< April 12 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

April 13[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 speedy keep. — FireFox • T [17:56, 13 April 2006]

Democratic Underground[edit]

For childish behavior in requesting that the pages of competing forums Progressive Independent be deleted from Wikipedia. This all started with a comment we posted on DU's page adding that another forum had been created by ex-DUers. Our comment didn't attack or smear DU and yet they took great offense to it. Already DU won't allow mention of competing forums on their board. Should Wikipedia tolerate their fascism here? Zoraida 13:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, even without discounting new and unregistered users. Stifle (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Independent[edit]

Delete
This forum is not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and every small and moderately sized forum does not merit an article RWR8189 11:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am not a member of either "faction" Zoraida thinks he/she is fighting against. I just believe there need to bounds for notability, and this forum doesn't cut it.--RWR8189 12:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've told us to look at your username (and, I suppose, your user page); clearly you are a partisan.


Chlamor 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Trying Again: A comment on "notability": As currently stated in the Wiki guidelines/parameters the concept of notability is at best vague. An example of how the issue of notability as relates to PI can easily be put to rest is the simple fact that People For Change currently has an entry when PI gets 14,000 more hits with google.More later. (chlamor)Chlamor 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Although relatively new, this site is attracting some of the finest thinkers on the left. My question would be: Why is this entry attracting delete requests from both Dems and Repubs? If PI is that innocuous and irrelevant why is it such a threat?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kliljedahl (talk • contribs) .

NoteThe proceeding comment is Kliljedahl's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Independent has quickly become an exceptional internet archival source for difficult to find material that has been omitted from the heavily censored historical record. One would be hard pressed to find any site on the web that provides such a deep political assessment of either historical events or current events. Chlamor 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)chlamor[reply]

Keep The motivation behind this delete request is very suspicious 132.170.161.87

Note The above comment is anon user 132.170.161.87's first contribution to wikipedia.--RWR8189 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was send for cleanup. Mailer Diablo 00:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITheater[edit]

Vaporware.. Not notable.. PowerMacer 00:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment "The software is being developed, so there is no reason to say that it is vaporware." OK, I'm confused. I thought that was the definition of vaporware. As opposed to actual software, which is something that exists now. Fan1967 01:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Vaporware: software which has been announced and perhaps even demonstrated, but not delivered to commercial customers." The project exists an can be downloaded here: [3] therefore its NOT vaporware.. Digitalducktape 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 01:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Horkins[edit]

Biography of someone who i believe to be non-notable. He is described as a rapper, but his only release is a video on YouTube. I tagged as a speedy, but the page author removed the tag and claims on the talk page that he is an "internet phenomenon"; rather than just re-tagging as CSD, which I suspect would just be reverted, I'm listing on AfD to get wider opinion. Delete or userfy, possibly speedy AJR | Talk 00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one responsible for deleting the notice becuase it said "delete this if you are intending to edit the article" which i have done since then. While I do understand that my use of the phrase "internet phenomenon" was an overstatement, he is still widely known and regarded within the toronto private school community and I have known other wikipedia artciles which target a similarly small audiance. I did not author the article origionaly but I have done alot of work to clean it up from the origional post. I think considering how new this article is it should at least be given time to be refined. several people have expressed thier interest to me about seeing this article kept alive and made more legitimate and I have told them to voice thier opinions here on wikipedia. hopefully they will take my advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faltru (talk • contribs)
This must be a new meaning of the word "amazing" that I am completely unfamiliar with. Fluit 17:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing some content doesn't make it any less of a vanity page, or the individual any more notable.
Reminder to all: please sign your posts (~~~~), and please refrain from voting multiple times (I'm looking at you, 206.130.23.67). EVula 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DON"T DELETE - Reid Horkins, although unknown to most, shows great potential and if this is deleted it will only come back later in years to come when Reid breaks out and shocks the world.

Delete per everyone that's not a puppet. Eivindt@c 18:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First-hand knowledge of an individual isn't necessary to hold the article up to Wikipedia's content requirements; it fails, so it should be deleted (or shuffled to the individual's user page, which is what I've suggested). In addition, personal attacks are a pretty poor way to garner support for your argument. Also, please sign your posts, even if you haven't registered. EVula 20:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why there are so many posts from IP 206.130.23.67 is becuase of a school network. Just wanted to clear that up.
Don't Delete but also a potential solution How about the people who wish the article to be deleted summarize what they expect to see in a creditable article. I will go through the article put some serious time into it and then refresh it. Obviously we are debating whethor or not he is notable for Wikipedia but how about we look past and turn our backs to that and make an article which not only contains in many eyes a notable being but also contains alot of creditable volume. ~~Strachan Jarvis
The most relevant link about Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Notability (music) (Reid Horkins fails on all accounts, as near as I can tell). It doesn't matter if you manage to somehow write prose that makes God Himself weep upon reading; Reid Horkins fails all established criteria for proving a musician's notability. EVula 22:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Than there is no need to list him as a musician along with more renound or legitimate artists, surely there is a catagory for underground or area specific people.
  • Comment Well, there's the solution. If you're a record producer, sign him to a deal, and release a CD on a recognized label. As soon as that happens, and it shows reasonable sales volume, he would qualify to be added back into Wikipedia. Fan1967 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bloody video games[edit]

Delete, an orphan ignoring usertalk pages, it has no defined perimeters of what it is to include. -- Zanimum 00:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was probably intended to have gone to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid Horkins page. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 01:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, it had me wondering at first why going to Jarvis Collegiate and liking Reid Horkins's music had anything to do with bloody video games... JIP | Talk 07:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus/keep. Stifle (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Generation[edit]

Neologism, if it's used at all - DavidWBrooks 00:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not consider the British Library, and newspapers such as the Guardian and the Telegraph to be reliable sources? They have all used this term and commented on its implications. Amongst the Google results are many usages by colleges and librarians etc, defining characteristics which relate to it, and seeing it as a phenomenon which needs to be addressed. It didn't mean anything to me, until this AfD came up. I suggest looking into it a little more thoroughly. I think it would be a credit to Wiki to provide this information, and disappointing if it doesn't. Tyrenius 12:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still popular usage - which makes it a dictdef, albeit a great and really comprehensively attributed dictdef. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It actually seems to have popular usage. Its not always going to be correct to judge something on whether you have heard of it or not. Ansell 13:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it says in Generation Y:"generations are defined not by formal process, but rather by demographers, the press and media, popular culture, market researchers, and by members of the generation themselves". There is also an article on iGeneration. Those two are proposed for a merge, and I can see the ultimate viability of merging Google Generation with them too.
Tyrenius 15:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Google generation believes that organisations can keep everything. Why take the time and effort to decide what can be deleted when electronic storage is cheap and search engines are improving? (The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 29, 2005)
Ian Mowat..... believed strongly that libraries should reinvent themselves so as to remain relevant to "the Google generation". (The Times, September 19, 2002)
William Gibson (novelist).....Perhaps the challenge of writing long-lasting literature excites him more now than being the prophet of the Google generation. (Daily Telegraph, April 12, 2003)
before the arrival of the world wide web we were obliged to go out there and discover things for ourselves........The Google generation may have a fast link to anywhere in the world ....(The Times, November 28, 2005)--HJMG 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiletics[edit]

Non-notable wiki; appears to fail WP:WEB. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep; this is not an article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Romarin/WikiProject Common Era[edit]

This WikiProject is encouraging users to edit articles against the Wikipedia Manual of Style (specifically, WP:DATE#Eras), thus should be deleted . — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netburner[edit]

Blatant advertising, spam Montco 00:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have to ask why this one wasn't speedied in the first place, however, it getting to this page should be enough to say that it should not be blanked. A policy on blanking AfD's is still in discussion. Ansell 00:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anuthin Wongsunkakon[edit]

I already speedied this once under CSD:A7, but it came back. Rather than get into a delete war, I bring it here. What say you? Was my speedy delete richeous or bogus? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd prefer to Delete myself because he's non-notable. RGTraynor 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care how non-notable he is, it's not worth deleting yourself over. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was a good one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Tyrenius 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. I'm inclined to close this as a keep, but the sight of socks, socks, and sockmania gives me second thoughts on doing so. Mailer Diablo 15:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Romero (investigative reporter)[edit]

Non-Notable internet meme that is restricted to only one website - maybe a mention on the fark article, but not here. God Ω War 01:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note this users only contributions have been his user page and afd nominations. See [4]--God Ω War 01:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's a celeb on the Internet. Keep the article going on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.87.179 (talk • contribs)

  • We deleted Lee Hotti we can delete this too.--God Ω War 01:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note, this is the users only contribution to wikipedia. See [5].
Comment There is a thin line between fame and notability. Ansell 06:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball business rules[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. Mailer Diablo 15:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rescue Rooms[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 userfy. Sango123 (e) 01:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McLaughlan[edit]

Article is an autobiography. --Snargle 01:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Conquest[edit]

Mod-cruft--Zxcvbnm 02:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn Filippini[edit]

Non-notable musician. Was deprodded by an anon user, thus the AfD nomination. Is a frequent target of vandalism, some of which comes from the article's chief contributors. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1564468007154963835&q=filippini&pl=true

There is no reason for the removal of this artice, due to the importance of the musician —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.3.170 (talk • contribs) .

???? Why withdraw the nomination? Everything I can find points to a non-notable 17-year-old musician with no credits except a film clip on channel 42 in Omaha, and, of course, a myspace page. Need to include the duplicate article, Kaitlyn Maria Filippini : Eloquent Acoustics. Fan1967 02:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What other credits do you need? I can gather whatever you would need OmahaEntertainment

How about a CD released by a recognized label? How about something beyond playing in a backup orchestra when touring musicians come to Omaha? Try reading the criteria at: Wikipedia:Notability (music). Fan1967 03:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have not seen a Cd released yet, the musician is featured on a demo on a local recoding company "panda productions", and does play outside of Omaha Nebraska on such tour with these musicians. Also, i do believe that the artice does qualify under these standards of Wikipedia:

---has become known for the local "young" notable musican scene in Nebraska

How else could there be improvements in the artice, to make it more suitable? .OmahaEntertainment

Comment I'm sorry, you've painted a picture of a talented high school kid who's won some high school awards. As to your other points: a demo is a demo; it's not an actual release. Playing backup for a touring act doesn't count if your name isn't listed in the band; there are thousands of backup players. The book looks pretty minor (Amazon sales rank almost 2 million). A few features in local media that say "here's a talented local kid" don't qualify as notibility. There is no source that she's a "prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city" (remember that clause about verifiability). Fan1967 03:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This artice is only a stub for now, due to the rise in populatrity.Aren't all articles on Wikipedia works in progress, in that anyone can add to them at any time?( This article does have a solid start.The merit that you are looking for is truly there, and if not, it will be there soon. )

I do believe that it fits under the standards, and is a work in progress. Newspaper articles and Television media are not completely for public stunts. (some articles are scouted, and have real merit.)

Also, the "rock violin" is a new category, which gives rise the the article's importance. It is a little know category that is new to the music scene, due to the image of "violin" always being under the "classical" view.OmahaEntertainment

Comment What will (or may) happen in the future is irrelevant. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see her become prominent someday, but right now she doesn't meet the standards. She has no recordings released. She has not toured as a headliner. She has not been covered in any major national media. Fan1967 04:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your link, sir. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, policy in a nutshell. T K E 06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Le-Nguyen[edit]

This is an autobiography. It was created by an IP October last year, but this seems to be a one-person IP,202.67.119.44 (talk · contribs) - all of its edits are to the work and productions of this chap. The other articles edited by this IP, was to credit the subject of the article as a "star" in the film Romper Stomper, and plug a play, Children of the Dragon (also up for deletion), directed by the subject of the article. The article is only substantially edited by Nghesi30 (talk · contribs) (meaning "artist30" in Vietnamese), who created an account this year, presumably to create other articles Aussie Bia Om, Chay Vong Vong, and Australian Vietnamese Youth Media- (all up for deletion). Nghesi30 then adds the subject to the list of prominent people at Vietnamese Australian and List of Vietnamese actors.

The reason I feel that Nghesi30 is Tony Le-Nguyen, is because he is challenged to explain a copyvio at Aussie Bia Om. Nghesi30 replies at Talk: Aussie Bia Om that he is the owner of Australian Vietnamese Youth Media and the copyright - meaning Nghesi30 claims to be Tony Le-Nguyen, and has been plugging himself on Vietnamese Australian and List of Vietnamese actors.

Judging by the IP addresses involved, 202.67.119.44 (talk · contribs), 58.178.155.38 (talk · contribs), 211.27.115.141 (talk · contribs), all of whose edits are to articles related to him, I think their edits are also autobiographical.

This person is probably barely notable, but because of autobio concerns, I am putting it here.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We don't know *for sure* its our good friend Tony, and it hardly matters. Wikipedia users themselves can tidy up the article from it's present form. michael talk 03:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What parts of the current article currently aren't specifically based on factual descriptions. They all seem to lack so called "weasel words" for one. Mostly just events and dates so far. Ansell 04:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is not whether you personally have heard about something. The main movie that he played in, Romper Stomper, was a major australian hit. Its not like hes just a backyard actor. Ansell 01:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to IMDB, he's 13th billed on the cast list, which does NOT say "major role" to me, no matter how much you go on about what a major movie "Romper Stomper" was. To give some idea, some random 13th-billed parts from some movies:
Not notable actors, not notable roles (note that for the first two, the articles are NOT for the two actors in question).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Vietnamese Youth Media[edit]

Suspected self-promotion by Nghesi30 (talk · contribs), who appears to be Tony Le-Nguyen - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Le-Nguyen for evidence as to why I think they are the same. This is a nn community theatre group in any case, vanity and self-promotion.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Bia Om[edit]

Suspected self-promotion by Nghesi30 (talk · contribs), who appears to be Tony Le-Nguyen - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Le-Nguyen for evidence as to why I think they are the same. This is a nn community play in any case, vanity and self-promotion.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chay Vong Vong[edit]

Suspected self-promotion by Nghesi30 (talk · contribs), who appears to be Tony Le-Nguyen - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Le-Nguyen for evidence as to why I think they are the same. This is a nn community theatre group production in any case, vanity and self-promotion.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children of the Dragon[edit]

Suspected self-promotion by Nghesi30 (talk · contribs), who appears to be Tony Le-Nguyen - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Le-Nguyen for evidence as to why I think they are the same. This is a nn community theatre group production in any case, vanity and self-promotion.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Chappell[edit]

Textbook -- and aggressive -- vanity bio. Precious few Google hits, Web, News, or Groups. Calton | Talk 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't think they're the same guy. I see nothing to link this guy (who seems like a relatively unknown computer type) with Steve K Chappell, a widely published expert on how to build log and timber houses. Actually, the second guy looks more interesting. Fan1967 02:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Leskowitz[edit]

User page? But unlikely. Made by an AOL user. HawkerTyphoon 02:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — page is already a protected deleted page. Feezo (Talk) 03:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just fixed the link from PageName to Matthew Leskowitz, hope that clears up the question. The nominator blanked the page, so I restored the content to allow review. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This should have been tagged ((db-bio)). WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Vanity. -Objectivist-C 06:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Guo[edit]

I believe that this page is a hoax. It was originally created (and speedied) as an attack page, then immediately recreated by the same person, who has removed deletion tags when I've placed them there but offered no explanation. "Charles Guo" + opera, "Charles Guo" + "Yi Guo", "Charles Guo" + "Guo Yi", and "Charles Guo" + "El Tigre" all get nothing on Google; and while the picture is really of someone named Yi Guo, I haven't been able to find evidence that what the article says about Yi Guo has any relationship to the truth. There are sources listed but I can't investigate them further because I don't speak the language. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If this hadn't been initially an attack page, I would have assumed it was legit, but insufficiently referenced. That's because there is really a Chinese opera singer under the name Yi Guo [7] [8] and the names of the operas & references check out. So, clearly the author knows something about Chinese opera. Since there is a real Yi Guo, perhaps we should delete this title and move only verifiable info, from the links above, to Yi Guo. Brillig20 05:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This diff raises a red flag for me. If there were such huge mistakes (date of birth off by 18 years, stated he was known for directing rather than performance) in the original text of the article, how reliable is it now - considering that all this material was contributed by the same author? Based on the English sources we've got, the only thing we can verify is basically that he's a Kunqu artist who graduated from the Shanghai Chinese Opera Academy and he performs in clown roles. That's not even a stub. Also, I am not convinced that Yi Guo meets WP:BIO... lack of Google hits doesn't necessarily mean much here, but I don't get the impression from the Kunqu website that he has done much that would merit inclusion in a Wikipedia article about him. Compare his bio to the bio of Grace Hui-hsin Wang on that same website or the Wikipedia article on Méi Lánfāng. I am far from an expert on Kunqu theater and I do believe that such topics are woefully underrepresented on Wikipedia, but my instinct is telling me that something is not right here. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 08:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google tests dont really have any meaning with non-latin based languages. If he has been a prominent performer then it may still only be in chinese script. So the DOB was off by 18 years, if its right now then its okay right. Trouble I have is finding more sources for it. I hate to have to say it but it seems like a hoax. Ansell 13:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I met Yi Guo on a trip to Beijing last year. I talked to him on the plane, and he called himself "Charles." I apologize for my mistake about the date of birth, but this is a real person who addresses himself as "Charles." I believe having articles such as this one on Beijing opera is essential; we must broaden our horizons. Sure, Yi is not the most famous actor, but he is certainly well regarded for his performances and is well known in the Beijing opera circuit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eadinsmore (talk • contribs) .
  • Can you point out which information in the article comes from which sources, maybe using some footnotes? Unfortunately, your personal conversations with him can't be used as a source for the article, so we will probably have to move it to Yi Guo unless there is another source for that. But if I could just get some reassurance that this information is coming from reliable sources, I would be happy to withdraw the nomination. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 20:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge if there's an article under his other name. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, would support relisting under Yi Guo if sourced properly. Wstaffor 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Fisher-Koeln[edit]

DeletePresident of non-notable file company. Film is not yet released and has 28 google hits. Nathan Fisher Koeln has eight unique hits himself. Montco 03:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DEEEEEEEEEEEElete --Deville (Talk) 03:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - ridiculous vanity.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, is entirely non-notable --Mason 03:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likeliest advertizing. Take it to the same place as I take pizza delivery advertizement leaflets that come through my letterbox. Delete. Anthony Appleyard 05:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The refrigerator door? T K E 05:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the most fun things for me on Wikipedia are the varients of English; I truly enjoy it. T K E 06:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, then redirect. I'm not protecting for the time being, but feel free to post a request on WP:RFPP if problems arise. Stifle (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Council of Private Colleges and Universities[edit]

According to CBS' 60 minutes this "accreditation group was set up by Hamilton University for Hamilton University"[9] According to John Bear it is a "fake accrediting agency set up by the Wyoming-based diploma mill, Hamilton University."[10]. This information is already in Hamilton it is not independent of Hamilton. This article should be deleted and redirected to the main article Hamilton. Is is also tied to American State University (the original name of Hamilton) and the church ran by the Hamilton operator who used said church for religious exemption with Hamilton. Arbusto 03:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to Hamilton University. Arbusto 03:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect per Arbustoo. Montco 03:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After merging any useful, non-redundant information, redirect to Hamilton University. (I don't see why the page needs to be deleted, or why this even had to go to AFD. I would have just boldly merged and redirected.) dbtfztalk 03:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently because of a revert war over the issue. u p p l a n d 05:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --Deville (Talk) 03:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect as per above --Mason 03:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect as per above --Ardenn 05:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect the redirect page (but put it in Category:Unrecognized accreditation associations first). Allow recreation as independent article, iff it turns out to do business with other diploma mills than Hamilton University under its various names. u p p l a n d 05:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect as per above. SorryGuy 06:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect savidan(talk) (e@) 08:34, 13 April 2006* (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect. Categorize per u p p l a n d (above). --MarcoTolo 16:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The question really is does this agency exist and does it accredit? If it accredits we should keep the article. If it does not exist then it should be removed from List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning and this article should be deleted. I would point out that the CBS link above does not name the ACPCU. It was also not named in the video. The John Bear link does not say that this agency is exclusive to Hamilton. Given the inconclusive evidence, I believe the article should be kept. The goal with all these accreditation mill/diploma mill looks to be exposure to me since if we were going by notability this along with most of the articles would be deleted (or merged in a single article since they are all similar scams). Therefore, why reduce the exposure through a redirect? -- JJay 23:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, give proof then. If you offer proof that it "accredits" groups that are not Hamilton-related I will change my vote. Arbusto 01:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you reread my comment. -- JJay 01:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you offer proof that it accredits more than Hamilton-related schools. Here is a link [11] listing only one "school" accredited by American Council of Private Colleges and Universities. That "school" is Hamilton and the source is The Chronicle of Higher Education on March 23, 2001. That source is linked in the Hamilton article already. Arbusto 03:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that link since I had posted it to the article talk page. It changes absolutely nothing from my initial comment. -- JJay 03:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you knew that "[12] listed only one 'school' accredited by American Council of Private Colleges and Universities" and yet you posted there is "inconclusive evidence" without offering any proof to contradict the The Chronicle of Higher Education. Arbusto 23:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the link says that this was set up by Hamilton. No one is disputing that. How many times do you intend to post the same link? Or for that matter, how long do you want this to continue? Given the present line-up on this page, I hardly think that the article is going to be kept. -- JJay 00:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point wasn't that it was set up by Hamilton. The point was that article includes schools connected to various fraudulent accreditors. There is only one "school" listed as "accredited" by American Council of Private Colleges and Universities, which is Hamilton. The other fake accreditors mention various schools and even the vague "and others." That is the point of the link. Arbusto 01:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my initial comment above. -- JJay 01:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. Stifle (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pikmin Creatures[edit]

This article is mainly a lower-qulaity version of Enemies of Pikmin, which I wrote myself and which contains all of the information listed in this article. Also, is poorly formatted and has been marked for cleanup. There really isn't anything to merge, so I think it should be deleted, or at the very least, redirected to Enemies of Pikmin. RyanGerbil10 03:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly merge with Pikmin or Enemies of Pikmin as per nom --Mason 04:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Enemies of Pikmin. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge anything relevant, if any. --InShaneee 17:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Enemies of Pikmin. The only real difference between the two articles is this one's inclusion of the Pikmin themselves, but only as a list item. So, redirect. WarpstarRider 01:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - as per above. Chairman S. Talk 21:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per nom. Wstaffor 22:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 15:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic cavitation[edit]

Does not convey any useful information not already covered in alchemy. Description of process can be found at electrolysis. Isopropyl 04:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On second thought, it should probably just be a redirect to electrolysis. Isopropyl 04:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Page was originally a simple (but false) definition, has since been expanded. Isopropyl 19:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Speedy redirect. dbtfztalk 04:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to neutral. For all I know, this could have something to do with Sonicare.  :-) dbtfztalk 04:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but correct / expand contents, the article is currently inadequate. Move to more frequently used phrase "Acoustic cavitation" or Merge into Sonochemistry, bubble fusion or sonoluminescence. Ande B 04:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? In what universe is sonic cavitation a synonym for electrolysis? I don't see how a process proposed to drive a hot confined fusion reaction could also be a process for splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. Per google it seems like the best redirect it to bubble fusion. At some point in the future a new article could be written for sonic cavitation which would point to bubble fusion as one of many uses. Thatcher131 04:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap. What the devil does this term even mean? Isopropyl 04:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just going on basic terminology sonic cavitation means using sound waves to make bubbles. One example is the sonicating water baths used to clean instruments and jewelry. Another is the laboratory technique sonication. There are claims in the bubble fusion article that doing this on a very tiny but very intense scale causes a form of cold fusion. Unless someone wants to write it up properly describing and referencing the different scales and uses, I suggest redirect to bubble fusion since that seems to be the most notable current use for this specific term. Thatcher131 05:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's acceptable now but certainly should be expanded further. OK to keep Thatcher131 11:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted the horseshit and replaced it by a short sensible stub. Keep. Anthony Appleyard 05:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Anthony Appleyard. As a sensible stub, knowledgeable people can develop it into a meaningful article. Ande B 06:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also thank you Anthony Appleyard for getting rid of the crud. --blue520 09:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, physically notable phenomenon. --Xorox 12:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewrite is fine Kotepho 13:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Entry needs significant expansion, but now that several folks have made changes its worth keeping as a stub. --MarcoTolo 16:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. I'm then taking the non-admin, normal editorial action of recreating as a redirect to Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets. Stifle (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outlaw 8[edit]

A "brigade" of the Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets, an ROTC-esque organization. There are a number of "brigades", but I don't see how they could be considered notable; from here they look like university student groups (I can't tell if there is year-to-year continuity of the brigades). The article is completely vanity, written in the first person and mostly names, with little content that could possibly be relevant in a year or two. The suggestion to merge with Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets has been removed by the author. I don't think there's anything in here worth merging, anyway; this is a non-notable subgroup of a notable university group. Delete. bikeable (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a few reasons why its wrong, #1, a brigade would imply that we are army, but if you read The Corps page you would see that we are in the Wing, not the brigade. We are an outfit of the Air Force ROTC at A&M. #2, if you read closely to the A&M page, we are an Outfit. hints why there is no need to be merged with the whole corps page. each outfit has their own histroy, own legacy. which unless you are an aggie, and you where in the corps, you will not understand. considering, i havent spend much time working on it, will be updating it constenly for a while(next 3 years or so). I am trying to dig up as much information as i can, to make the page more full, of useful information. I appologise for sounding rude, but it is aggrivating that the pages hasnt even been up for 24 hours, and i am being badgered about the content not being usful. I do not intend to be rude, i am just pointing out some of the facts that you might not understand if you are not from Texas A&M Corps of Cadets. I am currently going and gathering as much information, about the outfits history, and past so i can make the page more usful to those people who might want to look.

  • Weak keep if thoroughly rewritten. The article at least suggests that the group has some year to year continuity. I know next to nothing about student life at Texas A&M, other than by rumour and repute, but it may be that this is an institution similar to a fraternity or sorority, conditioned by the local quasi-military student culture. If so, it may be notable enough to pass: especially given the fact that due to conditions unique to Texas A&M, student organizations founded there are ill adapted to spread to other universities. At minimum it must be thoroughly rewritten for NPOV and preferably in the third person. Smerdis of Tlön 14:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, rotcruft. Are small university clubs genuinely notable enough for articles? RGTraynor 16:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete only because I doubt that a sub-group of a Group at a single University will be notable. Re-writing the article is a must either way.--70.10.129.182 17:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable group. --InShaneee 17:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without question. NN and some big ol' WP:VSCA; this group should use their own website for this and not Wikipedia. — Scm83x hook 'em 22:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything relevant to Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets and redirect. Wstaffor 22:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask those who know (book)[edit]

  • Delete The article was created over a year ago (in December 2005) and since then only has three edits of which only the first was for the actual article (other two tags). The article does not establish why the book is notable. Jersey Devil 04:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable book.-- 陈鼎翔 说!贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nominated in bad faith as part of Jersey Devils long-running crusade against Striver. Book is notable enough to be republished by several publishers. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable book, probably advert. Not enough content. --Xorox 13:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge google pulls up some citations. Kotepho 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed after the article grew from being longer than a sentence. Kotepho 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is highly controversial you should be able to dig up some sources. Even his bio has none. Do we really need one sentence stubs on his articles when the main article is three sentences? Kotepho 00:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book. Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify.
This book has a ISBN AND is "availability in a couple dozen of libraries", AND also being available for full download on several sites. Book is highly controversial among Muslims. Being a short article is not a grounds for deletion. --Striver 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone fixes the WP:BAI "Anything which you cannot be bothered to write one complete sentence about." Which if the book is truly controversial should be relatively easy.Bridesmill 01:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Striver 01:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mo listing, anywhere...nn.--MONGO 02:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a perfectly reasonable book article. -Colin Kimbrell 16:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Muhammad al-Tijani. His four books could be written as separate articles or could all fit on his article, but either way, they appear to be notable and verifiable, and worthy of inclusion. --Hyperbole 19:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looking around, I think it's notable. Georgewilliamherbert 21:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Husain Mohammad Jafri[edit]

  • Delete article does not establish how the person is notable and violates WP:V with no sources. Hasn't been updated since 2005 and a yahoo search of the name brings up 1,130 hits. [13] Jersey Devil 04:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 10:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Work published by non-vanity press, thus notability established. Nominated in bad faith as part of Jersey Devils long-running crusade against Striver. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Insh'allah! RGTraynor 16:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 18:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  RasputinAXP  c 23:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Someone who gets published by Oxford University Press surely can't be all that non-notable. LambiamTalk 00:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Irishpunktom and Lambiam, easly fullfills WP:BIO --Striver 00:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded. The article at the moment contains essentially nothing other than the fact that he wrote the book. He could be notable, but, from the article, I don't see anything that deserves a seperate page.
  • Keep. This isn't my forte, but from what I can tell, he seems to be a notable Islamic scholar. Aga Khan University is the 1,000 lb. gorilla of colleges in Pakistan. -Colin Kimbrell 16:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Irishpunktom --Hyperbole 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as published author per Lambiam. Monicasdude 19:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fecalism[edit]

Neologism, only 95 Googles. I had intended to ((prod)) it, but the template said in large red font: "PROD is currently suspended due to technical difficulties!" King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions[edit]

  • Delete the article is entirely original research. Jersey Devil 04:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, just looks to me like it needs references. It's pretty much factual. Brillig20 04:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (it's a valid and highly noteworthy topic), rename (the current title is awkward and unprofessional), add references (since obviously many exist in this area) and expand (since this is currently little more than a stub). Clean-up, not deletion, is warranted here, as is almost always the case for articles on noteworthy topics that are tainted by original research. If it is deemed absolutely necessary, and if no one steps forward to try and help bring this article out of the gutter, I wouldn't oppose merging this into Comparative religion as a subsection, since it's currently so short and since comparing religions based on whether they belong to the Western world or Eastern world is only one (and not an especially valid one) of many methods for broad religious comparison. -Silence 05:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep --Irishpunktom\talk 11:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rename as per user:Silence. --Xorox 13:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs to be renamed to fit in with the MOS but the concept is worthy of an encyclopedic page, even if the current page definitely does not reflect that in its quality. Ansell 13:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with comparative religion, per Silence. Fishhead64 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this article will always be original research and highly POV. We could have an article listing and narrating comparisons made by qualified people, but any primary comparision is just original research. All ideas of 'this influenced that' or 'this is like that' will be met with 'according to whom?'--Doc ask? 21:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And any question of "according to whom?" will be met (eventually, at the least) with a citation or a removal, as is the case with all Wikipedia articles. I fail to see how "this influenced that" is any less citable here than anywhere else, nor how "this influenced that" is restricted to this article (or how this article deals solely, or even largely, with influences!); in fact, it plays a major role in the religion article in general. -Silence 23:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massasoit amateur radio association[edit]

I originally prod-ed this article, but due to the bug with the prod templates, I instead nominated it for speedy deletion under CSD/A7. After some discussion with the article's chief contributor I've concluded that it's definitely not a speedy candidate; thus, I'm listing it on AfD. I'm not familiar with any policy that addresses amateur clubs, but it seems as though WP:N would not be appropriate to employ in this case. Similar articles, such as BARC have been kept, but I still believe this topic does not warrant an article. Therefore, I vote to delete. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you similarly going to mark all of the other Amateur Radio organizations for deletion? List of amateur radio organizations

Smeuse 04:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:N is not a speedy delete criteria:) ---J.Smith 20:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I like amateur radio, but this is a NN group who haven't even updated their own website in three years. RGTraynor 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to it's size as a non-important radio club. ---J.Smith 20:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as non-notable group.  RasputinAXP  c 23:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bige1977 00:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possible speedy as ((nn-club)). Stifle (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19 Bar[edit]

Prod nomination by User:Calton on these grounds: "Purely local interest: WP is NOT a travel guide/bar guide." Prod is disabled right now, so I'm creating a AFD for it. I abstain from voting on it. Icarus 04:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless somebody can demonstrate its notability somehow. Google comes up with ~500 hits, most of which are just travel guides or directories.Cheapestcostavoider 04:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Being the oldest gay bar in Minneapolis (founded in 1956) constitutes some notability but I don't think it's enough. JIP | Talk 06:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The oldest gay bar in the United States is probably encyclopedic. The oldest gay bar in Greenwich Village or in San Francisco might be encyclopedic -- but even then it's assuming either did something besides serve drinks. But Minneapolis? --Calton | Talk 08:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. This provides SOME info, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by tdxiang (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per Calton. Harro5 09:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nice story. No place on Wikipedia. If the author wants any chance whatsoever of redeeming his/her article, they should add to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.124.122.119 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, nn bar. BTW, prod backup is in effect, works now. --Rory096(block) 00:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Wstaffor 22:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect - but I have deleted it then redirect it so that nobody restores the deleted material. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slaves freed by Abu Bakr[edit]

  • Delete any information here can easily be put into the Abu Bakr article. No need for the page to exist. Jersey Devil 04:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Abu Bakr, as the page provides little other than a list of names.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge savidan(talk) (e@) 08:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nominated to prove a point on Jersey devils long-running crusade against striver. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Abu Bakr article as per JD, Aero and Savidan. --Xorox 12:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per nom as paragraph rather than as list. Шизомби 16:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge optional. Do we really need a list of 8 slaves without individual notability? Imagine, if you will, the article Slaves freed by Abraham Lincoln. BTW, yeah, so JD is on a long-running crusade. Some of that crusade is bogus, but some, like this, is pretty darn valid. -- GRuban 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above. SorryGuy 18:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per aeropagitica. Fishhead64 21:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Irishpunktom. LambiamTalk 00:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was in the Abu Bakr article, but was deleted since it ruined prose, it was unbalancing the article, so a spin out was created to handle something that was to small to fitt in the main article. Topic is valid and notable. --Striver 00:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we didn't create new articles for things too small to fit in the main article, but for things too large to fit there. -- GRuban 12:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are right, i meant it was to much text for a event in his life. --Striver 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is only 6 sentences long, most of which is already in Abu Bakr. I suggest adding something like the following to Abu Bakr#During the lifetime of Muhammad:
Before the Hijra, Abu Bakr purchased the freedom of several Muslims who were slaves and suffered torture at the hand of their owners. These slaves were: Bilal, Abu Fakih, Ammar, Abu Fuhayra, Lubaynah, Al-Nahdiah, Umm Ubays, and Zinnira. Many of them also became companions of Muhammad.
Surely there is room for that in the Abu Bakr article. -- GRuban 17:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try and merge it, im all for it. Just as long as the information is available here or there, im happy. I had what you sugested, but it got deleted implying it unbalanced the text. --Striver 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trying.... GRuban 20:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it worked. User:Zoe has reworked the paragraph a bit, but that'a an editing matter, I'm sure you and she can work it out between you, I'm bowing out as I'm sure you each know more about the subject than I. Striver, if this merge satisfies you, you can change your vote to Merge, and since you're the creator that will make this discussion able to be Speedy closed. Or, heck, you can just be bold and change the article to a redirect to the appropriate section of Abu Bakr yourself, I'm sure no one will object. -- GRuban 20:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. But i will recreat the article if the information is yet again edited out of the Abu Bakr article. --Striver 23:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, could be merged back into Abu Bakr, but I don't see why. Wstaffor 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and put back into Abu Bakr. It is a POV title - should we also have titles Iraqis freed by George W. Bush or Jobs created by George W. Bush?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What kind of argument is that? What would be wrong with a title like Buildings designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, for example? I wouldn't want to see a page List of gourmet dishes invented by Colonel Sanders either. Does that mean then we cannot keep List of English words invented by Shakespeare? LambiamTalk 09:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The title inherently selects only positive actions taken by the subject, and thus constitutes a tribute page, same as my hypotheticals, whereas the List of English words invented by Shakespeare does not.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 00:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look people, we can stop debating; the article is no more. It's now a redirect page. LambiamTalk 09:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, ok but delete the redirect, who is going to search for "Slaves freed by Abu Bakr"?--Jersey Devil 00:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects are cheap. Even if it does no good being there, it certainly does no harm. There is a chance, however small, that someone may one day search for that term. --Hyperbole 16:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a delete. --Striver 19:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Userfy. I created a redirect from William Grammer to Speeder (fan film), as well. Jkelly 18:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


William Grammer[edit]

Vanity entry, editor appears to be subject of article. Google search brings up less than 300 returns; more specific "William Grammer" +Speeder (to narrow the field) brings back only 38 unique returns. Delete or userfy. MikeWazowski 04:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

 Proof of SPEEDER's and William Grammer's involvement with Cannes from starwars.com:

http://www.starwars.com/community/fun/fanfilm/news20050512.html


  • Userfy T K E 05:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete Subject doesn't appear to have reached notable Producer/Director status yet.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete (and encourage the subject to spell his surname "Grammar"; it just looks better). If SPEEDER was screened at Cannes to promote Revenge of the Sith, its director might well be notable; a search on the Cannes website, though, yields zero results for the film (a search for Grammer comes up similarly empty), and the subject's other achievements surely do not confer notability. Joe 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentIn response to my PROD of SPEEDER, an anon editor has, on that article's talk page undertaken to show that SPEEDER was indeed screened at Cannes in the promotion of Revenge of the Sith; even assuming arguendo that the film was screened as described in the article (cf., as a typical Cannes entry), and even as the film, on those grounds, might be notable, its director, I conclude, isn't, and so I'm sticking with my views supra.
  • Comment (moved this from the nom, to which it had been appended Joe 23:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)) Appropriate information for subject of SPEEDER. Same info can be found on imdb.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namcoking (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Keep due to posted link to starwars.com. Being screened at Cannes, whether promotional or not, equals notability in my book. Wstaffor
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - brenneman{L} 05:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sohan mikkilineni[edit]

"A native of Southeastern Michigan, this high school student is known far and wide for being an arrogant, (amazingly intelligent), self-absorbed, narcissistic, annoying, megalomaniacal person." etc. I speedy tagged it, he contested it. Whatever. It's non-notable vanity nonsense vandalism. Brillig20 04:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Seems to me it qualifies as A7. I don't see any effort to establish notability. Brillig tagged it pretty well: "non-notable vanity nonsense vandalism". As usual, Geogre's Law applies. Fan1967 05:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal vision workbook[edit]

blatant spam Icarus 04:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NameSecure[edit]

Ths domain registrar doesn't assert any claim to notability or any reason it should have an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete Ardenn 05:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom --Mason 05:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NicM 07:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I'm on the fence on this one. I routinely check out domain information and I frequently stumble upon registrations through this company. What would differentiate a random registrar from a wiki notable company? ccwaters 02:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMHO, something that puts them in the news. Ardenn 02:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to Yellowikis. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep --lightdarkness (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"chopin impromptu in gb major"[edit]

This article is unnecessary and should be deleted. All this information is already on Frédéric Chopin. Mason 05:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article is not redundant and has potential for expansion to feature in-depth analysis of the composition. I have cleaned up the original article and moved it to Impromptu No. 3 (Chopin) in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music). Defrosted 10:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for that, now it could probably just be expanded --Mason 23:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, title was incorrect but has been fixed. Certainly notable, etc. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 13 April 2006 @ 13:52 (UTC)
  • Weak keep it could serve as a decent article, but as it stands now it isn't that great. Kotepho 14:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup. SorryGuy 18:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up Notable piece. Fishhead64 21:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean-up I concur it could use some editing, but think its a worthy enough piece to warrant an entry. (Kateheartspiano 23:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Either Keep per above or merge with the main article on Chopin. Freddie 01:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. Wstaffor 22:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it's been moved to Impromptu No. 3 (Chopin), but perhaps delete the redirect to it, which is way out of naming conventions and won't be useful. Mangojuice 03:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Eskog, as creator/only significant editor requests deletion. -- Saberwyn 22:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Northwest Territories capitals/temp[edit]

Temporary page made for a peer review of List of Northwest Territories capitals the article has since been redirected and evolved into History of Northwest Territories capital cities the temp page is obsolete and no longer needs to exist Cloveious 05:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The page appears to have served its purpose.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. SorryGuy 18:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fishhead64 21:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated, evolved and obsolete. LookNorth 00:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a prime candidate for speedy deletion. LambiamTalk 02:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created the page as an illustration. I now use my own sandbox for this. --maclean25 06:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petricore[edit]

Prod tag added by User:Bikeable due to "dict def that I can't find elsewhere, and WP:NOT a dictionary". Prod is suspended, so I'm switching it to AFD. Icarus 05:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless reference and citation can be provided, otherwise Transwiki to Wiktionary if so.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless references can be provided per aeropagitica. I noticed after prodding this that the author had left on the Talk page, I can remember hot dry summers in my youth, and an uncle calling it petricore. Does anyone have any more information, or knowledge of research? Memories of a word used by an uncle are not enough to go on. bikeable (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable dicdef. Wstaffor 22:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, though from reading the arguments of many of the "delete" voters (JamesTeterenko for instance), this is much to do with the quality of the article and not not the notability of the subject. Right now, it consists only of a fleet list and a list of routes and little real encyclopedic information (history, ownership, community impact), hence no prejudice against a rewritten article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Transit[edit]

un-encyclopedic list of busses and routes Icarus 05:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No vote yet, I want to see some thoughs; mine is "A bus schedule?" T K E 05:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list of buses in a corporate fleet and a list of their routes, with no references or claims to notability for either - how can this be useful for a researcher?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where to catch a bus in Brandon, perhaps. Sarcasm per my disclaimer T K E 06:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete New York City Subway rolling stock has a comparable level of detail, but then, that's a somewhat more notable system with custom equipment. --John Nagle 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Brandon, Manitoba — although I note that articles on even significantly larger cities in Canada, such as Victoria, British Columbia do not contain sections on public transit. So perhaps delete. Fishhead64 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above users -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; tag for improvement as necessary. I've seen useful and interesting articles on lots of comparable public transit systems in midsized cities. Samaritan 20:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no question that municipal transit articles define their own special universe of cruft, but this isn't actually any worse than a lot of other city bus system articles that have been kept in the past. It's certainly expandable, if someone cares that much, and unless you're prepared to pitch for a general WP consensus against local transit systems I don't see how this one can be considered less notable than the many others whose articles already exist. Keep, if only because it ain't harming anything. Bearcat 07:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because none of the content is encyclopedic. Would consider changing my vote if someone were to expand the article. -- JamesTeterenko 03:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wstaffor 22:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency File[edit]

advertisement spam Icarus 05:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gran Turismo cars[edit]

A hellishly long and unsourced list of cars from a video game, in impossible-to-maintain table form. This is not encyclopedic. Material more-than-sufficiently covered in main article. brenneman{L} 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fancruft, there are a plethoria of fansites to find this information. T K E 05:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft, videogamecruft, non-encyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-encyclopaedic.--blue520 09:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe rename List of cars featured in Gran Turismo, but I have never seen/played Gran Turismo. --Dangherous 09:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above users voting del -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It could be easily verified/referenced by game strategy guides and sites such as GameFAQs. However, Wikipedia is not a game guide so delete. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 03:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the game is notable for its amount of real cars included in the games. one thing that can be done is split the article into 4 parts, one for each game. cars in GT1, GT2, GT3, GT4. this is not game guide either, because it does not list statistics applicable to the actual game, just cars in it. its no different than listing the beastiary of the Final Fantasy Series. which has been done.Barcode 13:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, this information is notable, if only barely. Should be arranged by installment as suggested above. Wstaffor 22:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurentian University Model Parliament[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUPSA Presidents, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Roche, Sudbury, which may constitute a walled garden.

Delete as vanity/advertisement/non-notable, plus does not have any content not implied by 'Laurentian University' and 'Model parliament' separately. Author has twice removed nomination for speedy delete Peter Grey 05:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I vote no, as I do all university organizations that are not national. T K E 06:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep T K E 07:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is a useful article. It would be a shame to lose it. Plus, from my understanding, Laurentian University is a national university organisation. So I am unsure of the credibility in the criticism from TKE. kroche14
Comment. I meant a national organization. But I am changing to Keep, becaue upon rereading the article, they are much more notable than most other college clubs. So Wikipedia is not paper. Kroche14, I meant no bad faith by the vote. T K

E 07:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'.. Which 'nation' are you refering to? This is the global English Wikipedia, NOT the U.S.A. Wikipedia. Reading the article, I see nothing of note about this organisation, but then I don't personally feel that's justification to delete an article. Storage is cheap. Markb 09:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm aware this isn't just the USA show, I even make a keep vote once of "Australians are Wikipedians Too." By national, I meant widespread across whatever the parent country is. There are several articles created everyday on individual university clubs. I admit I skimmed the article quickly, but I corrected myself. T K E 16:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of Laurentan University is not up for debate, only a once-a-year bit of theatrics that only concerns members of one club at one university. Peter Grey 16:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the political association below. This will add notability to an otherwise generic entry. Marskell 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What do you mean when you say "university organization"? I had understood that Laurentian was a university and that the overwhelming majority of its students came from northern Ontario, making it a regional university, not a national one. HistoryBA 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: When I said national, I didn't not mean the university. I meant the particular club. T K E 16:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 15:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Response to... "Question: I had understood that Laurentian was a university and that the overwhelming majority of its students came from northern Ontario, making it a regional university, not a national one." There are many students currently studying at Laurentian from Northern and Southern Ontario, as well as Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and many international students from France, (Laurentian is bilingual after-all), China, Viet-Nam, and Japan. kroche14
It's just like any other university, its open to anyone. Mike (T C) 17:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This appears to be notable enought to be considered simply more than an ordinary campus club. It's fairly significant that this organization is permitted use of the House of Commons. That's not just a hall that anyone can rent out. It's obviously a significant enough organization for the Speaker to decide to grant permission for its use. (By the way, while not expressly stated in the article, it's obvious from reading that it refers to an organization in Canada). Fluit 17:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow Up: I decided to actually follow the advice of the AfD textbox in order to help this article along. I've undertaken what is mainly a major copy-edit, and (hopefully) removed anything that's not NPOV. I now leave it up to the powers that be. Fluit 01:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This article along with numerous others by user:kroche14 are about non-notable university minutia. Tomb Ride My Talk 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. So this university club gets to use the House of Commons hall (during a time when it's otherwise empty, by the bye) for their make-pretend game once a year. Big deal, there are high school moot legislatures in every state in the United States, and no doubt in Canadian provinces as well, that do the same thing, get the use of the legislative halls for a day or two, have photo ops with smiling politicians, and aren't restricted to a couple schools yet. If this model parliament was thrown open to every university in Canada, or even every one in Ontario, it might be notable ... but that's not the case, is it? RGTraynor 16:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Use of the national legislative chambers seems a bit of a step up from state and provincial halls. I suspect that we would have an article about any youth use of the United States Capitol (which seems like a pretty strange name - I wonder why it is not formally called the "United States Capitol Building" or something like that?) j-beda 15:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep...this entery is notable. if it was Queens Universiyt who did this no one would question the credablity beacuse queens is higher in the Mcleans rankings, but lu isnt but we have a good poli sci program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cw wilson (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. No one is questioning the standing of your university, just the notability of a club from it. Tomb Ride My Talk 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And trust me, few of the editors voting here give a whit about university rankings or rivalries. TeKE 02:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: quite. Strike Laurentian and substitute Harvard and I can't imagine what would change about any voting here. RGTraynor 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sure if Harvard had a model "congress" that used the Capitol in Washington D.C., it would certainly be notable. Fluit 00:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NN. rehpotsirhc 21:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not assert notability. Vegaswikian 05:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This has nothing to do with the reputation of Laurentian, it has everything to do with the fact that Wiki precedent has it that individual student organizations, besides the Student Union on each campus, is not noteable enough, in and of itself, for an article. pm_shef 04:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep The Laurentian University Model Parliament is notable. First of all it is one of two universities which are granted permission to use the House of Commons. Second, it is ran by Rand Dyck, one of Canada's most notable Political Scientists, his publications include Canadian Politics Critical Approches, a text book which is used by almost every university coast to coast, and since he is running this event as an intevative way in order to have university students understand politics and their government, why would this not be notable enought to deserve an article. Thirdly, it is a serious acidemic excerise done by university students, if this was done at harvard there by a promant professor at Harvard in the US Capitol there would not be this dabate for inclusion. Finally, it is one of the few events where Laurentian Students at Sudbury are mixed at Laurentian Students at Barrie, this is notable beacuse of the inclusion of the different campuses which usually have nothing to do with each other. I strongly hope that this article is kept, it needs some serious editing, maybe merging the section concerning the SGA at the LU with this as a subsection editied, but i think it is notable enought to be kept.
  • Delete per WP:NN and Wiki precedent. Wstaffor 22:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this material belongs on the group's own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurentian university political science association[edit]

This appears to be identical in content to Laurentian University Model Parliament, which is up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurentian University Model Parliament.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the model parliament above and keep under this title. Marskell 08:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when I created this page my intention was to have this page redirect to the Laurentian University Model Parliament article. So, I'm still not sure how to redirect, but if I knew how, I would likely have this page redirect to my other page. kroche14
  • Speedy Delete. This is another is in a flury of non-notable articles created by user:kroche14. Tomb Ride My Talk 15:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- JamesTeterenko 02:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vegaswikian 05:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tomb Ride. If the Model Parliament survives AfD (which is possible), then it probably should survive as a redirect page. RGTraynor 07:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting in Vatican City, Scouting in Equatorial Guinea, Scouting in Guinea-Bissau, Scouting in Mali, Scouting in São Tomé e Príncipe, Scouting in Somalia[edit]

There is no Scouting in any of these places at all. Why not Scouting on the Moon, Scouting before the Big Bang, Scouting in Middle-earth, or Vatican City at the 2000 Summer Olympics? Appears to be no verifiable information on Scouting in these countries. I did not nominate the articles which indicated some history of scouting, or a movement to establish scouting specifically in that country. I abstained from nominating Scouting in Eritrea because there was a picture. But these articles have to go. The ones I am nominating all appear to have been cookie cut by a single author who can only be described as the antithesis of mergism. In the main article, there could be a list of countries without Scouting, but these stubs are excessive. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. My vote was made before these additional articles were added. I'm standing by my vote for now, it is subject to change by consensus. T K E 06:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scouting exists (be it embryonic or widespread) in the following countries but there is no National Scout Organization which is a member of the World Organization of the Scout Movement at the present time.
    • Vatican City
    • The Moon
    • Middle-earth
and so on, and redirect the individual articles. Other countries such as Laos have individual articles; the countries in this AfD could simply be marked on the main article. It needs to expand on what "Scouting exists" means, though. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect as per Tonywalton or create Scouting in nations without national organisation article, then redirect.--Xorox 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? Have you read these articles? Their text is all identical and appears to be copied from this website. You realize that I was joking about the moon and Middle-earth, right? savidan(talk) (e@) 14:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Scouting on the Moon," there's a bandname. T K E 16:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep-the reason I did the articles as I did, cookie-cutter or no, is that very little is known about the organizations, but the fact that there is a Scouting organization there is in accordance with the WikiProject Scouting templates and guidelines. Chris 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason "very little is known about the organizations" is that they do not exist. Are there Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts in Vatican City? No. Jonathunder 23:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you've researched it? --Naha|(talk) 02:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Chris. Rlevse 18:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vatican City scouts? You've got to be kidding. Jonathunder 19:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the spirit of assuming good faith, I will not assume you are mocking the Vatican City, but rather mean something else by this comment? By itself, the comment does not seem very becoming of an admin. --Naha|(talk) 02:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chris NThurston 19:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect as per Tonywalton or create Scouting in nations without national organisation article, then redirect, as per Xorox. Johntex\talk 20:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Griz 23:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know I'm fighting upstream, but creating articles concerning subjects about which nothing can be said seems to me a bizarre way to build an encyclopedia. Fishhead64 01:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"subjects about which nothing can be said"? Something can be said about every subject, else you'd not have a Wikipedia. I think it might be appropriate to say "subjects about which little is yet known", but that is a 'yet' until someone from those nations run with it. Chris 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interest in Scouting articles on Wikipedia is quite recent and the numbers involved in even large countries outside the USA like the UK and Australia is quite small but growing. Before too long people from these small countries will add content. Most of them probably do have scouting but we need locals to give us the information. It is not like the Olympics where we know whether a country had participants or not. --Bduke 02:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have found some small pieces of evidence that Scouting in these countries has existed in the past and I have edited them all except the Vatican City article. There I tend to agree that Scouting would likely be linked to Italian Scouting although one link does suggest that they are working to WOSM recognition. --Bduke 03:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about the harshness of my original nomination. It does appear that Scouting exists in some form in these countries although there is little verifiable information. I think it is dangerous to just "wait for someone from one of these countries to write something" because that borders on inviting original research. It seems like there is very little if any information on these which could not be said in an article like Xorox has suggested which had a list of countries where this held to be the case. Sorry for proposing a delete; it seems like merge and redirect would be the best move. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would defeate the purposeful and very intentional idea that someone from those nations would seek out and edit the article on their own country, and it will make incomplete the lists, articles and templates that the Scouting WikiProject has been so diligent on compiling and completing.
A corellary to this would be that since Scouting in Vermont and Scouting in South Dakota have essentially stock articles at the moment, with nothing to set them apart, would we create an article "Scouting in places without very good articles"? No, it would leave gaps where there is a political entity with Scouting. Recognized or not, this is also the case with the national articles.
Having heard from savidan, I no longer believe this to be a bad faith nomination, but I still maintain even a merger into a bulk article to be ill advised, for the reasons stated above. I must stand against any deletions or mergers, and for the status quo ante. Chris 18:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to this on my talk page. However, I do want to add in this discussion that all of the current verifiable information for these would be the same: hence one big article. The currents lists and templates would not be disrupted because we could easily redirect these pages to the merged articles. The reason I am hesitant to wait for someone from these places to write these, is that if none of us have been able to find any information, what they find is unlikely to be verifiable. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nice thing about this afd is that it has generated some interest in the smaller Scout movements, and has started to make those articles unique! :) We are indeed improving the articles so that they meet the Wikipedia inclusion criteria, and that's really what it's all about. Been digging through my Scout collections tonight, now they've each got visible proof. Chris 02:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YEAH CHRIS! Rlevse 12:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin DiCenzo[edit]

Delete. Non notable biography. Seems self promotion to me. soUmyaSch 06:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stimulism[edit]

Delete. Barely coherent, incomprehensible, non notable. Language is non-encyclopaediac. May be a hoax as dictionary definition of Stimulism is The theory of medical practice which regarded life as dependent upon stimulation, or excitation, and disease as caused by excess or deficiency in the amount of stimulation. soUmyaSch 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - also note that some of the language is in first person ("Due to my strive[sic] to eliminate emotions from affecting stimulism..."), so the author is in all likelihood the sole practitioner. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I missed the fact that there appears to be an obsolete medical theory by the name. Does someone want to write up a quick stub on stimulism-the-medical-theory? If so, I'd want to keep that. Zetawoof(ζ) 16:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:PN. What's with the "new religion" vandalism trend? Danny Lilithborne 10:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "This is a small, uncommon religion." That means non-notable. Two new religions in one day. Wonderful. Fan1967 01:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TotalGirl Magazine[edit]

Delete. Non notable, non-encyclopaediac. May be a self promotion by the author. soUmyaSch 07:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - clear self-promotion ("This magazine is edited by ~~~~) Zetawoof(ζ) 07:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This couldn't be more self-promotion if it tried. JIP | Talk 11:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as egregious vanity. Daniel Case 15:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. What WP does it not fail? WP:V, WP:Vanity and WP:NN at the very least. SorryGuy 18:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you Speedy delete Total Girl, everyone loves it! The vote is edited by--getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- PFHLai 00:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • TotalDelete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 19:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ongar Experiment[edit]

Appares to be an April Fool's hoax: see Talk:The Ongar Experiment -- Karada 07:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax. Danny Lilithborne 10:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article looks like a hoax to me; user's only other contributions were two articles that are now copyvios and a POV edit to a television presenter's page. --Elkman - (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. SorryGuy 18:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per above -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete. Dr Lazlo Pozsgay was a real doctor. My mother was a nurse at the Fyfield Clinical Research Institute and had fond memories of this rather odd man. Dr Pozsgay returned to Hungary at the time of the 1957 uprising and did not return. I myself am now a Doctor and the article is medically correct (more or less). I suspect the writer is not a doctor. I would be interested to know what efforts the other contributors to this discussion have made to verify Dr Pozsgay's work beyond doing a Google search against his name – believe it or not, there is a whole word of knowledge out there that is not on the internet. With thanks Dr John Keyes. 15:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The stuff about Hungary checks out. The medical stuff is in the ball-park if a little short on detail - people have been know to appear significantly younger as consequence of surgery. Overall the article is too boring and obscure to be a hoax. Who would bother making it up? Lansdale 00:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Guynes and Cooper Guynes[edit]

Not notable child actors from a soap opera. I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. --Tone 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--Tone 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, only credits appear to be minor roles. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --lightdarkness (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett, Spencer and Mitchell Gray[edit]

Not notable child actors from a soap opera. I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. --Tone 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--Tone 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A five-year run on a major soap, plus other credits, demonstrates minimally sufficient notability. Monicasdude 19:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defend Your Castle[edit]

Fails to assert the game's notability. Possible speedy deletion candidate. Same goes for Defend your castle, which was created just now with a copyvio cut and paste, then redirected to Defend Your Castle. NTK 07:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I love this game so I have to recuse myself from this vote. Alexa rating of 13,283. Half a million google hits. It also has some associated forums and a pay version. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But does it have an article constructed from verifiable information taken from reliable, third-party sources, or the potential for such an article to be constructed? -- Saberwyn 10:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you need to recuse yourself just because you love the game, given you are a WP editor with a history, as long as you think you can make a proper judgment. But as I write below, the Alexa rank is not for the game, it's for the entire game studio's website. NTK 16:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 11:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep notable flash game and sadly, we do have a lot of articles without third-party sources. Kotepho 14:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I share Saberwyn's concern, but I do believe the potential exists. That Alexa rank number is very good for a flash game, so this is definitely notable; let it remain with a ((cleanup-sources)) tag, and see if it can be improved. Mangojuice 14:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Alexa rank is not for this flash game, but rather for xgenstudios.com's entire website. That rank, incidentally, is 13,283, which is not particularly good for a game studio. Certainly it does not make the game "definitely notable." NTK 16:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The game site is possibly notable (compare Addicting Games) but the individual game isn't notable enough to justify a separate article. --ES2 18:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a very popular game. I have played it before, and it is a notable game, though may not be of much use for serrious gaming. Freddie 01:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with improvements. I came to the defend your castle article looking for more strategies and only found information that is easily found in the game instructions already. I would also like to know more information about when it started, inventor, internet pop culture status, etc.. Cha 1:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.this is a great game and the page is extremly helpful I need this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott and Zachary Benes[edit]

Not notable child actors from a soap opera. I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. --Tone 07:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--Tone 07:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They have three credits. Bhoeble 21:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Child actors at this age are interchangable.  RasputinAXP  c 23:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, they have three credits. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and they've got soap and movie credits. --Tony Sidaway 00:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amy and Emily Walton[edit]

Not notable child actors from a soap opera. I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. --Tone 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--Tone 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but delete the sick-making ga-ga-goo-goo stuff. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC) (no relation)[reply]
  • Keep They've been on one of the top two television programmes in the UK for six years. Bhoeble 21:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When they have their own doll or a multimillion dollar movie, then they're notable as child actors.  RasputinAXP  c 23:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Members of the cast of arguably the most popular soap in Britain. Jcuk
  • Keep per Jcuk, Bhoeble. Monicasdude 19:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RasputinAXP. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Violence[edit]

Delete. Non-notable guitarist in a non-notable band. "Johnny Violence" + "Aces High" gets only one non-Wiki hit. AED 08:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 18:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandritter Productions, Inc.[edit]

Delete. Advertisement for non-notable company. AED 08:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --lightdarkness (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Bradshaw[edit]

Delete. Vanity. Non-notable. AED 08:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Businessrealmz[edit]

Advertising -Obli (Talk)? 08:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -AED 08:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mission is to "Provide a one stop website for all internet users". Wikipedia already has that covered. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Savidan. I hope it's easier to use than "Each websites has up to three categories. Ranking based on its categories(e.g. website belong to parent category appear last when child category was select and vice versa) " suggests! Tonywalton  | Talk 11:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Loechner[edit]

Delete. Non-notable. Vanity. AED 08:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, see [14]; he only has 9 publications in 9 years. Probably isn't notable per WP:PROFTEST, unless his Polyhedral library can be called a significant contribution. Vanity would be irrelevant if he was notable, but as he's borderline, it does concern me. Mangojuice 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not appear to pass the professor test. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfy. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 19:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warlord2000ad[edit]

Prod tag removed, so to AfD it goes. This is a self-written (by User:Jonwillis) vanity bio/profile of a non-notable video game enthusiast. Lots of posts on gaming forums and even being a mod on the Electronic Arts forum don't seem notable enough. Could also be userfied? Canley 08:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -AED 08:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Danny Lilithborne 10:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy --Tone 11:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy --User:warlord200ade 16:32, 14 April 2006 (GMT)
Not to sure if i added my message correctly there, but i admit i should have read the rules more throughly i just glanced over it. What would one have to do to be classed as notable? I know that warlord2000ad is unquie to me and i often get stuff when i join new communities, games etc, hey is that you warlord2000ad from x game, or y game. part of the high end of BFROE now if you have heard of it, basically its like BF2RS but deals with stat padders etc, but running on a online ticketing system sorted out by MYIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Jonwillis (talk • contribs)
They're not rules as such, but the notability guidelines for biographical articles on Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Ideally this article would be userfied, that is copied onto your user page (click on User:Jonwillis, edit and past the text) rather than the main article space. --Canley 08:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ive copied it into my area, thanks for your patience, delete away :P

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 the article. Mailer Diablo 14:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Blasphemy[edit]

Advertisment Sascha.leib 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a farce! Oh everybody is falling all over themselves to keep this page!! Laugh me out the door and DELETE this article page!! Delete Digital Blasphemy and delete waldo's wallpaper too! A sock puppet for "wallpaper vault". Elmo Skidright.

This is an advertising page for one out of a thousand commercial "Desktop Wallpaper" sites. There is no need to give them free advertising space on Wikipedia.

In addition, somebody (presumably somebody from the company) has instantly removed unfavourable additions (like, references to free desktop wallpaper sites) and even unfavourable comments.

  • Delete Jmunchovie 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) I think the site should be deleted as per policy about a site that is commercial and contains advertising - they are a spam site seeking piggyback exposure. Jmunchovie 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert --Tone 09:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC). Ok, changed my mind. Keep but cleanup. --Tone 22:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 10:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. The sooner the better. Just zis Guy you know? 12:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and keep It is a notable internet wallpaper design company (perhaps the most notable given the poor example of a google search, 998,000 for "digital blasphemy"). Sure, wikipedia is not for advertising. But an outline of their contribution to internet and general computer life would sufficient. Ansell 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep they are notable enough by my bar. I'm really tired of seeing that blue, translucent mushroom wallpaper though. Kotepho 14:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep fairly old notable site with a long history on the internet. Here's a link to a posible reference: Interview with creater, Also about 1200 pages link to DB according to Google. As wallpaper websites go, it's the premier in it's field. ---J.Smith 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am the somebody who removed those references to other sites (no idea what unfavorable comments you are referring to though); these were unrelated linkspam. See Wikipedia:External links. Digital Blasphemy is a notable (enough) site. It has been around for nine years (since 1997), and was visited 25681 times yesterday alone. The article mentions a specific claim to notability that satisifies #3 on our Criteria for web content, the use of the wallpapers in Stardock's The Natural Desktop. Nevertheless, I have contacted Ryan Bliss, the owner of the site, asking for more information that satisfies the points on Wikipedia:Notability (websites), and will post it here and in the article as soon as he replies. ~MDD4696 21:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted Ryan...
Date: Apr 13, 2006 9:15 PM
Subject: Information on yourself and your website for Wikipedia

Hello Ryan,

I am an editor on Wikipedia, a site I'm sure you have heard of. The
article on Digital Blasphemy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Blasphemy) was nominated for
deletion today, and I was wondering if you could provide me with any
information that would help me prevent that.

Have you had any interviews or reviews of the site by independant
sources, such as newspapers? Are there any well-known websites or
other organizations that have used your images?

I think that your site is fantastic, and most certainly notable enough
for an article on Wikipedia. However, if we have links or references
to published sources that reference your work, it will make the
article stronger.

Thanks, and keep up the good work!
Michael
...and he promptly replied:
Date: Apr 14, 2006 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: Information on yourself and your website for Wikipedia

Hi Michael,

Thanks for writing.  I had seen the article on Wikipedia a while ago and
thought it was interesting.  Flattering to be included.

Not sure what I can tell you.  My site was named one of the Top 100 sites on
the web by Yahoo Internet Life magazine (now defunct) back in Dec 2000.
I've been mentioned on BBC World (on the Webscape segment) and was mentioned
many times on Tech TVs "The Screensavers".   I had a write up in my hometown
paper, and I'm sure I've been written about in other papers but I can't
think of any specific examples.  To my knowledge, I run one of the most
popular "single artist" galleries online.

The accolades and free press sort of stopped not long after I opened the
members gallery.  Once you start charging for your content, people are more
reluctant to site you as an "online resource".  It's just the nature of the
game I guess.

I'm happy to be included in Wikipedia, but I'll understand if the article
gets deleted.  Let me know if you need anything else.

--
Ryan Bliss
Digital Blasphemy
http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/
~MDD4696 01:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep; Digital Blasphemy is one of the best (subjectively) and oldest wallpaper sites on the Internet.  RasputinAXP  c 23:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the solid grounds of "if I've heard of it outside of Wikipedia it's got to be notable", especially if a) I first heard of the site wayyy back when they were starting up in late 1990s and b) I've seen their wallpapers on completely random computers a few times... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment adverts are generally writen by the companies themselves, not by outside observers. This was originally written as an article. Ojw 17:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep; I have been a visitor to Digital Blasphemy for many years. I think this site has value, proven by the long history of free content and quality of work. By keeping this site in Wikipedia, newbies will be able to access it as well. --Shagy 18:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above Trebor 01:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the use by a software product meets notability criterion 3 of WP:WEB. But on looking at Natural Desktop, that page looks to me to be part of a massive wikispam campaign around Stardock products. The Stardock article is ridiculously long for a minor company, and there are separate articles for dozens of its products. That by itself probably needs some attention and a big merge. I'd also like to know more about the exact relationship between Digital Blasphemy and Stardock. One should not be able to manufacture notability by linking to related products within Wikipedia. Phr 06:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was different consensuses [sic] redirect. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 19:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When 6021 Met 4267[edit]

Should we have articles for single tv-serie-episodes →AzaToth 09:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment; No, but we do in many, many instances... Gardar Rurak 09:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as minor episode from a series so minor the contributor fails to mention it in the article. We are not TV.com. -- Saberwyn 10:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to subsections of main article. --Xorox 12:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is an article on an episode of That's So Raven, there are a couple of other articles on episodes from the same show, see List of That's So Raven episodes. I suggest that those articles be considered a part of this nomination. No vote --Eivindt@c 18:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list of episodes. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2River[edit]

No proof of meeting WP:WEB after having the tag for over a month, and therefore has no notability. Harro5 09:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Just because no one edited the article for a month and a half doesn't mean this isn't a notable topic. WP:WEB doesn't apply, as it turns out, because although 2River is an online magazine, it also publishes in print every quarter. Check out this page which shows that 2River is considered a reputable publication source. Mangojuice 14:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recto ratio factibilium[edit]

Not notable. Maybe Wiktionaryfiable with some quotations. Dangherous 09:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bodytalk[edit]

Is it original research? A5b 09:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - not even enough content for a stub --Sascha.leib 09:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and invite the author to expand it. The cited inventor of the system has a published work. That work is the only Ghit on bodytalk veitheim however just the term 'bodytalk' finds this. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Fast. --Xorox 12:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete snake oil unless we can show evidence of discussions in the medical texts on which to base a verifiably neutral article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JZG and sascha.leib. Mangojuice 13:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quackerycruft. NTK 19:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete frankly in its present state should have been speedied as linkspam-Doc ask? 21:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIFC[edit]

Just a local sports club in Athens, but the focus is on what services the club's fan website offers. Not notable, and just barely above CSD A7. Harro5 09:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh... their football team is AEK Athens FC. They've won the national championship 11 times. Their basketball team is also in the national league. It *isn't* just a local sports club. However, this article is about the sports clubs *webpage*. I can see how you missed that, it's terribly written. In summary, very notable club, but still a non-notable webpage. Delete. Average Earthman 10:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I know the sports teams are extremely notable, but this looked like a plug for the website and an unrelated club. It doesn't say that the club is directly involved with AEK. Harro5 10:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is AIFC the supporters club for AEK? If so, then 'merge to that page. Fan groups are quite well organizaed and notable in the contexct of the team. If its just a bunch of guys who like the team, then Ill change to Delete.Montco 16:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Justin Kussmaul[edit]

Seems to be unverifiable; no Ghits at all on "Andrew Justin Kussmaul" and none relevant on "Andrew Kussmaul". If he's so underground that Google misses him altogether, despite being "leading", he fails WP:V due to being too secret. I'm listing this for AfD in the hope that someone more familiar with the subject matter than I can confirm or deny his existence. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE per author's AfD endorsement. Harro5 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Crosbie[edit]

An "occasional musician" who has only done sporadic colloborations with other similarly unknown musicians, and who has a MySpace site only. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Harro5 10:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, [15]. Also, the article is not properly sourced. PJM 11:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -AED 16:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, you're right. The man's a footnote for now and probably doesn't merit his own entry. Delete as you wish. Ac@osr 11:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Potomac Little League[edit]

Just an article on a small little league baseball competition. Maybe even a CSD A7 candidate as non-notable club/organisation. Harro5 10:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. (Sorry, kids.) -AED 16:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was -speedy deleted --Durin 20:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sample mass[edit]

Dictionary definition which has been transwiki'd to Wiktionary (see Wiktionary:sample mass). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--blue520 10:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as WP:CSD A5 (which really should be re-worded to cover articles which already exist on another Wikiproject, I think). Tonywalton  | Talk 11:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 13:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eivaagames[edit]

Tagged as a speedy for advertising and failing WP:WEB. Both are true but neither is a speedy candidate. I would prefer to ((prod)) but the toolserver is down. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. PJM 11:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Harro5 12:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Maustrauser 12:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thepalace.com[edit]

Webforum with Alexa rank of 375,304 at its secondary location and over 400,000 on its supposedly primary one. Not much to say really, it's just another web forum Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and poor Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge and redirect to The Palace (computer program). I remember this being a pretty popular program about 5 years ago (but then again, personal testimonys don't count), and think that as the main page of the software, it should be redirected to the article on the program (WP:WEB, Note 2). -- Saberwyn 12:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P2P TV Recorder[edit]

Non-notable and spam-ish. Wikipedia is not download.com. The author has linkspammed his products (see also HiDownload). Haakon 11:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as contextless substub. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumoured converts to Islam[edit]

Speedied - this was an snowball and was listed on CSD -- Tawker 03:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC) This is about as unencyclopaedic as they get, surely. A series of rumours can't make a Wikipedia article. Phronima 11:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (to make my vote clear). --Phronima 11:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a rumour mill Maustrauser 11:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not encyclopedic--Irishpunktom\talk 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not relevant for Wikipedia. --Kristjan Wager 12:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the rumours are substantiated by publications from reputable sources. While rumours are WP:OR, referencing them is not. For example: notable conspiracy theories which obviously are at odds with the facts. --Xorox 12:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Substantiated from reliabel sources, you say? So which of the following sources for the Prince Charles is reliable?
  • The Middle East Forum ("Promoting American Interests")
  • Militant Islam Monitor
  • Daniel Pipes' blog
  • Truth for Muslims ("bringing a comprehensive, biblical response to Islam in America")
Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Middle East Forum Quarterly and Evening Standardare reputable, though. Correct me if Im wrong.--Xorox 12:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The Middle East Forum, a think tank, works to define and promote American interests in the Middle East through research, publications, and educational outreach. The Forum's policy recommendations include fighting radical Islam (rather than terrorism), convincing the Palestinians that Israel is permanent, reducing funds going to the Middle East for energy purchases, better managing the democratization process, and more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia. In addition, the Forum works to improve Middle East studies in North America." - no, that sounds a lot like a bunch of POV-pushers, not at all what I would consider a reliable source.
By Evening Standard I presume you mean the ES repeating the claim made in a book, reportedly based on a statement by the Grand Mufti of Cyprus which has (as the article points out) never been confirmed by a reliable source? In other words, hearsay? Just zis Guy you know? 14:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xorox and WP:V which states The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Tonywalton  | Talk 12:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yup, it's about verifiablility not truth. Verfiability from reliable sources, unlike the web forums cited in this article. So let's have a category for converts to Islam. Not a list of rumoured converts, which is subject to two separate problems: repeating other people's unproven speculation; and applying categories to living people without making any change to the person's article which is likely to get seen and challenged by the editor comunity on that article. Also note that there are constitutional implications if Prince Charles were to convert to Islam - the fact that this has not been discussed in the major British news media indicates that as speculation goes it's pretty unlikely. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic, per all above.--Jersey Devil 12:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not relevant for Wikipedia. Rumours are unencyclopedic. Samantha of Cardyke 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - rumours...--Tone 13:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. I appreciate the point about "verifiability, not truth," but the short list and low quality of the sources give me the impression that the purpose of this list is to publicize rumors being circulated about certain individuals by critics of those individuals. Thus it verges on being an attack page. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting Daniel Pipes' views. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. There are many places in the Internet were gossip is published... --Francisco Valverde 13:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Prince Charles rumour is from unreliable sources. The Nation of Islam statement about the other rumour could be merged into the main Michael Jackson entry. Otherwise there is no point to this rumour-mongering. Keresaspa 14:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloids magazine. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This cannot be taken seriously. Rumours, IMO, can be written up in Wikipedia IF there are articles in reputable sources directly and extensively investigating the truth of the rumor. But the links in this article are just self-referencing speculation. Daniel Case 14:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see this list getting us into nine kinds of trouble. Not to mention, what level of rumor is sufficient? If an English King can be claimed to have been a convert because one of his minters cribbed from the Islamic creed as a decorative device, should that make the list? Pat Payne 17:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign :) )[reply]
  • Delete Rumours are by definition unsubstantiated and therefore unsuitable for an encyclopedia. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just no -Doc ask? 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "notable information" here is not that H.R.H. the Prince of Wales is a convert — in which case the reliablity of the source is a big issue — but that the rumour goes around in certain circles that he is a convert — which is reliably and uncontrovertibly substantiated by the given sources. LambiamTalk 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See what I wrote above again. Rumors of and by themselves are unencyclopedic. Rumors about someone or something who is, if they are encyclopedic, if they are seriously investigated elsewhere (no one has had the stones yet, I see, to actually ask The Man Who Would Be Camilla Parker-Bowles's Feminine Protection if he's aslamt or not), can merit a sentence or two in the appropriate article. Not an article in and of themselves. Daniel Case 04:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:V. --Terence Ong 04:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absurd rumors generally do not belong in Wikipedia. --Rob 07:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xorox and Tonywalton's comments. -- Karl Meier 10:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and JzG's other comments. Pepsidrinka 03:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big time Speedy Delete this article was created by a Sock Puppet. Netscott 03:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption-based planning[edit]

Original research (it looks like a student essay). Phronima 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe I'm not clear on what is meant by this criticism. Is this meant to mean it's original research? I think being mentioned in Harvard Business Review (see the other article, assumption based planning) shows that the idea has attracted some attention. Nonetheless, I retract my "strong keep"; that was based on the idea that of the two articles currently existing, this is the better one. I still say weak keep as the content of the two articles together looks important enough and verifiable to me. Mangojuice 13:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tricky. The term gets <1000 ghits, but one of them is a book by the same title from Cambridge University Press - on the other hand, there is preciouslittle evidence that this term is much used. It originates within RAND Corporation, apparently. I'd say if anything here is truly verifiable it could go in an article on the theory's originator, James A. Dewar, if we had one, otherwise it's "just another management theory", of which there is no shortage. This article is, by the looks of it, not much more than a synopsis of Rand's two books on the subject. So delete this. Userfy is also an option, if it's wanted for reference, and if the author wants ot create an article on Dewar, and can show that he meets WP:BIO, I would encourage them to do so. A three-entry structure on a term drawn from one author's books seems a bit excessive, mind! Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term assumption-based planning was indeed used in the book, but there seem to be several "similar" methods of assumption based planning, e.g. Critical assumption planning, 'discovery driven planning' and 'milestone planning'.
  • Delete. A blizzard of tautologies and vacuous abstractions: that kind of prose gives me a headache. Smerdis of Tlön 14:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete process-cruft...--Isotope23 16:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can somebody explain to me what the difference is between writing about a planning method like assumption-based planning and a writing about any other planning method varying from strategic planning (e.g. BCG matix, 5-forces model) to wikipedia's entry about the business plan (which more or less follows the New Venture method and does not follow other "business plan" methods.). Where's the border line between keeping and deleting?
  • It lies at the point where multiple authors are writing multiple non-trivial works about it, and multiple corporations are using it. Just zis Guy you know? 15:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious correct[edit]

It's a poorly-formed neologism, with no clear use. Phronima 12:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Phronima 12:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete barely comprehensible. Just zis Guy you know? 12:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not-notable neologism. --Xorox 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect into Political correctness, although they already have a religious correctness section. Is still a neologism and doesn't have the backing that PC has to be on its own. Should still redirect though, not delete. Someone searching for this term will really get what they want on PC. Ansell 14:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete protologism. I couldn't find any evidence this term has ever been used outside of this article.--Isotope23 16:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not redirect, but feel free to make a redirect from Religious correctness. Mangojuice 17:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, ok, Religious correctness already existed, and was a copy of this same article by the same creator. I changed that one into a redirect. Still say delete this one. Mangojuice 17:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the only person who hasn't said delete so far, I would not have minded if you had redirected the other way, infact, it seems more formal than religious correct. In the end I would not mind if both were redirected into Political Correctness. After all WP is not paper, redirects are free, why not use them. Ansell 01:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else changed it to a redirect to Religious correct; I had redirected it to Politically correct. If this gets kept, then I agree, it should be kept at Religious correctness rather than Religious correct. Mangojuice 14:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus for deletion, but the reed of survival is because of the paragraph about such websites in general, not the list of websites. Hence, I am going with Mangojuice's move to gasoline price website suggestion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of gasoline price websites[edit]

WP:NOT a collection of external lnks. This article, on the other hand, is a collection of external links. Just zis Guy you know? 12:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be kept then it should be expanded to give more international comparisons of gas/petrol prices. Mazzy 12:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. The nomination presents a clear challenge: unverifiable claims. No one has provided anything like a reliable source, and testimony of wikipedia editors about something's notability is insufficient. As to redirection to list of shock sites, while redirects are cheap, they aren't free, and an article having the word "list" in its title doesn't provide exemption from the verification criterion. - brenneman{L} 05:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAI2U[edit]

Appears to be nn website, and only has an article here because of its shock value. We can't keep an article here based only on unverifiable claims; this one has an Alexa rank of 429,006 (not safe from work), so I doubt that this is very popular based on that data. (The site peaked in Alexa rank in November 2005 at around 93,000 Also NSFW). Delete. Mangojuice 12:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect to List of shock sites. Kotepho 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of shock sites. All the information is there anyway. Foolish Child 14:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an important shock site, verifiable. For great justice. 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, does not fall under any of the real criteria for deletion, IMHO. --Knucmo2 18:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of shock sites. It's there already. NTK 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (or, failing that, delete). Alexa rank is pretty poor, and the article is unreferenced and even says "The website falsely claims that it has been referenced by Time Magazine and The New York Times". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of shock sites. The immensely more well known shock sites, like tubgirl or goatse are redirected, so why have a seperate page soley for this? --68.60.18.222 19:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (or, failing that, delete) per Andrew Lenahan, is about right. "Word of mouth" is just code for unverifiable. Melchoir 07:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean-up. I'm changing my vote. This website is noteable, however the article does need clean-up and more information. Foolish Child 12:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes you think it's notable? Melchoir 06:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought it was notable from the start, just that the article in its current state provides little that isn't on its List of shock sites entry. And I believe its notable because of the vast number of people that know of it. Foolish Child 11:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree it's probably notable. My problem with it has more to do with WP:V. Can anyone back up the popularity of this with an outside source? I doubt it. Mangojuice 14:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. RexNL 14:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, quite well known shock site. bbx 13:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a very notable site for people who don't live in their own sheltered little worlds. Skinmeister 18:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough. Rhobite 02:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why is there an article about a picture of a woman puking on a guy's penis? Worthless. If you keepers like it so much, maybe you should print it out and frame it. Erik the Rude 03:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this shock site is notable enough Yuckfoo 04:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable shocksite... not quite as well known as Goatse guy but damn close.  ALKIVAR™ 05:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The List of "Shock Site" is enough and already too much for my taste. Just an explanation what "Shock Sites" are (no links) should be sufficient--Roy-SAC 07:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge with The Futureheads since at least two have actually called for that result (even though "delete" is the bolded word). Merge and delete is not an option since it violates the GFDL license. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decent Days and Nights[edit]

Poorly written article about an individually un-notable single by The Futureheads. Previously prod tagged, de-prodded by anonymous user. Merge into The Futureheads and Delete ::Supergolden:: 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Programmable Incandescent Regulator[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable enough. Googling "Programmable Incandescent Regulator" yields 3 results. Akamad 12:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wik/Cathedral and John Connon School[edit]

Appears to be a redundant temp version of Cathedral and John Connon School, which is a decent enough article. Merge anything relevant and Delete ::Supergolden:: 12:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete merge with Cathedral and John Connon School --PhiJ 20:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, probable copyvio. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Henry 'Bob' Burns[edit]

Delete This article´s dispute is due to Original research, see Talk page. The article was listed PROD, but will need consensus, due that the dispute is just between me and the original researcher. Francisco Valverde 13:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further To Above I've removed the prod, and made changes to the article. The article is till subject to discussion, and a wider consensus. In the mean time, I've listed a few external references. Not much is online, probably due to Burns having died ashortly before the internet took-off. The Guiness Book of World Records website doesn't appear to list the record for loudest human voice. A great many print sources are undoubtedly availible, as Burns was the subject of countless newspaper and magazine articles. He also appeared often on television in North America. Print references will be forthcoming. Seán Pòl Ó Creachmhaoil --Aodhdubh 13:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per lack of verifiable information from Reliable sources and proxy violation of WP:NOR. This article's text is adapted from a geocities page. Other external links make mention of Burns, but indicate nothing more than his existance. If this can be verifiably sourced I will reconsider, but right now it's basically original research posted on geocities then posted here with a reference back to the site containing the original reseach.--Isotope23 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged I would be interested to know more about where this information originated before I called it original research as differentiated from research based on primary sources that the author may have unique access to. Thatcher131 16:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. As I said above if sources are provided (and per the author's statements this may have to take the form of printed sources) I'm completely willing to retract my deletion opinion. WP:V and WP:RS are the biggest problems here, IMO.--Isotope23 17:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should not try to delete articles when you are having a content dispute. That said, I fail to see where the article asserts the notability of the subject. What were his military accomplishments that set him apart from other soldiers who served in WWII and retired with the rank of Major (or are all Majors notable)? Other than that, he is listed in the Guiness Book with the loudest voice. Regardless of whether this is original research, person seems non-notable. Thatcher131 16:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPdrum Mobile Skype Solution[edit]

  • Delete, Adverting, non notable product. blue520 13:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Advertising and trying to hide AFD message by changing (colour of text to white!!) I have also added a speedy deletion notice. Jrinaldi 13:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatantly deceitful advert. --MarcoTolo 16:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per above. Also why skype if you are paying for a cell phone?? Mike (T C) 17:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason why this page should be considered advertising. Conduct a Google search on IPdrum, and see the number of hits.

When the product was launched, it was on the CNBC Breaking News, and with more than 60,000 Google hits, it can hardly be referred to as a non notable product. Skype on the mobile phone is a revolutionary innovation! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ipdrum hb (talk • contribs) .

    • It's important to include notability information in the article. Please see WP:CORP for guidelines. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have redirected triplicate articles Ipdrum Mobile Skype Solution and Ipdrum mobile skype solution to the one currently under discussion. The content was identical and I assume the redirects can be deleted with the target if that's the result of the AfD. You might also note the related article IPdrum. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:DJ Clayworth. Kotepho 17:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Butterflies of India (Riodinidae)[edit]

First delete request. Stupidly made a duplicate page by adding extra word 'the' in front of the word 'Butterflies'. List of Butterflies of India (Riodinidae) exists, is correct and will be maintained. This page is now redundant. AshLin 13:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Quinn[edit]

Doesn't seem notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Akamad 13:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or prove notability. --Francisco Valverde 13:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The incident is true, but while quite outrageous, doesn't seem to be something to base an article upon. Perhaps it could be merged with a relevant Irish history article. For what it's worth, Ellen Quinn was also Ned Kelly's mom's name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BetBonus[edit]

Promotion of a non-notable website with an Alexa rank of over 500.000. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect to David Walker (writer). Where (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; article seems to be advertising with no claim of notability over other relevant web sites. The meaningful content about David Walker's articles could be merged as above. --Elkman - (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloviate[edit]

Dictionary definition, already on Wiktionary. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain this article has information about the history of the word that isn't in the wiktionary entry. The question is, is Wikipedia a etymological dictionary? Personally, I think the answer is no, and think that the info should go to wiktionary, but I don't know much about wiktionary and what is acceptable there, so I abstain. Where (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article can be expanded; a suggestion about how this could be done is already there. Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, dicdef. NTK 19:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge and redirect to Warren G. Harding with whom the word is associated. This does seem like a dicdef with limited possibilities for expansion, though it does have some notability as a word whose coinage is commonly, though apparently mistakenly, attributed to Harding (normalcy is another). I recall first coming across it in Neal Wilgus' zine Room 101 Revisited, in which he was trying to repopularize the term[16]. In William Safire's How Not to Write: The Essential Misrules of Grammar Safire writes that it is "an Americanism combining 'blow-hard' with 'deviation'" which I had never heard before. The Word Detective by Evan Morris found an early printed source for the word. There's also a good example of Harding's bloviation in Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush by Allan Metcalf, where he's also called "The Great Bloviator." Шизомби 20:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this gets redirected I would redirect it to Bill O'Reilly Which is where I , and my good guess, most people today know it from. EnsRedShirt 07:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • stong keep The page can easily be expanded to touch upon the many richs bloviations in American politics. It can not be re-directed to Warren Harding or Bill O'Reilly, because the word has been used in many contexts. While these are relevant uses of 'bloviate,' the word stands on its own. Moreover, Bloviate does not belong in the wiktionary because it is a rich concept and not merely a word. Concepts like synergy and Republicrat have their own entries, yet can also be given dictionary style definitions. Expand the entry by fleshing out the history and use of the concept.
  • keep While entry should be expanded, bloviate is a word much more rich in cultural value and context than its dicdef would suggest, and so deserves to be in Wikipedia instead of (or possibly in addition to) Wiktionary. Balazs 10:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep "Synergy" and "Republicrat" are good comparisons. "Bloviate" deserves a Wikipedia entry in addition to one in Wiktionary as a word that originated and continues to be used in a particular political and cultural context.
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikitionary is the appropriate place for this. A word primarily used on a single TV talk show does not belong in an encyclopedia. RobLinwood 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But O'Reilly's use of the word taps into widely used concept. What about the wiki entry on synergy? This too is "a word" yet also stands for an idea with a rich history.
  • keep Agree with above, bloviate has cultural context that makes it appropriate for an encylopedia.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 band vanity/spam. - Mike Rosoft 18:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Own Mess[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND requirements. No page on allmusic.com Akamad 13:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete I think a ((db-band)) might have been better. Article makes no claim of notability. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn band Where (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7 and marked as such. Alba 17:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 14:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian inventions[edit]

Cruft with one listing. I realize it can be expanded but I suggest we kill it off until someone with say 3-4 items for the list comes along.

  • delete per nom. I tagged PROD on it before I realized that PROD is not working. Neier 14:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How so is PROD not working? In any case, the article is refreshingly short :) LambiamTalk 02:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it without previewing, and when the article came up, the PROD box had big red letters telling me to not use PROD because the toolserver was down or something. I think that may be why User:Gardar Rurak moved it from PROD to AFD. Neier 04:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, there is no real meaning in saying delete until it gets expanded. It can't be expanded if you delete it. There are enough inventions to fill more than one list, someone just has to put them up. Its fine as a stub. Ansell 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do we have a List of European inventions? List of South American inventions? There are only so many continents after all, do we really want to make every invention ever get added to one of them? Here is a better list, limited in scope, yet, dare I say it, 400% more complete than the current article. Four Great Inventions of ancient China. I am sure there are better ones yet. -- GRuban 17:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete China invented gunpowder. Mesopotamia invented the wheel. How are these things related? It would be an indiscriminate collection of information if expanded. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unrelated list per CanadianCaesar. bikeable (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list with one item. I'd probably vote to delete ANY list with just one item, but in this case the one item may not even be accurate. From the gunpowder article: "Gunpowder is considered one of the Four Great Inventions of the Chinese, though in fact it is not known whether it was first invented in China." Enough said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I would say delete even a list of Chinese inventions, but a list of everything invented in an entire continent is just ludicrous. I find the stub insulting. NTK 19:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE NTK 19:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Mount Rushmore images[edit]

Wikipedia is not a Collection of photographs or media files. All the images were moved to commons and linked to from the main article. CG 13:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, its basically just the end of a transwiki move to here. Ansell 14:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've moved the page to commons, but I prefered to be on the safe side and to nominate it. CG 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A5 and marked as such. Alba 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Uddingston railway station . -Doc ask? 21:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uddington station[edit]

Misnamed duplicate of Uddingston railway station. Poorly written to boot, merged only relevant bit into the proper article, so delete. ::Supergolden:: 14:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect Kotepho 14:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirected -- I've been bold again. Life is too short to waste on obvious redirects. Alba 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, but why not request an article on the sociologist fellow? Proto||type 14:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Nisbet[edit]

who is this guy? Intangible 14:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak delete. 86 Google hits, topmost being this and Workplace bullying. Not all come back to this guy, though, and it seems like what he's doing is interesting enough to be notable. If the creator or someone could provide more specific instances of notability I'd vote keep. Daniel Case 14:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Obviously you did not look at these pages. Only the top two pages refer to this Robert Nisbet; most of the rest refer to the sociologist (1913-1996). Clearly the person who edited the "Workplace Bullying" page was Mr. Nisbet himself. We need an article on Robert A. Nisbet the sociologist, not some no-name consultant. Monsieur Tode 06:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be nice to have an article about this sociologist Nisbet. Intangible 01:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete' Proto||type 14:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PESFan.com[edit]

Alexa rank of 93,663, failing WP:WEB. Written in a very promotional style to boot Daniel Case 14:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete adcruft. Alba 17:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A thriving internet community. unsigned vote by CharlieA (talk · contribs)
  • Keep A great resource for information and advice on a massive videogame. unsigned vote by Danstringer (talk · contribs), user's first and only edit
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB.  RasputinAXP  c 23:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 14:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed check[edit]

Unsure of notability or appropriateness, but the article was created by the user Urgemedia, the same name as the creating firm. DJ Clayworth 14:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - neither notable nor appropriate, adcruft. NTK 19:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (yeesh, just speedy this stuff) Proto||type 14:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Burke (actor)[edit]

I thought about prodding this until I saw the last graf: "Burke, an independent film writer and financier, writes under an unknown pseudonym. He is probably best known for his friendship with actors Matt Damon and Ben Affleck." So many words when only two would do: "not notable." I was going to speedy it as vanity but that would be an insult to vanity as no one would put such a badly lit picture of themselves into a vanity article. Daniel Case 15:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. -- I@n ≡ talk 15:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unknown anything.  RasputinAXP  c 23:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He writes under an unknown pseudonym. Maybe the pseudonym's notable. He isn't. Fan1967 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 14:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Girard[edit]

Independent filmmaker and musician with no IMdb listing. Daniel Case 15:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete IMO, an IMDB listing is a bare minimum notability criteria for filmmakers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An IMDB listing is necessary but not sufficient for notability in this industry. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was hmmm ... let's redirect to Endpin for now. All info remains in the history, though, if anything needs extracting to the destination article. Proto||type 14:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black hole (musical equipment)[edit]

Article devoted to a single brand of cello endpin stop. Mentions one other brand, but there are dozens if not bzillions of similar products not mentioned, as well as home-made types. Perhaps could be moved without redirect to Endpin anchor or some such article. Just plain Bill 15:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article name not mentioned in edit summary on log page. oops. Just plain Bill
  • Undecided my youngest is a cellist, and we actually own one of these. It works very well. I wasn't aware it was a tradename; if there are many brands, what is the generic name? As an item I would say it is more deserving of an article than a lot of fictional subjects we keep, because it is an interesting, useful and curious item (non-cellists often get a light-bulb moment when they realise what it's for and how simple it is). Just zis Guy you know? 21:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just created a stub Endpin stop for the generic item. Black hole (disambiguation) now has a line pointing to that stub. I've read elsewhere that the "Black Hole" has an excellent grip on slick floors. I use a slip of pine about 3/8" thick with a loop of nylon parachute cord around the chair legs. For me, the price of scrounged material is always right. ;-) Just plain Bill 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article and / or give it a Redirect to the new Endpin stop stub by Just plain Bill. The information in the article is useful but a generic titled article is preferrable Ande B 08:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Back when I played, we called it a "rock stop", as in the article here. That said, Bill's suggestion works just fine for me, and there's also some related content at Endpin. -Colin Kimbrell 17:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both Endpin stop and Endpin anchor now redirect to Endpin, which has a section containing the info seen up to now. Seems to me like that's the place to put any more content that shows up. Just plain Bill 04:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep after historical support (for the existence and notability of person, not for the accuracy of the description, which was apparently erroneous) was found [17]. Will rename to Liu Shao (Three Kingdoms) to distinguish with the Liu Song emperor. --Nlu (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Shao[edit]

I can't find any historical basis for this article, from either Sanguo Zhi (from either Sun Quan's [18] or Lu Xun's biography [19] or Zizhi Tongjian [20]. Delete if continues to lack textual support. --Nlu (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 14:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaQuad[edit]

Delete. Receives a fair number of Google hits (something to be expected from an "online marketing company"), but nothing to establish notability. AED 16:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as contextless substub. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 14:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zwang[edit]

Delete - Localized slang. Originally prodded. Author removed prod. Claims well used in Quebec. Montco 16:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Delete per nom. NTK 19:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 02:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglais Personnalisé[edit]

Delete. Self-promotion. Article was created by User:Ilagleti, "the internet persona of Kelly Johnson, the president of Montreal, QC, Canada based Anglais Personnalisé". AED 16:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --lightdarkness (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dastard[edit]

Non-notable vanity page article

I initially speedy deleted this article but the original editor questioned this and I said I would bring it up for a AfD vote. Alabamaboy 17:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Alabamaboy 17:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously a vanity ad, the writing sounds like something off a "band biography" off of an official website. Pat Payne 17:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite it being an impressive effort to put in all the links and formatting. Jono 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yup, smells like vanity to me. rouenpucelle
  • Delete. The article title isn't even capitalized correctly. Disgraceful. :) Optichan 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although it may later attain notability if it becomes recognised as the band with the greatest turnover of members ;) BigBlueFish 16:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Titans (continuity controversy)[edit]

Initially prod'd as "Orignal research", Delete for that same reason. --InShaneee 17:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not verifiable (acknowledge by the original author below), thus original research. -AED 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)edited 19:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Hopelessly unverifiable. I've given the original editor a challenge: find a print source to cite for this phenomenon and I will change my vote. However I think the small section in Teen Titans (TV series) was more than suitable. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 17:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. --Several Times 18:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Looks really well done, but this information more belongs on a fan site. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately this really is hopelessly unverifiable. How can one verify a controversy within a small animated series fandom? That's like two people having an argument behind closed doors, and then asking a random stranger on the street what the argument was about. It's just not an issue that will ever affect mainstream society, and is only verifiable through anonymous sources in forums dedicated to said series. --Venomaru 18:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why myself and Malber both believe that the blurb in the Teen Titans article is sufficient. It's sometimes okay to use message boards/blogs to state that there IS a debate, but to go into specifics, we'd need something more. --InShaneee 18:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least you should try making the blurb a tiny bit more neutral, as it tends to come across as pro-out-of-continuity, rather than it could go either way (given the facts at hand). I don't see the harm in my article, it was designed only to elaborate more on the topic at hand, but do what you gotta' do. --Venomaru 19:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's something to discuss on the talk page for that article. --InShaneee 19:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete CSD A3 Just zis Guy you know? 21:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHSS[edit]

just one messed-up link rouenpucelle 17:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A little cleanup normally fixes this kind of thing, but the article content appears to be non-notable as well. --Several Times 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as virulent vanispamcruftisement with no chance here; drags the project down and simply not worth the effrot of cleaning up the spam and vanity links for the duration of AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 21:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PHP Blog Manager[edit]

Ad for a brand-new piece of software that editor created for his wife; spammed several blog-related articles with links to this article · rodii · 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genism[edit]

A "new philosophy". 600-odd google hits, but most are to very different meaning of the term; for example, the second hit on google points to a lecture in which the term is defined completely different [21]. Prod disputed by author. Delete per WP:NFT. bikeable (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep Proto||type 14:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan M. Newmark[edit]

Appears to just be a college proffessor of no notability. If it's kept it at least needs to have something added to the first paragraph to explain who this guy actually is. Tango 17:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A badly structured lead is not a deletion criterion. Not a "college professor", but a research professor and head of department at a major university (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, among other prestigious societies. Received the National Medal of Science, and the John Fritz Medal and several other awards. The American Society of Civil Engineers has named a medal after him.[22]. He was "widely known for his research in structural engineering and structural dynamics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for his contributions to the design of earthquake-resistant structures—including the Latino Americana Tower in Mexico City—and, most recently, for his work on the design of the trans-Alaska pipeline." [23] u p p l a n d 19:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Let me just add that I know far too little (which is to say absolutely nothing) about Newmark's line of work, so I am not willing to try to rewrite the article. But I'm pretty sure there are people around who can do that. u p p l a n d 20:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article appears to me to be plagiarized from somewhere, so it needs to be rewritten, not deleted. But as a recipient of the National Medal of Science, which is a pretty major national award, and all the reasons cited above, he was more than just another professor. Also his work on the Torre Latinoamericana, doing the engineering that made it withstand earthquakes, was notable in that it made the building itself notable. (In the interests of full disclosure and adjusting for POV, he was a distant cousin of mine, but I never met him.) Bruxism 19:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Withdraw It looks like I might have been mistaken here - the article doesn't actually mention any of these medals, which might well make him notable. Looking closer, I missed one of the medals on the "what links here" page, and the other has his name mispelt (as does the articles reference) as Newark. Google finds hardly any hits for the alternative spelling, so I expect is is the same man as is just a mistake. The article needs serious rewriting, but I guess it's worth keeping. I withdraw the deletion request (BTW, how do I actually do that?). --Tango 20:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I would have said delete as a copyright violation. The article has many signs of being a copyright violation. It even has "figure 1" in the text. However, I have been unable to find the source of the text. -- Kjkolb 23:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge/redirect (should have just been redirected in the first place) Proto||type 14:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The iTheater Group[edit]

Not Relevant, Should be merged with iTheater if not just deleted. mcwiggin 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with iTheater It should go where the main article goes (including deletionspace if necessary). -- Saberwyn 22:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 14:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concise Freeware[edit]

Page is advertising spam ES2 18:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertising. Looks like it's copied right off of their website. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --Several Times 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Haakon 18:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Proto||type 14:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vc-net[edit]

Non-notable spam copyvio from [24]. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Haakon 18:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 14:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual actors[edit]

Originally created as Gay Actors (and only contains the men). The list's counterpart, Lesbian actresses, has been nominated for deletion and is bound to be deleted. I am nominating this list as well, for consistency. No vote. - Mike Rosoft 18:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is what categories are for. The article itself has precisely zero encyclopaedic content. Categories have two massive advantages over lists like this: they are self-maintaining; and the addition of a category to a person who does not self-identify as LGBT will be seen and reverted by editors familiar with the article subject, so there is much less chance of error. Just zis Guy you know? 21:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Further have been identified as such by others is an unacceptable criterion - particularly with a totally unreferenced list. Being identified (alleged) as gay does not mean it is true, or even neccessarily probable. --Doc ask? 21:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. If needed categories would be more maintainable (per JzG), though I actually dislike a similiar category as well. My view is somebody's sexual orientation should only be recorded by us, if it's actually something discussed substantially, as something signficant, in reliable sources. That is, more then mere proof the label is true, is needed for it to be encyclopedic. --Rob 03:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1) Should be a cat (or multiple cats) 2) Why does everyone that is not strictly heterosexual need to be lumped together? Gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals are all there own things (and I would argue that there are sub-orientations in each group such as butch-fem, lipstick, butch, femme, etc). This list comes off a bit like have one called List of Black, Latino, and Asian actors. I am a strong supporter of equal rights for all of these people in terms of marriage, adoption, etc, and I understand the need to pool resources together in order to gain political capital, but on wikipedia we should be careful about lumping people together based on an assumption that different groups have something in common based soley on being outside of mainstream Judeo-Christian sexual mores. Really this list is a list of actors who have happened to have had sex with people of their own gender. youngamerican (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG. —Whouk (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This kind of issue will simply work better under categories and sub-categories. Verloren Hoop 22:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - I suppose I could have relisted it, but it wouldn't make much difference. Both voters seem to have done their homework. Proto||type 14:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Habbocentral[edit]

Contested prod. Appears to fail WP:WEB. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. Alexa ranking of over 1.5 million. Seems rather dubious to claim "millions of fans" when the website ranks so low, unless those fans are for the main Habbo Hotel. Either way, this article makes no claim that this is any more notable than any other Habbo Hotel fansite. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Claim of "millions of fans" is not sourced and seems very dubious. At best this could be an external link off of Habbo Hotel.--Isotope23 18:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete as hoax. Proto||type 14:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wise Old Salmon[edit]

Google for "wise old salmon" (in quotes) doesn't give much, and add shamen, or "never eat beans" to the search gives nothing else. It also has no external links to look at for reference PhiJ 18:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete them all.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Shot in the Arm[edit]

I am also nominating:

Delete - not every song by your favorite band is notable. Perhaps keep the singles, whichever those are, but not every single track by Wilco ever. Wickethewok 18:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 'em all. You should have tagged them though, even though it's a pain. NTK 18:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom... and have fun tagging!--Isotope23 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep singles, and delete or possibly redirect the rest. bikeable (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of those are even songs, at least two are albums! Keep singles and albums, delete the rest if they have no substantial content, else merge and redirect to the albums. Also, Candyfloss should redirect to Cotton candy. Muzzle of Bees should redirect to Beard of bees. Reservations should redirect to Reservation. Kamera should redirect to Camera. I hate group nominations, and this is exactly why. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all; let God sort 'em out. -AED 20:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot. Every single one of these "articles" is the same: foo is a song by the band Wilco, from their album bar. Note to author: if you can't be arsed to even tell us whether it was released as a single, don't be surprised when I can't be arsed to expand your fancruft for you. What you are saying with these articles is "I like Wilco enough to make a copy-and-paste article for every song but not to actually put any effort whatsoever into those articles". Seriously. Just zis Guy you know? 21:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dylan 23:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all. Nuke 'em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.  RasputinAXP  c 23:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are pretty much all one-sentence entries which provide little room for expansion. Cosign with RasputinAXP. Danny Lilithborne 01:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep singles, redirect the less notable songs. Royboycrashfan 01:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom--Zxcvbnm 01:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG. Redirects to various locations may be appropriate afterwords. Melchoir 02:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and reasons above. Funnybunny 02:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to the albums they are from. ...Scott5114 03:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, nn songs. --Terence Ong 03:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per JzG, though redirects to the albums might work. Borderline speedy, as far as I'm concerned. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep singles and redirect others, per Roy --Hyperbole 04:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a Wilco fan, I have a sticker on my car. But nuh-uh to all these. Keep per Royboycrashfan. T K E 04:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, I'm kinda upset the user didn't include the songs from Being There T K E 04:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh but wait, they did. Someone with the time, could you look at the contributions for User:JeffTweedyIsGod? I'm off to bed, but I figure there's more out there. Wickethewok has notified the user, and they are civil about it. T K E 04:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep singles, redirect others, per Royboycrashfan et alia. Fishhead64 06:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Just zis Guy you know. We really do not need this sort of thing. SorryGuy 07:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree, but Wilco is a Grammy winning group; singles should be kept. No luck falling asleep...sighs. TeKE 07:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC) <~ Hey, new sig![reply]
  • Speedy Delete the whole cacophonous lot of them; there is no assertion of notability on any. If the original author wants to assert that any particular track entry is notable -- winning a major award in its own right -- then that's different. RGTraynor 15:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, nn. Sheehan (Talk) 08:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. --Tone 10:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per NTK. -- Kjkolb 12:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 15:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to AMG,[25] Outtasite (Outta Mind) is Wilco's only charting single, and (ironically enough) that one doesn't have an article. Don't know whether any others were released but didn't chart. -Colin Kimbrell 17:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all An article about their album is enough. Bige1977 17:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to inform all that the editor who created these was not familiar with WP policy at the time he created these. I believe he is in agreement with the deletion at this current time, although I don't claim to speak on his behalf. Wickethewok 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks Wick. Sorry for any trouble I've caused... I'll look around for something else to contribute with. JeffTweedyIsGod 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - We were all new once, so no worries. :) Wickethewok 19:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. - Rynne 14:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. --84.168.217.177 16:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as long as they are actual songs, why not keep the pages. just expand them. Pooja.bhatt
    • Ummm - an article on every song ever? Seems like a poor idea to me... Wickethewok 23:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pooja - I recommend you check up on some WP policy/precedent before voting on AFD. Welcome to WP btw! Wickethewok 23:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - note the above user is a big sockpuppeteer, as seen in other AFDs. Wickethewok 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • COMMENT to Wickethewok Just because I just created an account does not mean that I do not know how Wikipedia works. Your pompous and arrogant attitude is noted and completely unappreciated. Back off. Pooja.bhatt
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, ((deletedpage)) added and protected. --Durin 19:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Chantel Rodriguez[edit]

Unverifiable, non-notable vanity page. Speedily deleted three times and recreated... again. Accurizer 18:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD:A7 and tagged as such. "Claim" to notability is that she won the art contest at the "The National Cherry Blossom Festival" in 2001. Claim is unsourced. Probably a good idea if the closing admin page protects this so her boyfriend stops recreating this page.--Isotope23 19:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Http file server[edit]

Fails to establish notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Had tagged this ((prod)), but User:Rawbanana who has only edited this article, removed it. Seems to be vanity/advertisement NTK 18:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Rawbanana's reply I'm not affiliated with this software in any way. However, I feel that it is a unique and revolutionary software that deserves to be recognized in Wikipedia. Please also understand that this is my first article and I do not really understand how to edit articles properly or format it properly for Wikipedia.

I edited my original submission thinking that it had added enough to justify entry into Wikipedia. If that is not enough and you still feel this article is not worthy, please delete it. In the meantime, I will try to learn more about the Wikipedia system and see if I can fulfill the Wikipedia requirements.

Note the information I have used in the article is primarily from the forums http://www.rejetto.com/forum/index.php?c=6 or from Sourceforge.net. I have tried to be neutral as much as possible. Again I didn't realize new entries were so hard to be approved for Wikipedia and I will try to read up on what this submission is missing. Should I have left the ((prod)) for someone else to remove? Oh well...

You may remove ((prod)) tags from articles you create, but if you do so you should put something on the talk page justifying why you think it should be included, similar to what you wrote above. Please read over the guidelines at WP:SOFTWARE, and also WP:NOR. In short as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not be used to promote "relatively unknown" products, persons, or ideas. It should be used to document things that are already notable in their own right. NTK 20:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looking at the article a stable full-featured version was only released last month, which I guess explains why there is no evidence of market share, innovation, iomportance, influence, non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources etc. Which means we can't verify the neutrality of the article. WP:SOFTWARE appears to apply. Just zis Guy you know? 21:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unknown anything is not notable.  RasputinAXP  c 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Notability I read the Wikipedia Notability article and wikipedia and understand that all a software needs is 1 3rd party award to be notable. HFS has 1 3rd party award from www.snapfiles.com in 2004. A 2minute appearance and recommendation by a popular independent media website such as Hak5.org also seems notable. HFS only appears on these websites due to its unique functionality although its growth is among psp and international users instead of within the professional networking crowd. A quick google for "psp hfs" will also show many results. I've also updated some sources and wording on the main "http file server" page. Rawbanana 09:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 00:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streptocarpus (jazz group)[edit]

This (badly-written and apparently incomplete) article appears to fail WP:MUSIC. I also found it impossible to verify. Delete. Joel7687 18:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clearly a non-notable band. Only a couple unique hits on Google, and only from Wikipedia mirror sites. All the other hits refer to pages about the plant genus "streptocarpus" that happen to have the word "jazz" somewhere on the site. Aplomado - UTC 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable band, tagged it.  RasputinAXP  c 00:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete - the arguments of the 2 non-anon, non-first-contribution 'keep' voters are tenuous, at best, and the arguments to delete are way more convincing. Proto||type 13:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YAAFM[edit]

A non-notable cartoon on a non-notable website. Most of the google hits on this phrase are because it's a rather common phrase on the internet. Prod was removed without comment. Aplomado - UTC 18:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Weak keep. I've seen the cartoons, and while it may not be as big an internet meme as, say, Jibjab was back 'round Election time, it does seem to have a strong following, and the creators got enough of a response to two of their cartoons (Michael Moore and Scientology) to where they felt justified placing essays on their site to defend the decision to lambaste them. Pat Payne 20:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Flash cartoons. Especially those where the article presents no evidence of notability (like this one). What marks this out form the several gazillion other Flash cartoons out there? It don't say. Just zis Guy you know? 21:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete pending better evidence of notability. From the article: "The series stars Reginald, a purple horned demon who spews insults and swearwords in a sophisticated fashion." That's an oxymoron, sorry, pal. Getting criticized for some bits of parody, and writing defenses of the efforts, is not enough to meet WP inclusion standards. Were the criticisms widely reported in the sort of media which uses editors, fact-checkers, and so forth? Barno 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Good point. I had just assumed that the fact that they had to go through the trouble of justifying their stances in those two instances meant that there was more buzz on the net over it. But I haven't seen anything in too many news sites about it (and none on GoogleNews), so while I'm still for keeping it, it's now a Weak Keep. I enjoy the site but perhaps it's not as notable as it could be. Also, yep. I don't know of anyone (with the exception of Darren McGavin in A Christmas Story who can swear in a sophisticated way. :) Pat Payne 21:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Buy an ad. Somewhere else. NTK 23:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable series. --Billpg 00:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn like 99,9% of all Flash cartoons. Sandstein 10:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Funny flash movies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.55.176.66 (talk • contribs) on April 19, 2006.
User 86.55.176.66 has made less than 10 contributions to Wikipedia. Aplomado - UTC 22:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems drastic to delete an article such as this, which does get hits, when there are so many other articles that do not. 82.5.173.40 20:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is user 82.5.173.40's 2nd contribution to Wikipedia. Aplomado - UTC 22:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 00:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muppet City Forum[edit]

  • Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB or be particular notable. Wickethewok 19:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - Do we have to? :P Umm.. yes we MUST! Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the article: "...almost twenty members...". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not quite notable just yet. --Optichan 20:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was a hearty and enthusiastic keep. Proto||type 13:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pet de Kat Krewe[edit]

  • Delete - vanity article about a nn group. Wickethewok 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to weak delete - article creator has added a mention of notability since nomination, though it still seems to be borderline delete imo. What group-bio criteria does it meet specifically? Wickethewok 20:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does seem to have a decent amount of press attention. Their website cites articles from the New Orleans Times-Picayune (two articles), Miami New Times, and others. They've also been on the official schedule of New Orleans Jazzfest (and that is a BIG event!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many Mardi Gras krewes are notable, and this one seems to be, with multiple chapters around the country and a good number of Google hits. A silly-sounding name doesn't always mean non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest of possible keeps. As Mardi Gras krewes go, it looks like this one has some importance and might be worth noting. NTK 23:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 

Speedy Delete. LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S Net[edit]

WP:WEB WP:VAIN Non-notable web site John Nagle 19:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable web site. One (1) hit in Google other than the site itself. Original article apparently posted by website owner. Web site composed almost entirely of ads. Article also promotes non-notable band. Previously tagged by others with "advertising", "prod" ("Make it go away! Please!"), and "prod2". Deletion tags removed by anon editor without significant article improvement. So we have to do this the hard way. --John Nagle 19:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. Vanity articles qualify for speedy, don't they? Danny Lilithborne 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It should be noted that the original author has removed deletion notices from this article multiple times. -- Tangotango 14:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied Non-notable. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. W.marsh 20:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yogurt lids[edit]

i created it as a joke... now i'm deleting it Safinuk 19:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete ((db-author)) Gwernol 20:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was deteel detele delete. Proto||type 13:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typolexia[edit]

Neologism, gives no evidence of verifiable use (alas, "forums.somethingawful.com" doesn't usually meet WP:RS)... probably just exists as a joke mostly. W.marsh 19:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edeltee damn that typolexia! Perhaps worth one-way a trip to BJAODN. Just zis Guy you know? 20:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spiedie balete. Nt wrth kping. NTK 22:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hope you got :10bux: Kotepho 00:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom --blue520 00:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baleeted per that first guy. Danny Lilithborne 00:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • deteel. pre evreunne. Freddie 02:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all 3. Proto||type 13:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FM Music, Tiernan Millar, Niall Finnegan[edit]

No evidence that this record label/promotional company meets WP:CORP, especially as it has never signed any artists; Millar and Finnegan are its founders. The Millar article has already gone through an AFD so I've speedy tagged it but the other two haven't. --TM 19:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, clearly. NTK 22:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never signed any artists? Factory Records never signed any artists either, they had a piece of paper with some kind of shoddy agreement on it but nothing more, yet Wikipedia has a huge article for Factory and no none has considered deleting it. If this is the case then surely every single record label stub and article about an independant record label should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macphisto (talk • contribs)
Before the prod tag was added, the article even stated that it ceased acting as a record label since it hadn't signed any artists: "By January 2006 FM:Music had failed to secure deals with any of the bands it promotes. FM:Music ceased opperating as a record label and relaunched solely as a promotions agency". Factory represented notable bands like Joy Division and New Order, unlike FM Music. --TM 12:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, delete the article. Delete every article relating independent record labels. Sure why not just delete Wikipedia. Is the purpose of this website not to collect information? No matter how insignificant some of you may think this article is it makes no mind. This article is as important as any other.
Actually, Wikipedia is not an "indiscriminate collection of information". --TM 00:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 22:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PimpMySnack[edit]

Non-notable website Naconkantari e|t||c|m 20:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This site has received a very large number of hits recently, is non-profit, and is of general community interest. It's very 'notable'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thepimpdaddy (talk • contribs) .

Oooh sorry, not 'up' with this Wikipedia code. I don't *need* this to improve the search engine ranking, it is merely of interest. Delete all you want.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Verification is non-negotiable. There appears to be some confusion in this debate: While the term dominionist may or may not be in common parlance, the question here is its association with the parties listed on the page.
brenneman{L} 03:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominionist political parties[edit]

This list was created to push a biased POV. I could argue that none of the parties listed should be considered "dominionist". At the least this epithet needs some real proof. None was provided.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 20:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum (taken from the related TfD): According to the article creator, "Dominionism is, as the article describes, "a term used to describe a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism [...] that seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs." These parties and thinkers meet that standard by any fair and NPOV assessment." I responded, "This definition is both too general to be useful and too specific not to be discriminatory. Is a Catholic party that "seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs" not a dominionist party? Or isn't it just a Catholic party. Is a Hindu party that "seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs" not a dominionist party? Or isn't it just a Hindu party. Is an Atheist party that "seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs" not a dominionist party? Or isn't it just an Atheist party. Etc. Etc. ALL parties seek to establish specific political policies based on a set of moral beliefs, religious or otherwise. All laws are based on some moral belief. Driving 55 mph was a law based on moral belief. If a person is religious, ALL laws he advocates are "religious" by definition, because everything is filtered through his worldview. If he proposes a 55 mph speed limit, it because he believes that God wants us to value human life, and driving 55 will save more lives than 75. Does this make him a religious fanatic? Does this make him a dominionist? By your definition it does. But, of course, that is absurd. He is not radical in his beliefs. Your definition is flawed. Your list is flawed, and slanderous."    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 05:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Accurate and well-supported article. Nominator seems to be on a POV-motivated AfD/TfD binge reminiscent of Gastrich's. FeloniousMonk 22:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there is a "lack of real proof" then what is needed is proof not deletion. NTK 22:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, how long do we wait until any defense is given for even one of these parties being "dominionist"? Granted, it's going to be very difficult to prove, since none of them (or even their critics, outside of Wikipedia) use the term. Until it's verified, it's just POV-pushing.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per FM.&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would point out that none of our articles on these political parties uses the word Dominionist or Dominionism. The only article that does use the term is Christian Reconstructionism, which is included on this list strangely enough even though it is not a political party. No references or sources of any kind are given, hence the list would not seem to be "well supported" but does violate WP:V. To top it off, someone has now created Category:Dominionist parties. And while accusing the nom of being on an AFD binge comparable to a sock puppet may be an effective diversionary tactic, it also does not seem to be true since I can't find any other recent AfD noms from User:Guðsþegn. -- JJay 00:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't say I agree with that. One AfD nom + one TfD nom does not equal a "binge", particularly given the propensity here for grouped noms that can include dozens of articles. However, your initial comment comparing the nom to a banned user and well-known puppeteer does violate WP:CIV and WP:AGF and is borderline NPA. -- JJay 01:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is more to it than those actions, including removing the template from some articles. It is not of the same order as Gastroturfing, but it is of similar character. Just zis Guy you know? 12:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enough to ignore WP:V? Or to scream Speedy Keep in violation of numerous policies? Certain editors need to realize that opposing viewpoints exist and acting on those viewpoints is in no way proof of puppetry or bad faith. What I see are bunch of editors who make a habit of this type of sock puppet accusation without caring whether it's true or not [27], as part of a gastrosmearing campaign that conveniently ignores the issues and ensures that their own POV is over-represented through categories, backed up by lists, backed up by articles on non-notable subjects, backed up by poor sourcing/no sourcing. Where is the gastroturfing now? -- JJay 13:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per FM & NTK. Guettarda 01:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The page could use some sources, but it's only just been created. Give people a chance to get it up and running. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the basis for "speedy". Also why is more time needed? If the person adding these parties, was doing so from a reliable source, they could have easily provided the source, when making the list (surely they knew the name of the source they're using). If they were unable to find a reliable source, then they should not have created the list in the first place. How could you possibly know there are reliable sources to add, if you can't name a single source. Or if you can name a source, then please do: in the article. How about just one for starters. I could understand, if we had a huge list of uncontested items, and it was taking a long time to add sources, but in this case, its a short list of contested items. If deleted, it could quickly/easily be recreated with sources in the future, if those reliable sources actually exist. --Rob 18:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Felon and Slim. JoshuaZ 04:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FM. The term is valid, there are credible academic references to it. Just zis Guy you know? 09:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please add those references to the lists. Also you might want to edit each of the individual articles since none mention the term. -- JJay 13:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to conur with JJay on this. It's frustrating how, in so many AFDs people refer to sources that do not appear in the article. Please, put the sources in the article. Generally, a well sourced article speaks for itself, and needs little explanation in AFD. In this case, we need to confirm that the term is used by each party itself, or is widely used by reliable sources to refer to party. I find it very disappointing, that people are still making entirely unsourced new articles. Wikipedia seems to be adding unsourced information faster then we can add sources to old stuff. --Rob 05:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to delete per Rob above and below, and because although I can find some apparent evidence for the term, I can't find any reliable authority for the identification of individual parties as Dominionist, and in any case per my usual preference for categories, a category would be more likely to be picked up by the editor community on a given article and challenged if wrong, whereas lists can and have been used to attribute falsely. So I think on balance the best thing would be to delete this and have a category instead, which would have the benefit of being self-maintaining. This is not connected with the validity of the term, which I still think has at least some evidence of validity. JJay is right: I was being inconsistent, and extending existence of evidence beyond its real applicability. Just zis Guy you know? 19:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep JeffBurdges 11:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. I don't know or care about the nominators bias. It doesn't matter. This page violates core policy of verifiability and neutrality. Even if this page is 100% true. It seems we have a case, of Wikipedians doing some original research, in applying a definition of a term to each case. That's original research. Even if you come to the correct conclusion, you can't attach a label yourself. You have to go by external reliable sources. Also, readers must not think Wikipedia takes a political position on what to label political parties. They must see who is saying what party has what label, know it's not us personally saying it. I don't contest the truthfullness of the article, but truth is not enough. --Rob 05:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmmm, an absence of supporting cites in an article is not evidence that an article should be deleted, only that it needs to be better supported. Nor is the difficulty in finding cites. Just zis Guy you know? can attest to the lengths and expense Wikipedians have gone to provide supporting cites for contested content. The first response at Wikipedia is always to fix what is useful and can be fixed, not just delete it. The Christian_Heritage_Party_of_Canada is very poorly supported. In fact, it has no supporting cites at all. Should it be nominated for deletion as well? Of course not. Claiming a lack of supporting cites as justification for deletion is a specious argument. As is whether or not any particular group agrees with how other segements of society view and describe it. And BTW, there's no shortage of credible sources per WP:V that are available as supporting cites that connect Dominionism to various political parties and movements, starting with National Review, Harpers, PBS: [28] [29] [30] [31]. That fact alone would seem to indicate that there are those here who are more interested in deleting the article for personal reasons than in fixing it. FeloniousMonk 21:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That first article you cited, from National Review [32], is absolutely an excellent article. I don't think it does the work you think it does, though. Kurtz points out how overblown the "academic" critique of dominionism is; how its critics (including the one with an article at Wikipedia) want dominionism to be bigger than it really is, for their own political purposes; how the critics are trying to draw connections to larger groups and political parties where none actually exist. You have to read through to the end, past the sarcastic bit at the beginning.  :-) Thanks for that link.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And precisely what work do you think he thinks it does? Are you assuming FM didn't read it through? If so, I have little doubt that your assumption is in error, as is what I believe your assumption regarding what work FM "think[s] it does". As a source, it merely supports the fact that Dominionism exists, although any importance of Dominionism would be downplayed in the National Review (editorially conservative publication) in the same way it would be played up in an editorially liberal publication. Nonetheless, the question is this: does Dominionism exist? The answer is yes. Thus, as with any other political or religious movement it rates an article in Wikipedia. It really is that simple. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 08:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"does Dominionism exist?" is *NOT* the question for *this* AFD. That would be the question for Dominionism. You say "it rates an article in Wikipedia". Yes, it does, but this doesn't. Dominionist political parties requires citations from neutral reliable sources, that demonstrate at least some parties on the list, are in fact "Dominionist". How about citing a proper source for just one name? Show me it's "It really is that simple". --Rob 09:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me FM has, only to have them reverted. This is going to turn into one of those childish, "that source isn't good enough", "nope, not that one either", "nope, not close to what I'm wiiling to accept" battles isn't it? Simple enough? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Please read the history of the article. User:FeloniousMonk has not edited the article, once. Nobody, as of the current version has added any sources. Please provide a diff or version-link, to prove what you said. Where is the revert you speak of? After User:The Tom made the article, no supporter of the article, has bothered to do anything for it. I have tried to find sources, but can not. --Rob 19:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, lack of critical support in an article simply reporting the existence of an organization is one thing. Lack of critical support in an article that can easily be taken as a slanderous accusation is quite another.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be taken as slanderous how? Certainly no harm has been shown to have been inflicted, thus it cannot be slander. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 08:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would help to explain the slander this way. Say the article was called "World domination parties", and on that list was the same as this list, plus the US Republican Party (on the theory that since Bush is trying to export a political ideology, democracy, at the point of a gun; and since he's a nutty evangelical Christian). Can you not see how this is slander? Even with starting an unwarranted and foolish war in Iraq, and even given that he originally called it a crusade, he (and we America in general) have no desire to dominate Iraq in any way that doesn't mean letting the Iraqi people govern themselves. The party doesn't desire world domination. This is what this list is saying. So, combined with the fact that any rational human being who did not desire world dominion would not want to be labelled such, it is clear that the the very tag itself is slanderous.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 17:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I missed it, but nowhere in the WP article was the Republican Party mentioned -- in the Harpers article, yes, but not in a way that said the party itself was Dominionist (that the NRO took the quotes out of context is hardly surprising).
The example provided is essentially a misdirection; while domination and dominion have the same etymology they do not inherently have the same meaning. As for the Republican party itself, you are correct. As for the neo-cons within the party and the Administration, you are incorrect read through this carefully. In any case, proving slander against a political party is a difficult thing, and something most parties aren't even likely to take to court: they fear opening themselves up to charges of slander or libel. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When Joe Sixpack or Susie Sixth-grade is reading this article on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia (presumably a source of knowledge), do you think they will not come away with the impression that these parties desire world dominion (or at least national dominion)? Neither of them will have a court judge or an etymologist next to them. Nor will either of them have proof that any of these parties is "dominionist"; just a cold dead source-less assertion of "fact".    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they got that impression that could only come from a lack of reading comprehension and not bothering to read what dominionism was. Under that argument we should be worried that we should be worried about the name of the People's Republic of China or the name of the Congo (whatever ridiculous thing it is now) because "Susie Sixth Grade" might get an erroneous impression if she only sees the official name. JoshuaZ 21:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, after that first sarcastic article in NRO, the PBS page, just had a reference to the NRO story. Another one of your links, didn't even use the term (and I can't figure out why you used it). You actually only cited Harpers, as using the term on its own. Also, the dispute with references isn't the existence of the term Dominionism. It is it's usage when applied to specific parties. You gave exactly one source (Harpers) that (sort of) applied the term to a party. But, it applied it to only some people in the Republican party. Just try and add the Republican party to the page (and related category). You'll see how fast it's reverted. Given how your efforts to find sources, have failed so miserably, its clear there's little hope of sourcing this ever. This is unverifiable, and must be deleted. --Rob 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you only spent half as much time looking for sources to improve the article as you've spent arguing to see it deleted. Then you'd know that there are plenty of notable instances both in and outside of the mainstream press associating certain political parties with Dominionism. That they exist merely need to be added to the article are the only relevant points here and put the lie to your jusitification for deleting this article. There is no dearth of sources for Dominionism: [33] FeloniousMonk 00:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that's just a link to Google. I know about Google. I used it already. If you have a source that is reliable, that proves *any* of the parties listed is Domionist, then put it in the article. What is the delay? If there are so many reliable sources, then why can't you go and reference this article. Every time you argue here, *instead* of fixing the article, you prove you can't fix the article. Incidently, from the beginning, I've been willing to be proved wrong. If you can prove there is a properly sourced list of "Dominionist" parties, from *neutral* *reliable* sources, I'll happily accept the article, and change my vote. --Rob 00:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, strangely enough, those google hits stop at 535 [34], and the wikipedia article ranks third, and they look to be mainly blog posts. Meanwhile, back at wikipedia, the list remains completely unreferenced, although I will say that it is shrinking nicely. Perhaps in between the sock puppet accusations, some of the speedy keep editors would like to add some of those mainstream sources to the list. Or are they more interested in keeping the article for personal reasons than in fixing it?-- JJay 00:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if either of you bothered doing some actual research for sources in the Google results instead of hastily dismissing them, you'd find these:
  • WSWS: New York Times columnist David Brooks proposes the 'good crusade': "A strand known as “Dominionism” believes that Christ will only reappear once the world has made a place for him and that a first step is the Christianizing of America. One of its representatives, James Kennedy of the Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, whom Bush consulted before his run for the presidency, has proclaimed, “Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors—in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”
    • Also at: New American Media Writer Challenges New York Times Columnist David Brooks Concept of the 'Good Crusade' Muslims Weekly, Commentary, David Walsh, Feb 15, 2006
  • NPR: Christian Dominionism
  • Liberty magazine "A recently articulated philosophy which argues that it is the moral obligation of Christians to recapture every institution for Jesus Christ." This idea, also called Dominionism, states that Christians are mandated to gradually occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns."
  • The Washington Times Left aims to smite 'theocracy' movement "Dominionism is the theory that the account in Genesis in which God gave man dominion over the earth has become a political teaching advocating that Christians gain and hold power. ...Understanding and answering the "religious far right" that propelled President Bush's re-election is key..."
  • Christian Science Monitor For evangelicals, a bid to 'reclaim America' "Frederick Carlson, author of "Eternal Hostility: the Struggle between Theocracy and Democracy," says that if Kennedy is not a theocrat, "he is certainly a dominionist," one who supports taking over and dominating the political process."
And that just from the first few pages. There's plenty more for anyone who's interested in bettering articles rather than deleting them. FeloniousMonk 01:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have given good references for the dominionism article. I agree "dominionism" is a real term, and dominionism should not be deleted. Nobody is saying it should. We're asking for citations to prove each of the parties listed on *this* article have citations. We need neutral and reliable sources to say *these* parties belong on *this* list. You still haven't done that. Why did you waste your time, making irrelevant quotes. Regardless of the outcome of this AFD, any uncited name, *will* be removed from this list, and the related category. So, I suggest you go fix the article. Also, it seems the only party you "link" to Dominionism is the U.S. Republican party. I dare you to just try and add Republican Party (United States) to this list, and to Category:Dominionist parties. Then, we'll see what happens. --Rob 01:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V (and per the article itself which currently reads "None of the parties use this term to describe themselves, and it's not a term generally used in the media to describe them (if at all)"). --kingboyk 08:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an unsourced addition by one of the people trying to get the page deleted - not exactly a reliable piece of evidence upon which to base your judgement. Guettarda 20:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Feel free to remove what I added, and add at least *one* neutral reliable source to the article. The original version of this article stated, without qualification, the term "dominionist" was used to describe the parties. There is *no* reason to beleive this. There is good reason to beleive its false. Whenever you present a bias opinion, without attribution, you are violating Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV. I couldn't fix the violation of WP:V, but I could at least lessen the violation of WP:NPOV. I'm glad we agree that unsourced additions can not be relied on. I wish to remove all unsourced additions. That means removing my addition, and all others to this article, via deletion. -Rob 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Dominionism" is, by and large, a straw man created by the American political [far] left that has no bearing on the actual ideology of most of the people labeled as such, and certainly does not play a rôle in the political ideologies of any of the parties listed in this horrific misbegotten excuse for a WP article. While it's true that the article could be cleaned up, there's no reason to do so...it covers a complete non-topic with no bearing in reality (unless you're an American antireligious leftist and honestly fall prey to the ludicrous notion that "dominionism" is a real political ideology with any relevant following, but that sort of delusion is not a strong enough argument in favor of keeping such a silly article)... Tomertalk 10:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, open to persuasion if proper sourcing is implemented. (Sidenote: Putting a comment after my message doesn't constitute sourcing, sourcing is what happens when WP:CITE and WP:V get implemented in an article...) Here we have a list of parties that do not seem to claim to hold the ideology in question and are not generally described as characterized by the ideology in question. The main usage of the political term Dominionism seems to be almost exclusively as an "attack phrase" - not an academically-identified distinction and not a "movement" that individuals or groups ascribe to (some seem to call themselves "Reconstructionists" instead). This largely defeats the purpose of having such a list - it's a lot like having a "List of politicians described as idiots by their political opponents and critics, although not generally characterized as such by themselves, or their supporters, or by the media in general, and despite the fact that academic work has identified neither a coherent pan-idiotic movement nor a wider phenomenon of independent movements sharing similar characteristics that can be labelled as idiotic" and then giving the article the name "List of idiotic politicians". In general, if an article is badly referenced, we tend to let is sit there with a "please fix my references!" tag on and just hope it isn't going to be harmful until it gets fixed. Since this list seems unlikely to ever be fixed in this way, and has the potential to be harmful until it is (who can tell which parties should be listed on it?), it ought to be removed, at least for the moment and until better references present themselves. TheGrappler 03:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, no prejudice against recreation if notability can be asserted (as process went a bit wonky here, but the end result is the right one) Proto||type 11:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProUnreal (second nomination)[edit]

Website-cruft--Zxcvbnm 20:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per research in the first nomination. Normally I do not look kindly upon re-nominations, but the first one was clearly neglected and with only two votes hardly had a chance to garner a consensus. In that kind of case I think it is fair to move the nomination back to the most recent day's nominations without closing it, in order to give it more time, rather than closing it off and starting from scratch. NTK 22:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Actually, the first nomination had three votes: 2 for delete, one for keep. It should have actually been deleted: there was a 66% consensus.--Zxcvbnm 23:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete all Proto||type 11:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazoness series[edit]

We don't need a ton of pages on all these YGH cards. It's useless, unencyclopedic and other than the most important (e.g. Dark Magician, Blue-Eyes), they all need to be deleted. Frenchman113 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also being listed are:

  • Archfiend series
  • Dark Scorpion Gang
  • Elemental Hero
  • Elemental Hero Neos
  • Jinzo
  • Neo Spacian
  • Ojama Trio
  • Delete them all. Yu-gi-cruft. Given Pokemon precedent though I am not hopeful on this one. NTK 22:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I know there's a precedent for having articles on every single pokemon, but I'm interested in knowing where the exact discussion/policy/ruling is?--Frenchman113 23:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no "policy" or "ruling." Everything is done on a case-by-case basis by "consensus" of whoever happens to make themselves heard. It's always possible to point to something on Wikipedia that is more obscure/ridiculous/non-notable than something else. NTK 02:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a precident to keep all Pokemon creature article but if we tried to create an article on every card or every anime episode, thewy'd be deleted too. --Celestianpower háblame 14:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Apparantly I forgot to list this on the deletion lists. Or, someone blanked it.--Frenchman113 00:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yugicruft.--Zxcvbnm 00:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but Ojama Trio, which should probably be merged to Chazz Princeton. Danny Lilithborne 00:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those were deleted before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amazoness Series and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! card lists. Speedy delete all. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 02:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good find. I second the speedy in this case.. NTK 02:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seconded. Speedy. And in that case, I say we vape Elemental Hero, Elemental Hero Neos, Jinzo, and Neo Spacian while we're at it.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 13:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. Someobdy ought to tell Markcambrone not to make articles mostly out of copyvio card text. He's created most of those articles. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just sent him a stern message, now bracing myself for user page goatse vandalism. Anyone care to protect my user page till this is over?--Frenchman113 on wheels! 22:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. FWIW, there's also the precedent of not keeping individual Magic: The Gathering cards: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juzam Djinn and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serra Angel, among others. -Colin Kimbrell 17:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say delete all BUT Jinzo. Leave it alone. Weirdy 22:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must say that Jinzo seems to be least notable of them, appearing in the series only twice as I recall. Far less than say... the Ojama Trio which are also being nominated.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 13:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jinzo hould be the only one deleted(Markcambrone 21:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Okay so isthere any way to keep these, except Jinzo Markcambrone 21:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete all except Jinzo SSJ 5 21:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Just so you know, I only did all of neo Spacian, and I only added the first two fusions on the Elemental Hero Neos page, which is my favorite one on this whole website since I ve seen the monster in the anime and it looks coolI jsut put some of the translation in my own words(Markcambrone 21:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • When I was looking for the translation, there were two of them for Neos, I just added te shorter one
  • Delete the Yu-Gi-Oh! card categories, and every single page involved with Yu-Gi-Oh!, except for Jinzo. Weirdy 21:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay so why is Jinzo so important? Markcambrone 01:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I like Jinzo. Weirdy 09:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Jinzo is one of Joey's most favorite cards. And also is widely used because of its effect (At least in my country).--unsigned
  • We should leave the Ojama Trio page up for their history in the Anime. That goes for the Gravekeeper's series too. Rtkat3 08:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comments: Do you guys have ice running through your vains or something? First off, you shouldn't try to handle all these pages at once. Talk about stupid. Geez.
  • Definitely keep Jinzo (>.>) since he's been used by three duelists including himself and is generally a very popular card. Ojama's have a story get featured through the Chazz. Keep them. Nuff said. Dark Scorps where all brought to life and the feature of a whole episode. Before that, they were somewhat popular amongst players (especially their leader chris walk...I mean Don). Keep them. DMG is only in a slightly better/different situation. You wanna remove them but not her? I wonder why... Perhaps the Amazon and Amazoness cards should merged. The odd name change (seemingly due a writer shift) and multiple rogue/enemy duelists using them justifies an Article. Keep them. I could careless about the others, should i won't even bother with them, but i'd just say you'll regret deleting a article about the new protagonist's cards. Ace Class Shadow 00:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping individual card articles on the basis that they were the feature of one episode is ridiculous, you might as well keep articles on individual episodes then! Remember, this isn't a vote, you need a reason or your voice will go unheard. Also, articles on the protagonists' cards should be merged with the article on the protagonist. That's what people actually care about.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 13:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • About Jinzo, can a theam consisting of users improve the article a bit? Give it a chance, as it is widely popular (in Australia). I'm glad to see some Jinzo supporters out there. Well Done. Weirdy 22:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Ain't have no user talk page you nitwit![reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Proto||type 11:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crib Master[edit]

This AfD was orphaned (title in the wrong case). The original reason was: "because i created it as a joke and now i am deleting it Safinuk 19:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

  • Delete as requested. It probably would have qualified as a speedy delete, but other users have edited the page. --Elkman - (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:N. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete the band article, make the redirect (Jetpack) into a dab page. Proto||type 11:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jetpack (band)[edit]

Non notable person/band. A quick google search of the user that created the page (User:xraydeltaone) and the person's last name (Standiford) shows they are the same person. [35]

The article Jetpack seems to contain a duplicate of that article. I propose that it be deleted and redirected to jet pack. waffle iron 21:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Jetpack, but make it a dab to Jet pack and Jetpack (computer game) and perhaps also to Jetpack (band) if that is notable enough to keep. I have no vote on the band, but its info should be removed from the main dab page, as most people who type Jetpack will not be looking for this band. --Doc ask? 21:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Jetpack to Jet pack, delete Jetpack (band), nix the content at both articles, delete Image:Jetpack.jpg. Band is clearly nn per WP:MUSIC. NTK 22:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just one bloke and a guitar. --JoeTalk!WorkEspMail 03:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Royboycrashfan 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Celtic Connection[edit]

I guess I'm supposed to bring this here. It looks like someone is advertising their website on Wikipedia. I think it should be deleted. Erik the Rude 21:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per WP:WEB, completely fails to establish notability of this forum. NTK 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable. Bucketsofg 23:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Oh! Oxygen Proto||type 11:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen Network[edit]

I don't think there needs to be an artical for this because I it's just somebody advertising their website and it needs to be deleted. --Caldorwards4 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article has been around for a while, and a few people commented on it and blanked it, but it was neither AfD'd before nor has its notability ever really been established. The article does look very promotional, and most of the sites on this "network" have little or no content (such as WikipediaX), and certainly seem nn. The article provides no context, it claims that the network is a "nonprofit organization" but provides no references. NTK 22:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Oh! Oxygen the women's TV network, which is what probably 99.999% of people searching for this term would expect to find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: per Starblind. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete - superceded by a category which does the job better. Proto||type 11:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies headquartered in Tokyo[edit]

Obsoleted by Category:Companies headquartered in Tokyo. The only redlink on the page has been listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan#Business. 日本穣 Nihonjoe 21:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE (very, very quickly). -Doc ask? 22:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam_Baker_Pancake_Craving_2006[edit]

Not a valid subject for wikipedia Lawlor421 21:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity. Bhoeble 21:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy no clain to notability and now so tagged.Obina 22:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. More nonsense than vanity. NTK 22:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and don't forget the image too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily redirected. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children_of_artemis[edit]

Duplicate of page with correct capitalisation in name Benvaughan 22:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy redirect. No need to AfD this kind of thing. NTK 22:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, particularly now article fulfills WP:V. Proto||type 11:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamamd Yusuf Khandlawi[edit]

  • Delete one line stub that has had a clean up tag on it since Sept. 2005. No sources, so fails WP:V (only 'source' is this image). Fails to establish WP:N. A google search comes up with only 24 matches. [36] Jersey Devil 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If he's notable someone will have to write a better article than that, later. But it looks like he's not. If someone can rescue the article or at least add some serious references, I'll change my vote. NTK 23:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Keep. Still needs a lot of work, but at least there's something to go on. NTK 20:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Muslim scholar that wrote notable book, fullfills WP:BIO in having a audience. Hard to find sources for Arabic writers on english. Is Wikipedia runing out of hardrive space? Let the article be untill someone with more expertice arives. --Striver 00:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Striver. Nominated as part of Jersey Devil's long-running crusade against Striver. The book is notable enough, and thereby its author. LambiamTalk 01:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As is, this is a substub which says nothing to notability other than the fact that he's a scholar and published a book. Lots of scholars publish books. This man could be anyone. Could we at least get a year of birth, a date of publication, some links about this guy and a sentence or two about the subject matter of the book? As is there is no context. NTK 02:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! NTK 20:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Striver is correct on this, it is very difficult to find reliable sources in English on foreign authors and scholars, especially those from the subcontinent. This scholar is actually one of the most famous scholars within the Tablighi Jamaat organization in the middle of the 20th century. The article, though still a stub, is now referenced and defends the individuals notability. Pepsidrinka 14:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Better references will emerge in time. What we have at the moment is a start. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete after MoP userfied the article to User:Artapi. Sango123 (e) 01:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art Apicella[edit]

Delete: This article is more vanity written by a user with a strikingly similar name (Artapi) than a real article; the only semi-notable thing here is the fact that the individual was a contestant on a reality show. _-M o P-_ 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was ... hmm, make into a disambiguation page. Proto||type 11:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The People of Monotheism[edit]

  • Delete and Redirect to Druze. No reason for a term for Druze to have its own page when it could simply be put into the Druze page. Jersey Devil 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a name also used by Salafis ans other groups. Druze dont own the name. --Striver 00:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has pretty much the same content as Al-Muwahhidūn I suppose one could be used as a disambiguation page with a redirect from the other, which would require paring its content down, or their content could be merged into Druze and Salafi. Not sure at the moment. Шизомби 00:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep either this page or Al-Muwahhidūn as (essentially) a disambiguation page, merge the other one into it and make that one a redirect. LambiamTalk 01:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge as per Lambian, but also Fix Article implies on 1st reading that Salafi & Druze are one and the same. I'm fairly certain that will offend more than one person in each of those groups.Bridesmill 01:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it takes a 2nd reading to see that this is essentially a dab page (something for which the nominator apparently had no time to spare, what with how busy he is nominating articles for deletion). It needs fixing, like so many other articles. LambiamTalk 04:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 11:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NVnetbackup[edit]

Advertisement for software on Sourceforge. Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 23:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's complete crap, there is a wikipedia article on openoffice.org, windows, linux, etc. Are you going to remove those as well? This isn't an advertisement, it's documentation with a comparison of why someone would use this software. 19:42, 13 April 2006 (EST) Do not delete.  Musashi5191645 
Delete as per nom, it isn't notable software. Musashi is trying to make this into a straw man argument by stating highly notable software. Ansell 23:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So just because something is new means it's worthy of deletion? How are people supposed to find out new information if the people with access to said information use that sort of mentality? Isn't this supposed to be a democracy? Just because something isn't popular does not give you or anyone else the right to censor it.  Musashi5191645 
Wikipedia is not a democracy.  RasputinAXP  c 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the sense in being able to freely contribute if you are only going to be shot down by territorial billigerence? if there's something wrong with the article the tell me, because I refuse to accept the notion that an article can be nixed just because the subject matter is new and not too well known. Isn't the purpose of an 'encyclopedia' to provide a reference for otherwise unknown information? Or does everyone who reads the articles on this site already have all the knowledge contained therein? DO NOT DELETE  Musashi5191645 
Apart from looking like half a marketing report and half a user manual, neither of which things are what WP is about, it is NOT notable. Ansell 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles that could easily fall into the same category. So the only thing you have on this particular article is that it isn't notable. FINE, but that's still no reason to just delete it. How is it supposed to become known if people like you keep trying to withhold information? You say it looks like a 'marketing report' ... how can you market open source software? Usually you market something to make money but I'm not trying to make any money here, I'm trying to save people some money while at the same time, making them aware that they do have alternatives to common backup software. There's a stub on Veritas Backup Exec listed, so why can't mine be listed? Because it's not notable? Have you used it? Would you even know how? I have this bery same backup system implemented at over 100 of our client sites and it has never failed me. Of course, these are all banking and finance business who aren't known for going online and discussing how they backup their data so it's popularity (notability) is limited to the audience in which it has been exposed to. Your behavior about this is completely out of line, you are 'Biting the newcomer' something that's supposed to be explicitly prohibited here. Are you too good for the rules? My article does not deserve to be deleted, I am willing to hear your suggestions to make it better.  Musashi5191645 
Actually, now that you say it. There may be other articles with exactly the same reasons that should also be here for AfD discussion. I notice above that you talk like a marketer, particularly speaking of course of those who market Open Source software. They have their own particular style (also known as their POV). You are a maintainer of the software? A distributor? Both of these things come under the Vanity policy. Please note that we are not biting the newcomer. We are not biting anyone, if the article was notable, non POV, and possibly had some reason why as you point out, people would come to wikipedia to get information about it, we would not be going to all the trouble of putting it here and discussing the issue with you. Please dont make personal attacks, It is not your place to tell people they are biting newcomers. If someone else sees this then they may be in a neutral enough position to see that. Interestingly, the fact that you know about the policy reveals your depth of knowledge about wikipedia so far. Interesting how you have a customised signature, something which reveals your depth of experience. Ansell 00:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you were really serious about this article, Musashi5191645, you would write it so it sounds more like an encyclopedia article and less like a promotional pamphlet. That is all. Danny Lilithborne 00:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. 28,000,000 Google hits for Openoffice.org, which has been around for years and is well-established and widespread. 93 hits for NVnetbackup, which appears to have been released this week. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise new products. Fan1967 00:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. --blue520 00:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Over 15490 packages are available in Debian and not one is related to this software. I think that is a very liberal notablity guideline for linux based OSS. Good luck though. [37] ccwaters 02:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Proto||type 11:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Muwahhidūn[edit]

  • Delete and Redirect to Druze. No reason for a term for Druze to have its own page when it could simply be put into the Druze page. Jersey Devil 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its not name only a used by the Druze, evident for anyone that actualy read the article.--Striver 00:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blah blah is a word that means this is a dictdef that has at times had different meanings. Kotepho 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep either this page or The People of Monotheism as (essentially) a disambiguation page, merge the other one into it and make that one a redirect. Definitely do not delete both. LambiamTalk 01:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to cavalier (as redirects are, indeed, cheap) Proto||type 11:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman Cavalier[edit]

AFAICT (using Google) this is a neologism. The article was added by a newly created user account in one edit with no corrections --Philip Baird Shearer 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because Wikipedia has an article on Cavaliers which covers at least half this article in more detail and without the errors. The second half of the article builds a case that the "Civilian member of Household Cavalry regiments are referred to as gentleman cavaliers, much as membership in the Household Division was once restricted to the nobility. " I have searched on Google using ["gentleman cavalier" "Household Cavalry"], ["gentleman cavalier" "British Army"], ["gentleman cavalier" "Blues and Royals"], and the same search using "gentleman cavalierS" and the same second strings, none of them returned a page close to the description given in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cavalier. Stifle (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? pleases cite a source to prove that this is not a neologism. Philip Baird Shearer 22:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say it's not a neologism. Redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest redirect to cavalier here. There is some support for the article's assertion that the term Gentleman Cavalier is in use in commonwealth nations to describe civilian horseriders attached to cavalry regiments.Here for instance, the Canadian Akaash Maharaj, who rides with the Governor General's Household Cavalry, once referred to gentleman cavaliers in this sense, though since then he has updated the term to "civilian cavaliers" (presumably as the sex requirements have been relaxed by the cavalry) Although this is far from an adequate reference, it is enough to convince me that the information is substantially correct and verifiable. It would therefore be a mistake to remove the entry altogether because someone might see the term gentleman cavalier and want to look it up. --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 11:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peloponnese Democratic Union[edit]

This article is under heavy doubt. There is no separatist movement in the peloponnese, this area has been the oldest part and heartland of modern greece. Moreover, as far as i know there have been no candidates of this "party" in the municipal elections (the next ones are upcoming in October). Linking to an nonexistant page with just an email adress.Unless the user who created it presents some credible information, I think it should be deleted. The same article, containing the english text and the link, appeared in the greek wikipedia and was speedy - deleted. - Badseed 00:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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