, SO NO WONDER IT WAS CREATED BY MATT WILLS, ME, THE AUTHOR OF THE CARTOON! I am DISGUSTED! wilmat09 17:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it Obviously, I'm guessing from your lack of responses, that you are stumped. Here's something else that I think I'll just throw in your face...Notice that I made another paragraph that was titled "see also". If I was really trying to promote this cartoon, explain to me why I would include links in the artical about OTHER cartoons. Hmmm???wilmat09
  • Delete The author admits this was his own creation and if this was a notable cartoon Google or Yahoo would turn up SOME trace of it or where it was published. This does not meet the guidelines for importance even if the author feels it does. If the website is under construction and this was a NOTABLE cartoon, it would have turned up a trace of it regardless of website status as Google and Yahoo bots find pages over a period of time, not right away. This is self promotion and is not the place for this. Showtime203 03:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short Pump Town Center

[edit]

article does not assert why this mall is notable ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Joe 22:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Notable due to huge size. I find the recent spate of mall AfD's to be simple anti-mall bias. Large malls are more notable than most museums documented on Wikipedia. I don't particularly love malls myself, but they are very notable institutions and centers of commerce. I don't like mid-level Nazi politicians of little real accomplishment, but I think they should be documented on Wikipedia. Simple distaste for the subject, and a view that different instance of the subject are a bit samey...does not suffice as a criterion for deletion when the subject is of clear note. The massive size of this mall makes it a feature in the lives of millions and clearly notable. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough. Osomec 03:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That may be well and true Bobby, but there's nothing in the article that asserts any sort of notability, any reference of what population shop there, etc. There's in fact no notable information about it at all other than it exists and a list of some stores ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the basic asserted grounds of notability is its large size - it has to have a huge shopping population if it can sustain that many active stores. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 08:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avishai Yechieli

[edit]

A fraudster, presumedly (he is still on trial) with minor notoriety. Not worth an encyclopedia article as per WP:BIO. Delete. JFW | T@lk 22:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete and userfy. I'm not sure if it was a mistaken userpage because the article title doesn't match the username exactly, but I couldn't find much of a claim to notability here. Author claims to be a founder of some Pagan traditions but didn't explain their importance, and admitted in a few places that her groups had memberships of only about 6 to 25 people. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deanne Quarrie - Bendis

[edit]

Userfy, inasmuch as the "article" appears to be a bio for a new editor Joe 22:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was: withdrawn by nominator.

Head Automatica

[edit]

This possibly should have been nominated along with Popaganda!!!. The band has released only one major label album with no other assertion of notablility. I'm also nominating Decadence (album) with this article. Brian G. Crawford 22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was move. W.marsh 15:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillbilly Golff

[edit]

An anon editor placed the AfD tag on this page and moved the link to the deletion page for 19 March but failed actually to create this page. I am not voting as to the propriety of deletion (although I may do so below), but am simply listing the article in order that the red link should disappear from the deletion page. Joe 22:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 08:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corsicana High School debate

[edit]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Education: school clubs are not notable. Article claims to count "prominent attornies, teachers, doctors and public officials" among its ex-members, but fails to name any. htonl 22:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable band and person. Possibly a vanity page. Only 3 pages link to this page. 1 is Wikipedia:Unusual articles, and the other 2 are words that may have be mistakenly linked to this article, which has nothing to do with the subject in the article. Ibn Abihi 22:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps delete, but certainly rename and move. As you can see from this link, this seems to be real, and there's enough links that maybe he is notable. It's kind of hard to tell if they are all linking to the right guy. But in any case, as far as I can tell, "Contributions" has nothing to do with this dude. --Deville (Talk) 23:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable if this is true. However, rename to Karl Schröder and cleanup, of course. Sandstein 06:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - links withstanding, I don't see how they total to notability imo. Wickethewok 09:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems a strong delete, I'm afraid. There is another Karl Schröder, also a musician (cellist, d. 1935), to whom most of the websites are devoted. A geocities homepage most emphatically is not a reliable, acceptable reference, unfortunately. While inclusion guidelines can help in deciding the most appropriate disposition of material in the encyclopedia, please note that such considerations only come after the fundamental article space policies are met, ie WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:C, WP:NOT, and supporting rules, eg. WP:RS. If there are few or no appropriate sources, the article cannot be written; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedic articles cannot be written sans sources. —Encephalon 12:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 08:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ-Psychosis

[edit]

The first paragraph says it all: "a relatively new term" found on "web pages including blogs, chat forums and other informational resources". I.e., a neologism that was even invented on a web forum (see this old version) and is also unsourced. It seems to me that a controversial notion such as pathologising religion would need a lot more mainstream and professional usage, and sources, before becoming encyclopaedic. Sandstein 23:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that this page explains the term in a clear manner, and is necesary as the only reference that I have been able to find on the term. Besides, I don't see biblical terms being atacked just because they are predominently used by the mentally ill.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.189.169 (talk • contribs)

If this is the only reference for the term, it's all the more reason to delete it (see WP:V). Sandstein 05:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: listed on WP:TFD instead. — sjorford (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:)

[edit]

The senselessts template in the world. Olliminatore 23:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Academic Challenger. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicklaus andersen

[edit]

Delete, insofar as IMDB finds neither the actor nor the films in which he is said to have acted; non-notable (likely vanity) bio and, in any case, largely nonsensical Joe 23:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 08:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

87.7 Flava FM, 209radio

[edit]

A rdio station, which is normally a keep, but what they don't make clear is that RSL means "restricted service license" [29] which means a short-term or temporary license. So this is a student-run station which was on air for a very brief period, and Flava has now reverted to being a regional college webcast while 209radio is still awaiting a longer-term license. Creator was Matthew W (talk · contribs), which is probably The Station Manager and Head of Music was Matthew Webb - now working alongside 209radio. So it's quite probably vanispamcruftisement Just zis Guy you know? 23:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 07:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiber Optic Vision

[edit]

Dictionary entry, and possibly neologism Booyabazooka 23:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Ohio

[edit]

Delete DarknessProductionsInc 22:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Wrestling Alliance

[edit]

There's been no activity with the page DarknessProductionsInc 18:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep invalid reason for deletion. These strange deletion attempts seem to involve some content dispute. If you think the content of the page is wrong, change it! Sandstein 18:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. 1. 'No activity' is not on itself ground for deletion; at best it can be a counter-counterpoint when deletion is proposed on quality grounds, and there is a keep vote because it could be improved; even in such a case it's still just about the weakest of arguments. 2. There isn't even a lack of activity; last edit was 2 1/2 months ago. Last major edit (including a real edit war) 5 months ago. That's not by any stretch long for a Wikipedia article. Special:Ancientpages gives the articles longest not edited (including minor edits); the 1000 pages with least activity have not been edited for over 1 1/2 years. This article didn't even exist at the time. - Andre Engels 09:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Sandstein Hektor 16:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 07:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konpaku

[edit]

Delete: WP:NOT a crystal ball. Was {{prod}}, but notice was removed. htonl 23:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shepeshot

[edit]

Delete Non-notable game invented in 2000, apparently. Google returns 0 hits. Article has previously been nominated for speedy delete and prod, both times the original editor removed the tags. If evidence of notability can be provided I'll withdraw the AfD nomination, but so far none has. Gwernol 23:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep What type of notability should I provide? It is a small following and if you were to actually play the game, it would make sense. It has been played as a CRUD alternative especially for people who do not wish to engage in drunk shoving. It has a loyal following among the people that play it. It obviously lacks the attention of games like CRUD or baseball, but that doesn't make it any less of a game in my opinion. If a google search is the only measure you're judging this on, then why not just google evevrything you want to know about instead of wikipedianing? If you want me to get other people who have played the game to edit the article or something to prove that I didn't waste hours of my time writing some nonsense, I can do that. I feel like just because something isn't well known or still a new version of an older game, that doesn't mean it is useless. Bounce Two is a basketball game that a lot of people play that google doesn't list, yet you all have probably heard of it and played it. I spent time on this game and this article and I'd hate to see it deleted just because it's so new.

Tankeray 20:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legit article about a legit game. I spent many of my boyhood hours engaging in this good, wholesome activity. Fun for everyone! Maybe instead of complaining and trying to get it deleted, you all should try playing it and stop being negative nancies.


This is a great game. You should at least try playing before you discount it. A fantastic way to have fun indoors with a larger group of people than a normal game of pool can handle. Keep 03:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep It's been played by students at Dartmouth College for a few years now. Not sure how it got from NY to NH, but it did. It's important to have standardized rules for a game that's spreading, and to know a bit about its origins.
  • Keep This game was extremely fun, and still is, and I have taught it to a few people at the University of Richmond. It was competed in very intensely in Hamilton, all throughout higfh school, and resulted in, among other things, broken windows and ripped pants. This article really made me want to play it again.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 18:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realitism

[edit]

Either a spoof or, at best, an insignificant belief system (as the article itelf admits). Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 01:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Helf

[edit]

Delete in view of non-notability of subject (Helf is said to be best known for his role in the film Busy Season, but the relevant Google search returns zero hits; a general Googling of the bio's subject returns, on the first few pages, no relevant responses, and the IMDB entry is for a different individual. Joe 23:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom Notes

[edit]

Student a capella group with constantly fluctating membership. It has released several self produced albums but doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC to me. --Martyman-(talk) 08:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple other student a cappella groups have had wikipedia entries for lengthy amounts of time without this issue. (ie. University of Pennsylvania's Penn Masala, Tufts' Beelzebubs, Brown's Brown Derbies, Cornell's Hangovers etc) Look at the "list of collegiate a cappella groups" site and see there are many links to individual pages. There doesn't seem to be an issue with these groups, yet this criticism would apply equally to all of them as well. Let's be consistent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.194.144 (talk • contribs) .

What are they being marked for? I don't see what violation they are making that other college a cappella group entries are not. They create music, which qualifies them as a music group. Noutbounde 18:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anne Bazile winning best arrangement in a quarter final of the Midwest section of a comptetition for college a capalla groups does not count as a win or place in a major music competition to me [30], also chances are Ann Bazile (who is not mentioned in the article) is not even a current member of the group. There is no way that this group meets WP:MUSIC as it stands, the question is should WP:MUSIC be stretched to include non-mainstream forms of music more readdily, I would be inclinde to say no. Also the existence of other non-notable articles should not act as precedent for the inclusion of this one. --Martyman-(talk) 21:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This band has had infinitely many names and is hard to keep track of. Delete without prejudice to recreation if notability is properly established. Stifle 23:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep All student a cappella groups have constantly fluctuating membership. After all, they're composed of students, who graduate and leave the school. This hasn't been seen as grounds for deletion for any of the other collegiate a cappella groups' entries, so I see how this could fairly be grounds for deletion in this case either. Granted, some cleanup is necessary, but deletion seems harsh.

In addition, the group has won national recognition. The ICCAs is one of the two biggest a cappella contests in the country (the other being BOCA). Winning recognition in this contest is a significant accomplishment, especially for so young a group. The group is also notable in that it has performed in many states, and with many of the nation's best a cappella groups. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annelisep (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete I was going to mention that it might be significant that they are "the first coed collegiate a cappella group at the University of Chicago", but this fact is not even mentioned on their own website (as of 03/15/06). As far as all other collegiate a cappella groups, they should all be removed save for the truly historic ones (whichever those are). dfg 20:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle 23:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Low-grade notable, like many such groups at major universities. Monicasdude 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speed Delete - Ambigious, not significant and do not merit any publishing on Wikipedia. Groups like this are free to publicate themselves but as such do not deserve the attention of encyclopedia. 11:58, 21 March 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 speedy delete as nonsense. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger bashing

[edit]

Delete - It is non-encyclopedic and rather dumb. discospinster 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate wasgone. DS 17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew gerges

[edit]

Delete as non-notable biography (likely a hoax/facetious entry). Joe 00:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shilpa

[edit]

Page is irrelevant, it's about some person's kid.. Dwayne Kirkwood 00:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_19&oldid=1142647255"